1.Take action on UK GM push
2.Scotland and Wales remain opposed to GM crops
---
1.Take action on UK GM push
TAKE ACTION UK: Write to your MP - http://www.writetothem.com/ - saying you disagree with Owen Paterson and that evidence shows that he is wrong to push GM. Point out that research shows non-GM farming in the EU is more efficient and resilient than GM farming in the US: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408
Explain that you are also concerned about the use of GM animal feed. This is mainly Roundup Ready soy, which is damaging monarch butterfly populations in the US: http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/230/ and causing human and environmental devastation in Latin America: http://gmoaction.org/british-supermarkets-gmo-soya-and-birth-defects. Say that you want meat, eggs, and dairy to be labelled to show whether it has been fed on GM or not so that you can have the choice of avoiding it.
TAKE ACTION 2 UK: Write to the supermarkets - email addresses here: http://gmoaction.org/petition/. Say you are concerned about the use of GM animal feed. Point out that the head of Waitrose has said that there is plenty of non-GM soy and that the price difference of the meat and dairy is negligible, so the supermarkets should stop using that excuse and provide the products that we consumers want: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/companies/supermarkets/waitrose/waitrose-boss-price-gm-is-tech-looking-for-a-problem-to-solve/344476.article
Say you also want meat, eggs, and dairy to be labelled to show whether it has been fed on GM or not so that you can have the choice of avoiding it. Tell them what you think of Owen Paterson, if you wish.
TAKE ACTION 3 Scotland: Ask your Member of the Scottish Parliament to support the Scottish Parliament Motion S4M-07132 on Paterson/"UK" "policy" on GM. Here's the text:
*S4M-07132 Kevin Stewart: GM Crops - That the Parliament condemns the UK Government’s proposal to ask the EU to ease the restrictions on the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops; believes that, if this proposal is given the go-ahead, the growing of such crops in England might adversely affect the reputation of Scotland’s high-quality agricultural produce; hopes that the EU will reject what it considers these ill-thought-out proposals; calls on the Scottish Government to do everything in its power to ensure that the country remains a GM-free zone, and looks forward to the day when an independent Scotland will have a seat at the top table in Europe.
Supported by: Annabelle Ewing*, Nigel Don*, Dennis Robertson*, Rob Gibson*, Adam Ingram*, Angus MacDonald*, Mike MacKenzie*, Stuart McMillan*, George Adam*, John Mason*, David Torrance*, Jean Urquhart*, Sandra White*, Graeme Dey*
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/BusinessBulletin/65404.aspx
---
---
2. Scotland and Wales remain opposed to GM crops
Alistair Driver
Farmers Guardian, 20 June 2013
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/latest-news/scotland-and-wales-remain-opposed-to-gm-crops/56541.article
DEFRA Secretary Owen Paterson’s views on genetically modified crops could set Westminster against the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
Both administrations are opposed to the technology and have taken steps to prevent it being grown in their countries.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The cultivation of GM crops could damage Scotland’s rich environment and would threaten our reputation for producing high quality and natural foods. It would damage Scotland’s image as a land of food and drink.”
A Welsh Government spokesperson said: “The Welsh Government maintains a precautionary approach to GM crop cultivation in Wales and adheres to the UK and EU legislative framework.”
Elsewhere Mr Paterson’s speech paving the way for a fresh debate on the technology was predictably welcomed by proponents of GM and slammed by anti-GM campaigners.
Dr Julian, Little, chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said it was "extremely encouraging to again hear the Government’s commitment to unlocking the potential of British agricultural science, and pushing the rest of Europe to follow a science-based approach to policy making".
“GM technologies are already assisting farmers around the world to boost food security in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable way. The mountain of evidence of the benefits gained by farmers through GM technology continues to grow, from higher crop yields to lower carbon emissions, and the UK cannot afford to be left behind,” he said.
NFU President Peter Kendall said: “I applaud Owen Paterson for the leadership he is showing on this issue.
“The NFU agrees that the UK, which is the natural home for science research, should be at the forefront of providing agricultural solutions not watching from the sidelines.
“Rightly so, farmers fear being left behind. As Mr Paterson said, I also want British farmers to be able to develop the latest technologies so they can reap economic and environmental benefits.
“I welcome his commitment to getting the EU approvals system working. The Environment Secretary also asked all interested parties to help him and said he would back them in return. I, and the NFU, will take up this challenge.”
But Friends of the Earth’s Head of Policy, Research and Science Mike Childs said there was ‘no evidence GM crops will deliver for farmers or food security’.
“Despite decades of research, there are still no miracle crops to tackle the challenges agriculture faces, such as climate change, soil degradation, water shortages and growing demand. Where GM crops are grown, they are exacerbating the very intensive farming practices that are part of the problem.”
Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said: “Owen Paterson’s GM dream will make it harder to feed the world.”
He described GM as the "cuckoo in the nest". “It drives out and destroys the systems that international scientists agree we need to feed the world. We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food, not farming that helps Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto produce profits,” he said.
GeneWatch UK director Helen Wallace questioned why Mr Paterson was "wasting taxpayers" time and money doing PR for Monsanto and the other GM companies?’
“Paterson appears to be deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to any science not peddled by big corporations. Only industry-funded research shows any benefits from GM crops, which do not increase yields and are having harmful effects on the environment in North and South America,” she said.
She said the speech ignored various problems associated with GM crops, including ‘the spread of superweeds resistant to the weedkillers sprayed on herbicide-tolerant GM crops and the resulting increased use of herbicides’ and the development of pests resistant to pest-resistant crops.
Caroline Drummond, LEAF (Linking Environment and Food) chief executive, said: “GM technology has the potential to benefit the sustainability of farming systems in the UK. However, the potential benefits to farmers and consumers need to be clearly identified and weighed against the possible risks and there are several areas that cannot be neglected.
“One of these is the need for more research into GM technology. We need to be able to establish the development of plants that have greater resistance to pests and diseases, more resilience to adverse environments and develop the nutritional value of crops.”