GM-free Scotland

June '08 | "Facts", US-style

Candy canesA report in the Chicago Tribune in May this year, painted an interesting picture of America's concept of 'facts'.

The article describes how the USA has proposed a $770 million aid package to ease the world food crisis. The package earmarks $150 million for 'development farming', including the use of GM crops. It probably comes as no surprise to anyone following the GM issue that America only 'gives' if the 'gift' provides an avenue to boost its own economy, especially the sales of GM seeds which not everyone wants. However, the politically correct reason behind the aid-with-GM-strings was given by a food aid expert on the White House's National Security Council: “We certainly think it is an established fact that a number of bio-engineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance.”

Now, 'facts' are usually things which are known with certainty to have occurred, as supported by surrounding evidence. In the case of crops created in a laboratory with patents and tightly controlled distribution, their qualities must be very well-known. There's no room here for 'thinking' or 'believing' in what they have shown themselves to do.

The 'facts' of pest-resistant GM crops are that they yield more only if they have been traditionally bred for increased yield, and, only if they have been traditionally bred for suitability to the locality they are grown in. These 'facts' are supported by government statistics and scientific studies (see GM SPIN AT ODDS WITH THE EVIDENCE – News, May 2008).

The 'facts' of drought resistant GM crops are that the yields are unknown. We know with certainty that the yields are unknown because there aren't any such crops. The latter fact of non-existence is supported by the complete absence of any such commercial GM crops, anywhere.

Facts have also been thin on the ground in the run up to the quiet introduction of sugar derived from GM beet into the American diet. Seven years ago, GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beet was shelved when sweetie-giants such as Hershey and Mars refused to use it. Now however, many sugar processors 'sense' that concerns have subsided, and American Crystal Sugar 'thinks' that consumer attitudes have come to accept GM foods. Even when the president of American Crystal Sugar was inundated with 681 e-mails in 24 hours (until the e-mail was blocked) after the announcement of his company's intention to use GM beet, he “still believed” that most consumers would accept it. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 'expects' little, if any, environmental effect from growing the crop. Not many facts there, and the damaging and expensive fact of superweeds rapidly emerging wherever there has been repeated planting and spraying of herbicide-tolerant GM crops has simply been ignored (see *Note on superweeds).

It is a highly pertinent fact (a real one this time) that a CBS News/New York Times poll reported in May 2008 that 53% of Americans said they wouldn't buy food that has been genetically modified. Not much evidence there to support a favourable change in attitude to GM.

The reason for the outspoken confidence in all these 'beliefs', to the point where they become 'facts', is one of expediency: beliefs can be manipulated, facts can't, and so are best ignored until they go away. Hewing to an industry-wide conspiracy to co-ordinate the introduction of GM beets and carefully control what is said about them, Hershey, Mars, many sugar refiners and seed developers have refused to comment.

In America, maintaining all these 'beliefs' about GM is easy: the public are apparently too dim to make their own shopping decisions and must be protected from confusion by leaving anything as complicated as “GM” off the label. A spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America justified the lack of GM labels by another set of 'facts': “I think that consumers have that information available to them if they want to look for it. You can find it on websites. You can go directly to the manufacturer.”

Here's another definition of 'facts', US-style. The “established fact” of GM drought-resistant crops (the non-existent ones described by the White House food aid expert) was described by a specialist from the International Food Policy Institute as “now showing quite a bit of potential in starting to address some of the environmental stresses”.

So there you have it. 'Facts', US-style, seem to be beliefs showing a bit of potential to start to occur.

In Autumn 2007, the USDA claimed that Italy, one of GM's strongest opponents, was softening. The claim seems to be another US 'potential-belief-fact' based on Italy's potentially-believed reaction to the World Trade Organisation's threat to fine it for rejecting GM. Italy's (actual) reaction to this threat was “Tell us how much it will cost and we will pay it”.

OUR COMMENT

Make sure you follow Italy's lead and issue a similarly clear correction any time you hear any such US-style 'facts' claiming that GM concerns are subsiding in Europe.

Sugar from America will soon be 50% GM. The good news here is that only 3% of American sugar goes for export. The bad news is that most US processed foods have replaced sugar with corn syrup which is cheaper, and is made from (you guessed it) GM corn. Note that the Grocery Manufacturers of America's suggestion that GM ingredients can be found on websites wasn't borne out by any search we tried. If you have any friends or relations in the US, ask them to see if they can get any GM facts (not potential-belief-facts!) directly from their food manufacturers. We'd love to know.

*Note on superweeds.

In 2002, after only 3-4 years of GM planting, oilseed rape plants resistant to three or more herbicides were “not uncommon” in Canada. By 2008, eight major US weeds had developed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide. The use of weedkillers has risen fifteen-fold in 12 years.

SOURCES

About Us | Contact Us | 2008 GM-free Scotland