GM-free Scotland

July '08 | Still no confidence in GM safety

DARK AND STARK REALITIES

Crop circle saying NoWhile the biotech industry tries to convince itself that the US public has always accepted GM food and that Europe is softening to it, what are the realities?

'Acceptance' implies knowing something exists, but Americans seem to be eating GM in the dark, in more ways than one.

A Pew Initiative poll in 2005 found that 58% of respondents were unaware of GM foods, while 61% of this same group considered themselves to be 'generally familiar with science and technology'. It seems the lack of GM awareness may well be due to a lack of available information, rather than a lack of interest, or, an implicit trust in the system.

Since Americans have always been denied any information on the GM-status of their food, by a complete lack of labelling, it's not suprising so few of them realise how much GM foods they're eating. Successive US opinion poll results, summarised from 1998 to 2003, consistently indicate a majority of the population think GM ingredients should be labelled. Most of these polls showed an overwhelming majority wanted such labels: 11 out of 15 polls found over 80% in favour and 7 of these found over 90% in favour. This certainly doesn't signal 'acceptance'. Moreover, in a 2003 poll, 52% of respondents said a GM label would make them less willing to purchase the product.

And today? The most recent US poll, carried out by the CBS News and New York Times, found that 87% of consumers still want GM ingredients to be labelled. At the same time, 53% declared they wouldn't buy GM food, suggesting they are totally in the dark about the extent of GM routinely used in American foods.

Put bluntly, US 'acceptance' of GM food is a polite word for ignorance, and it's not because the people want it that way.

In the EU, where a single GM crop, Monsanto's insect-resistant MON 810 maize, is approved for cultivation, doubts about the environmental effects of this crop have led to bans, attempted bans or suspensions in France, Hungary, Austria, Greece, Luxembourg, Poland, Germany and Italy.

In Spain (the only EU country to be growing GM maize on any scale) over 300 scientists and green groups recently petitioned their government. They demanded eradication of GM crops because of the dangers to the environment and to the consumer.

Romania, which is the EU's tops maize producer in terms of land area and was a big grower of GM crops before it joined the EU in 2007, is now slapping a ban on MON 810.

Switzerland, unconstrained by the EU obsession for promoting industry and pleasing America, has just extended its current ban on GMOs for a further three years.

The stark European reality can be summarised as one big vote of no confidence in GM safety. The governments of most member states are getting themselves in a twist with pro-GM American countries (North and South), the giant biotech industry and global markets pulling them one way and the public they are supposed to be working for pulling in the other (see GERMAN GM CONTRADICTIONS – News, June 2008).

And what's happening in Scotland?

MON 810 maize is a southern crop of little relevance to Scotland. This is giving us a breathing space to debate the whole issue of adopting a GM-free Scotland policy.

The Scottish Environment Minister, Mike Russell, seems very clear on the subject: he condemns GM technology as “unreliable” saying “There is a lack of reliable science, there is a potential risk to the environment, and, of subsequent damage to the reputation of Scottish produce should there be a problem. And even if there was greater faith in the science, the reputational damage would pose such a threat there would be a positive disadvantage.” He also seems realistic about the GM food crossing our borders in global supplies, “A situation exists where there is a level of GM in food which we, alas, in European terms have to accept. But there is a big difference between that and saying we have to give up the fight.”

At least one Scottish organic farmer seems very clear about the reality of the problems and the solutions. He pointed out that GM-free status for Scotland gives the country the opportunity to invest in modern agricultural food systems which deliver environmental and economic efficiency, and that “Global food problems are likely to be severe in future, but the solutions must be driven by the needs of the people who are to consume, whereas GM research at the moment is driven by the need to commercialise and profit.” While sympathetic to the economic pressures of farmers buying feed from a global market, he described any belief that a slackening of the GM approvals procedure would help as a red herring. He added “If we are serious about feeding ourselves into the future, then we must take a very hard look at livestock farmers' dependence on imported protein crops. With a rising global population, these importations make absolutely no economic, ethical or environmental sense. It is time we undertook real agri-ecosystem design and management.”

Unfortunately, the Scottish farmers' representative body, the National Farmers Union of Scotland (NFUS), seems to have sold its soul to the biotech industry: it seems scared of changing direction, scared of moving away from the global flow (no matter how inappropriate), and convinced everyone will have to adopt GM technology eventually (no matter how much harm is causes). The Union representative also cites one reason we need to go down a GM route: because our retailers' shelves are already full of GM tomato paste.

OUR COMMENT

This last comment, made by an influential farming body, is worrying. GM tomato paste was sold in a few supermarkets for a few months back 1997-8. It was withdrawn in a hurry in response to customer concerns. Even the Americans wouldn't eat the GM tomatoes offered them back then, and no one has yet cared to repeat this particular commercial disaster.

The NFUS representative did, however, make one very sensible remark “... I'd have far more faith in technology developed in Scotland and the UK than any developed in either North or South America”. Hear, hear. But the technology shouldn't be unreliable GM technology, but something much better and designed specifically to suit local, Scottish, conditions.

Since our government will be wary about a head-on clash with Scottish 'farmers' in the form of NFUS, it wouldn't do any harm to congratulate our Environment Minister on his clear, GM-free, thinking (contact details will be found at: www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/memberspages/michael_russell/contact.htm).

Also, since the NFU is lobbying the supermarkets to drop their non-GM poultry-feed policies, now is a good time to remind the bosses of any supermarket you use that you will shop elsewhere if you don't trust their goods. Friends of the Earth has supplied all the contact information you need to do this and a sample letter if you want a few ideas, check out: www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real_food/press_for_change/ and click on 'Get rid of animal feed'.

PS Since some supermarkets have managed to source non-GM animal feed, there's no excuse for the others who are claiming it's not practical, they're just not prepared to take the time and trouble on your behalf: let them know you have other venues to do your shopping in.

SOURCES

About Us | Contact Us | 2008 GM-free Scotland