GM-free Scotland

May '08 | GM spin at odds with the evidence

THE CARDS ON THE TABLE

On 10th April, 2008, the Soil Association released a report on the state of play of GM crops in the world. Nothing unusual in that, the Soil Association works tirelessly on reports like this all the time. The present one focuses on the 'Latest Research on GM Crop Yields”. It lists scientific studies and government statistics on yields of the big three GM crops (herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready soya, insect resistant Bt maize and Bt cotton). The story is, in general, very repetitive: yields of GM crops have stagnated or reduced. In the case of Bt maize, which has continued its trend of increased yields into the GM era, well-controlled studies have revealed this to have been due to the on-going traditional breeding, with the GM trait thrown in as an optional, patentable, extra.

The Soil Association also pointed out the decline in land-values predicted for areas in which GM crops have been grown.

The report highlights how 12 years of GM crop commercialisation have resulted in a handful of crops:

The two GM traits successfully developed are a clear extension of modern chemical-dependent agriculture: one is GM plants which can neutralise a branded chemical weedkiller, and the other is GM plants which generate their own synthetic insecticide. The next wave of GM crops entering the market has been transformed to do two or more of these things.

The contents of the Soil Association report won't come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the GM issue. What is interesting is what else has been happening.

On the same day, 10th April 2008, the media announced that UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has written a letter to all key global policy-makers. In it, he called for the re-consideration of GM crops for the sake of resolving food shortages, stressing the need to “further develop higher-yielding and climate-resilient varieties”. The letter has been sent to the world leaders ahead of the July summit of the Group of Eight industrialised nations and also to the UN Secretary General, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Food Program. Brown is already under fire for his promotion of (mainly GM) biofuels which many environmentalists believe is a major contributor to the current food shortages and rise in food prices.

On the same day, 10th April 2008, Scottish MEP, Struan Stevenson, addressed a meeting of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association. Describing the EU's failure to embrace GM crops as “madness”, he demanded that rules on biotech foods be relaxed to gain the advantages of higher yields and reduced levels of chemicals required, and to prevent Europe from being left behind. The big three commercial GM crops (soya, maize and cotton) are not grown in Scotland on any scale; oilseed rape, which is widely grown in Scotland, has proved the most problematic GM crop because of its persistence, because it is uncontainable, because it is measurably fueling the emergence of superweeds and measurably increasing the use of pesticides. The MEP also seems oblivious of the identified GM risks to land-values.

On the same day, 10th April 2008, Country Life Magazine, “the essential weekly read for those who are passionate about the British countryside”, announced its 2008 Manifesto of 10 achievable aims it believes will make our countryside a better place. Nine of the aims spell out proposals of how to improve our countryside (e.g. clean up the verges), and how to raise awareness about country matters (e.g. give children more freedom and get them out into the countryside). Each one has a clear background statement evidencing why the aim will be useful. The tenth aim is oddly out of place: it is “Learn to love GM crops”. The reasons given are that such crops 'could' boost yields, 'could' keep down prices, 'may' be essential and that the Government chief scientist 'sees' (i.e. believes in) no safety problems. After all these vague possibilities that GM might be good for the country, the aim ends oddly on the subject of cloned animals in the USA (i.e. a non-GM non-crop not in Britain).

In the lead-up to these GM-promoting announcements, on 8th April, 2008, the UK National Beef Association called for all resistance to GM crops, at both UK and EU level, to be abandoned immediately. The reasons given were: soaring consumer demand; food price inflation; declining production of cereals and meat; the increasingly limited area of land available for growing crops; and the need to increase feed imports. This seems an odd position for the beef industry to take. GM feed is already heavily in our food chain courtesy of animal feed. This clearly hasn't curbed food prices, hasn't boosted the production of cereals and meat, hasn't compensated for the declining land availability, nor reduced feed imports. As George Monbiot pointed out just a week later, less than 50% of the food that we produce will be used to feed people: the 100 million tonnes of food diverted this year to feed cars, plus the 760 million tonnes of food fed to animals, could cover the global food deficit 14 times. The inescapable solution for food security is the need to produce and eat less beef.

On the morning of 15th April, those tuning into 'Farming Today' before 6.00 am on Radio 4 were treated to a spokesman from biotech giant, Syngenta, singing the praises of GM.

On 16th April, 2008, the long awaited conclusions of the International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) were press released. This initiative assessed evidence across a wide range of knowledge rarely brought together. It involved a unique global collaboration of stakeholders briefed to examine hunger, poverty, the environment and equity together as a single issue *see note below.

The final report took more than 400 scientists 4 years to complete and runs to some 2,500 pages. It reflected a growing consensus among the global scientific community and most governments that the conventional paradigm of industrial, energy-intensive, chemical-based agriculture is not the way forward. The key message as stated by the UK DEFRA chief scientist (also chief scientist for the World Bank and IAATSD director) was “continuing with current trends would leave us facing a world nobody would want to inhabit”. It highlighted the fact that while “Food is cheaper and diets better than 40 years ago ... malnutrition and food insecurity threaten millions”. The current move to more affluent life-styles will lead to competition for land from biofuel crops and animal-feed crops (i.e. the main thrusts of GM). On biotech agriculture, the report was definite: there is little role for GM as currently practiced, in feeding the poor; “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development ... and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable”. It stressed that data on some crops indicate highly variable yield gains in some places and declines others. Small-scale farming and agro-ecological methods are needed for a sustainable future, and further industrialisation, globalisation and GM crops do not have a role.

The GM industry, which helped fund the project, abandoned the talks last year when its conclusions became inescapable. CropLife International (the global lobby group for the biotech industry) declared that it was compelled to dissociate itself from the assessment project because “Biotechnology, crop protection chemistry, the importance of intellectual property, and the role of the private sector have been treated superficially and negatively, and we cannot endorse this.”

The final report of the IAATSD was signed immediately by 54 countries, and after several key findings had been watered down, Canada, Australia and the USA agreed to support it with noted reservations. The UK government was not among the countries that have signed the report, but the UK DEFRA chief scientist told the press it had the full support of the Prime Minister.

*Note on IAASTD

The IAASTD was initiated by the World Bank in partnership with a multi-stakeholder group of organisations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives of 60 governments, civil society, private sector and scientific institutions from around the world.

The overarching question it set out to answer was: how can we reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development through the generation, access to , and use of agricultural knowledge, science and technology?

The assessment aimed to bring an objective view of the long-term challenges facing world agriculture and consider how these might be addressed by the development and appropriate use of agricultural knowledge and technologies, learning from past experiences and present knowledge.
The role of the IAASTD was to comprehensively, openly and transparently assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic literature, experience and knowledge. It set out to be policy relevant but not policy prescriptive, and deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic issues, with peer-review an essential part of its process. You can find out more on the IAASTD website at www.agassessment.org

OUR COMMENTS
The conclusions reached by the IAASTD regarding the limitations of GM had been known for at least a year, ever since the biotech industry pulled out of the discussions. The date when the final report would be made public must have been known for some time too. Plenty of time there for preparation of pro-GM PR offensives to limit the damage.

The various official records of GM crops yields accessed by the Soil Association could and should have been gathered together by the UK and EU governments, and made available to all farmers, land-owners and related industry representatives.

The Daily Record commented that “In recent months, GM companies, trade bodies and associated scientists have issued a deluge of propaganda suggesting biotech crops are the key to feeding the Third World". Is it a coincidence that in the few days before the IAASTD report hit the media:

In a nutshell, within days of publication of the most authoritative and wide-ranging study ever on the global use of GM in agriculture, and a simple summary of the official records of GM crop yields to date, the UK and EU governments, a major farming association, a publication aimed at landowners, and the BBC were all involved in initiatives to say the opposite of what was reported. Of course, if these statements had been made after the IAASTD report, the people making them would have looked profoundly ill-informed.

If you really want to go to town on the conspiracy theory, there are other inconsistencies which might intrigue you.

The Mirror and Associated Press reported our Prime Minister's global drive to promote GM crops as the solution to the current food supply crisis. The Daily Mail reported that, although the UK has not signed up to the IAASTD report which says GM won't help, the chief scientist of DEFRA indicated it had the full support of the Prime Minister. At least one person in that lot must be telling porkies.

As GM Freeze pointed out, the IAASTD report was not negative to GM as suggested by CropLife International, it simply recognised the limitations of genetic engineering and the importance of other technologies in the context of solving the real food supply problems. Also, the report, which was unprecedented in scope, scale and expertise could in no way be considered 'superficial'. The biotech industry had to dissociate itself from the reality in which high tech agriculture, chemicals, patents and private industrial enterprises are, and always will be, simply too expensive to provide the global food supply.

The apparent plot and counter plot enacted during those eight days served to demonstrate the one fatal weakness of the GM industry, its inability to stand on its own merits. It has also proved that when people get together and put all the evidence on the table, their honest conclusion is that GM in agriculture is taking us nowhere.

ACTION

Ask the Scottish branch of the National Beef Association if it is supporting the demand for increased use of GM feed, and risking Scotland's outstanding reputation for quality beef.

Country Life is asking for “comments” on its 10 achievable aims. Give it some at www.countrylife.co.uk/countryside/article/226040/Country_Life_Manifesto_2008.html

Don't be confused by an additional invitation to “have your say”: this 'say' doesn't include objecting to any of the aims on the grounds that they are industry propaganda rather than being helpful to the countryside.

Ask for clarification of the Government position on the IAASTD report. It is not acceptable for the UK to cherry-pick the science on GM, nor to snub an international study as detailed as this.

Finally, if you noticed any other pro-GM PR assaults going on around the 8th - 16th April, tell us about it.

SOURCES:

About Us | Contact Us | 2008 GM-free Scotland