NOTE: Just one correction to this otherwise excellent article: Monsanto has not backed out of Europe, in that it still has numerous applications for GM crop approvals in the EU pipeline:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14883
The article mentions a study that found that Europe's mostly non-GM farming is outperforming US farming. There's more about that study here:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14926
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14929
---
---
Bitter taste of GM humble pie
Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has not advanced the cause of genetically modified foods
By Geoffrey Lean
The Telegraph, 21 Jun 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/10134825/Bitter-taste-of-GM-humble-pie.html
*Against the grain: new research reveals non-GM seed performing better than its GM equivalent
In the heat of battle, the story goes, a general stopped by a battery that had just delivered a thunderous fusillade. “Did you hit the target?” he asked, peering through the smoke. “I’ve no idea, sir,” came the reply. “But it certainly left here with a heck of a bang.”
Environment Secretary Owen Paterson’s great GM speech on Thursday was rather like that. In preparation for months, trailed assiduously, it was banged out before an enthusiastic invited audience in the wake of a barrage of endorsements from top scientists assembled by the supportive Science Media Centre.
But whether it will achieve its aims – converting a sceptical public and persuading a majority of EU governments finally to allow more modified crops to be grown in Europe – is another matter. And, within hours, its trajectory was beginning to look decidedly doubtful.
Not that it was a bad speech, quite the reverse. Well crafted, it artfully gave the impression that genetic modification was essential to feed the world, without ever quite saying so. In place of his previous dismissal of opposing arguments as “humbug” and “nonsense”, Mr Paterson insisted that he understood and respected them. And he rightly emphasised the “potential” and “promise” of the technology and did not over-exaggerate its achievements: claims came with “could” and “may” rather than “will” and “are”.
That was wise, since the technology has so far done little to increase yields, while more conventional techniques – which he also mentioned, but at times seemed to conflate with GM – have achieved stunning increases, at times quadrupling production. Indeed just a week ago a comparative study from New Zealand’s University of Canterbury found that “the combination of non-GM seed and management practices used by western Europe is increasing corn yields faster than the use of the GM-led package chosen by the US”.
Mr Paterson also stressed that modified crops were safe, relying on reassuring verdicts produced by the pro-GM European Commission. But his assurances were immediately undermined when Downing Street refused both to endorse them or – despite being invited to do so 10 times – to say whether the Prime Minister and his family would eat GM foods. Indeed, Mr Paterson himself repeatedly avoided saying whether he would feed them to his children, only emitting a reluctant “yes” after being shamed by a journalist who said she would do so herself.
Nor was that the only sign that the wheels were already beginning to come off. Lib Dem agriculture spokesman Lady Parminter promptly attacked him for “acting as a cheerleader for an industry which has consistently promised much over the past 20 years and yet failed to deliver”, suggesting a rift in the Coalition. The Welsh and Scottish governments made clear that they were opposed to the technology. And Mark Price, managing director of Waitrose, took issue with a claim in the speech that, without GM animal feed, meat would be more expensive – insisting the price difference was negligible.
Worse, there are already signs that the combative Mr Paterson is beginning to slip his leash. Even before his speech he made an extraordinary suggestion, going beyond his text, that “seven million children” had gone blind or died over the past 15 years because “every attempt” to introduce a GM rice fortified with sight-saving vitamin A had “been thwarted”.
Experts quickly pointed out that the figure was greatly exaggerated and that, while vitamin A blindness is a scourge, there are better ways of preventing it. Mr Paterson will have to do better than that if he is to win over the public. The industry is making much of a poll that showed that 61 per cent of farmers would like to grow GM crops. But it also showed that only 15 per cent of them would choose to eat modified foods.
During the last persuasion campaign, in 2003, public opinion was running three to one against the technology. By the time it was over, opposition had soared to nine to one among those involved, with the uncommitted becoming ever more hostile the more they learnt.
As for persuading other EU countries, Monsanto at least has little faith in Mr Paterson’s prospects. It has just announced it will no longer seek EU approval for its GM crops. Those targets look pretty elusive.