1.GeneWatch warns of conflicts-of-interest in parliament on GM crops
2.Oxford Farming Conference - Response to Owen Paterson / Mark Lynas talks
3.Ministers launch PR drive to shake off 'Frankenstein food' image of GM crops
4.Bad weather prompting more British farmers to consider GM use
TAKE ACTION: The Guardian are running a poll in response to UK Government Minister Owen Paterson's claim that GM "is a safe and beneficial innovation". Are you convinced yet? The GM lobby are calling out the vote so please vote 'No'. The poll closes soon:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2013/jan/03/is-gm-food-safe-and-beneficial
EXTRACTS: "It is clear that ministers have done a dodgy deal with the GM industry to promote GM crops in Britain and that lobbying in parliament is not led by the interests of constituents" - Dr Helen Wallace (item 1)
"Farmers and the public have been promised the earth on GM yet the results to date have been poor. The UK Government's own farm scale experiment showed that overall the GM crops were worse for British wildlife. US Government figures show pesticide use has increased since GM crops have been grown there because superweeds and resistant insects have multiplied." - Dr Tom Macmillan (item 2)
"Owen Patterson says that people are eating meat from animals fed of GM feed without realising it. That is because the British Government has consistently opposed moves to label to give consumers accurate information, and he should put that right by immediately introducing compulsory labelling of meat and milk from animals fed on GM feed." - Peter Melchett (item 3)
"Our position is straightforward: we don't allow the use of any GM ingredients in our own-brand food and our customers aren't asking us to stock them." - Waitrose, supermarket chain (item 4)
"Consumers drive the supply chain so unless there is a change in consumer demand there are no implications apart from ensuring there is sufficient supply of non-GM commodities around the world." - Andrew Opie, food director of the British Retail Consortium (item 4)
---
---
1.GeneWatch warns of conflicts-of-interest in parliament on GM crops
GeneWatch, 4 January 2012
http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=570252&als[itemid]=571801
GeneWatch UK warned today that All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture is being used by Monsanto and other GM companies to lobby on behalf of their business interests (1). Funders of the group include the industry body the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), which represents the major GM crop companies (BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, Pioneer (DuPont), Monsanto and Syngenta).
GeneWatch is highlighting the role of the group following revelations in the Times this week that many All-Party Parliamentary Groups are being funded by commercial interests, and Environment Secretary Owen Paterson's speech in favour of commercial growing of GM crops in Britain.
George Freeman, MP, who chairs the parliamentary group, was appointed as Government Life Science Advisor by the Prime Minister and the Science Minister David Willetts in July 2011. Freeman chaired a meeting between the GM industry and ministers on 26th June 2012 to discuss a plan prepared by the ABC to promote GM crops in Britain (2,3).
"It is clear that ministers have done a dodgy deal with the GM industry to promote GM crops in Britain and that lobbying in parliament is not led by the interests of constituents" said GeneWatch UK's Director, Dr Helen Wallace. "This is a bad deal for consumers and for farmers who will have to pay the extra costs of segregation to maintain more valuable non-GM supplies. In the USA, resistant superweeds and superpests are on the increase as a result of growing GM crops. Farmers are locked in to paying ever higher prices for patented GM seeds as companies withhold non-GM varieties".
For further information contact:
Dr Helen Wallace: 01298-24300 (office): 07903-311584 (mobile).
Notes for Editors:
(1) GM industry fund parliamentary group to promote return of GM crops to Britain. GeneWatch UK Press Release. 27th November 2012. http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=569457&als[itemid]=571543
(2) Monsanto meets ministers to push return of GM crops to Britain. GeneWatch UK and GM Freeze Press Release. 25th October 2012. http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=569457&als[itemid]=571449
(3) Going for Growth roundtable discussion, Tuesday 26th June 2012, BIS Conference Centre.
Attendees on: http://tinyurl.com/9jbce4g . Agenda on: http://tinyurl.com/8ahylza . Summary on: http://tinyurl.com/92rrajn
---
---
2.Oxford Farming Conference - Response to Owen Paterson / Mark Lynas talks
Soil Association, 3 January 2013
http://www.soilassociation.org/news/newsstory/articleid/4780
Speaking from the Oxford Farming Conference, Tom Macmillan, innovation director at the Soil Association, responded to comments by the author Mark Lynas and Defra Secretary of State Owen Paterson.
"Mark Lynas is right that improving productivity across agriculture, including in organic farming, has an important part to play in feeding the world sustainably. Through our Duchy Originals Future Farming programme, the Soil Association is investing in research and innovation to help farmers develop and share novel approaches to help improve productivity in environmentally responsible ways.
"Lynas acknowledged that meeting this challenge globally is in large part about ensuring existing techniques are available to the poorest farmers in the world, and much also depends on directly tackling poverty and on rich countries adopting more sustainable consumption habits. Banging on about GM crops, as Lynas did today, is a red herring.
"Farmers and the public have been promised the earth on GM yet the results to date have been poor. The UK Government's own farm scale experiment showed that overall the GM crops were worse for British wildlife. US Government figures show pesticide use has increased since GM crops have been grown there because superweeds and resistant insects have multiplied. Lynas, Paterson and other GM enthusiasts must beware of opening floodgates to real problems like this."
Further comment
A recent report by Professor Charles Benbrook showing that the use of increased levels of more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects in the US is due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies sparking a rise of 'superweeds' and hard-to-kill insects. This is one example of why GM crops don't offer a real solution. Not only have these GM technologies failed to deliver on their fundamental promises, they have made the problem they were designed to solve even worse and locked farmers further into depending on costly inputs from a handful of powerful chemical companies.
Most of the British public do not want GM. The recent British Science Association survey cited by Owen Paterson shows that public concern over GM food has not lessened – it shows that attitudes have not changed significantly. The share saying they agree that GM food "should be encouraged" has actually dropped from 46% in 2002 to 27% in 2012.
The Government has kept people in the dark by opposing labeling of meat and milk from animals fed on GM. Owen Paterson can stop the public unwittingly eating this food by introducing clear labeling.
The Soil Association supports practical innovation that addresses real needs, is genuinely sustainable and puts farmers in control of their livelihoods. Where GM crops have been planted they are doing the opposite, locking farmers into buying herbicides and costly seed, while breeding resistant weeds and insects. They are the product of a narrow, top-down approach to R&D driven less by the needs of farmers, consumers or the environment, than by seed and chemical companies. Just three corporations – Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer – are responsible for virtually all commercially released GM crops in the world. Meeting the challenge of providing better nutrition for more people sustainably calls for joined-up research that takes an ecological approach, responds to people's real needs and respects farmers' know-how.
For press enquiries contact the Soil Association press office:
Natasha Collins-Daniel, Press Office Manager – 0117 914 2448 / 07827 925380
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
---
---
3.Ministers launch PR drive to shake off 'Frankenstein food' image of GM crops
Matt Chorley
Daily Mail, 3 January 2013 [shortened]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256511/PR-drive-launched-shake-Frankenstein-food-image-GM-crops.html
*Environment Secretary Owen Paterson says the government "must not be afraid" of pushing genetically modified food
*In Oxford Farming Conference Speech he admits public still needs reassurance that GM is safe...
A PR campaign to change the image of genetically modified food is to be launched by the government.
Environment Secretary Owen Paterson wants farmers, scientists and ministers to increase the appeal of so-called Frankenstein Foods among the public.
In a speech today to the Oxford Farming Conference, Mr Paterson insists there are "great opportunities" in pushing GM technology , but admitted the public need reassurance that it is safe.
Since last summer’s reshuffle, Mr Paterson has repeatedly backed GM’s role in keeping food supplies secure.
He has dismissed complaints as "humbug" and claimed "there isn't a single piece of meat being served [in a typical London restaurant] where a bullock hasn't eaten some GM feed".
GM crops were grown on 395 million acres in 29 countries in 2011, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
In today’s speech Mr Paterson said: "I fully appreciate the strong feelings on both sides of the debate. GM needs to be considered in its proper overall context with a balanced understanding of the risks and benefits.
"We should not, however, be afraid of making the case to the public about the potential benefits of GM beyond the food chain, for example, significantly reducing the use of pesticides and inputs such as diesel.
"As well as making the case at home, we also need to go through the rigorous processes that the EU has in place to ensure the safety of GM crops.
"I believe that GM offers great opportunities but I also recognise that we owe a duty to the public to reassure them that it is a safe and beneficial innovation."
He said the industry "has long been at the forefront of innovation" and this must continue, including backing GM.
But opponents of an expansion in GM technology claimed just a quarter of people thought it could be "encouraged".
Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said: "Owen Patterson says that people are eating meat from animals fed of GM feed without realising it.
"That is because the British Government has consistently opposed moves to label to give consumers accurate information, and he should put that right by immediately introducing compulsory labelling of meat and milk from animals fed on GM feed."
Friends of the Earth's senior food and farming campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: "GM crops are not the solution to the food challenges we face.
"They are largely being developed to benefit multinational biotech firms that are gaining control of the seed industry, not to feed poor people in developing countries."
---
---
4.Bad weather prompting more British farmers to consider GM use
Fiona Harvey and Rebecca Smithers
The Guardian, 4 January 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/04/bad-weather-farmers-gm
*Washout summer and flooded autumn have persuaded an increasing number of farmers to start using the technology
The extreme weather of 2012 has turned British farmers on to genetically modified crops, with calls from farming leaders to start using the technology as a way to help combat the effects of climate change.
England's wettest year on record, and the UK's second wettest, which had begun with one of the worst droughts for decades, has persuaded an increasing number of farmers that the development of crop varieties with engineered resistance to extreme weather conditions is now a priority. Farming groups are in favour of the move, and many individual farmers now want to explore the use of the controversial techniques, according to delegates at the Oxford Farming Conference.
"If the UK sets itself outside the global market [in which many countries are pursuing GM crops] then we would become fossilised into an old-fashioned way of farming," Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers' Union, told the Guardian. "The majority of our members are aware of the real risk of becoming globally uncompetitive because of avoiding using GM."
Kendall pointed to the severe problems that potato and tomato growers have had with blight, as the wet weather has encouraged the spread of the disease. "If you could have something that was blight-resistant, that would be a huge improvement," he said. He argued it would be more environmentally friendly to use GM food and thus avoid the problem of losing large quantities of food to spoilage from such diseases.
Many farmers at the conference backed his views. "When you look at the year farmers have just had, with the weather and diseases and pests [that have spread because of the soggy weather] it has increasingly got to be recognised that we need to look at this," said Alastair Brooks, who farms 6,000 acres in Buckinghamshire.
Andrew Brown, with 620 acres of mostly arable land in Rutland, said: "If global warming is going to go the way scientists tell us, this is only going to get more important."
Adrian Ivory, who farms in Perthshire, said colder, wetter summers seemed to be becoming the norm, and these would require different varieties to cope with the adverse growing conditions – varieties that could take many years to cultivate by conventional means, but could be brought forward more quickly using GM technology.
But they emphasised that any move towards GM would be slow, involve scientific assessment and would require public support. "This is not something anyone is rushing into. We recognise it would be in stages, by degrees, and we'd need to have scientific input at every stage," said Brown.
Owen Paterson, secretary of state for the environment, gave a clear signal of the government's backing for further use of GM crops in his speech to the conference. He told delegates that the government would make the case in Europe for GM crops, as well as in the UK.
But many environmental groups oppose the use of GM technology. Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, said that there was no evidence, after 20 years of research and development into GM crops, that they could be reliably produced to cope with drought or flood conditions. "Our weather is becoming more unpredictable and more extreme so farming needs crops with general resilience – you can't know when you plant whether the crop will face too much rain or severe drought," he said. "GM delivers specific, narrow traits. Organic and agro-ecological systems deliver generally more resilient farming."
Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said GM was unneeded and that more effort should go into other ways of making food production more sustainable. "We must switch to more sustainable diets globally, including reducing meat consumption in wealthy nations and an end to food crops being used for biofuels," she said.
It is also unclear whether major retailers will support any move to increase the use of GM crops. Some GM products can be found in imported foods, but UK supermarkets have banned the ingredients from their own-brand products. The European commission has a list of approved strains of ingredients such as corn, maize, soy and rice that are used as ingredients in processed foods, often as emulsifiers.
But retailers and supermarkets said they did not envisage consumer enthusiasm increasing in the same way as farmers. Andrew Opie, food director of the British Retail Consortium, said: "Consumers drive the supply chain so unless there is a change in consumer demand there are no implications apart from ensuring there is sufficient supply of non-GM commodities around the world. If retailers did ever stock GM products they would need to be labelled, allowing shoppers to make a clear choice."
A Morrisons spokesperson said: "We understand the difficulties this year's wet weather has caused British farmers and have worked closely with them to ensure customers can still buy British crops. As a retailer we are led by customer demand and stock the products shoppers want to buy."
A spokesman for Waitrose said: "Our position is straightforward: we don't allow the use of any GM ingredients in our own-brand food and our customers aren't asking us to stock them."