Don't think you can relax just because the IAASTD report warns against the biofuels rush, and recommends treating GM crops with caution.

Or how to profit out of a crisis you yourself created

QUESTION: Who kicked off the 'biofuels' boom that's triggered soaring food prices and a whole host of other unintended consequences?

ANSWER: George W. Bush.

QUESTION: Who lobbied for this disastrous policy?

ANSWER: Big agribiz, the biotech industry, big oil and the motor industry.

QUESTION: Who have been the principal beneficiaries of this disastrous policy?

ANSWER: Big agribiz and Monsanto.

QUESTION: Who warned against such a policy and predicted the consequences?

ANSWER: Many in the environmental movement. GM Watch started publishing warnings about the dangers of the GM industry's promotion of so called 'biofuels' as far back as 2005. Groups like Friends of the Earth warned about the dangers of biofuels right from the start.


The obvious conclusion that governments should be drawing from the 'biofuels' debacle is that there are very grave dangers in being swept away by industry lobbying and adopting policies based on hyperbole about simplistic technofixes *ahead of the evidence*. This has very clear implications for GM.

BUT pro-GMers are trying to exploit the current crisis to argue exactly the opposite by totally inverting the truth.


QUESTION: Who's responsible for the 'biofuels' fiasco?

ANSWER: 'The greens' who 'joined forces' with George Bush to create a food shortage that today threatens millions in poor countries with hunger and starvation.'

QUESTION: Who paved the way for this disastrous policy?

ANSWER: 'The greens' who 'demonized the consumption of petroleum and genetically modified foods, and crusaded against carbon'. (Both Bush and Greens Fuel Food Shortage)

QUESTION: How do we deal with this disaster?

ANSWER: GM is 'the swiftest path to higher productivity' and solving the problems of hunger andf starvation. (The cost of green tinkering is hunger and starvation)

CONCLUSION: 'Environmentalists are now the biggest threat to the environment and the hungry.'

COMMENT: The quotes above may be particularly extreme but there are a disturbing number of opinion pieces appearing that attempt to associate 'biofuels' (read: agrofuels) with environmentalism, and/or hail biotech as the solution to all possible crisies - based on unsubstantiated claims that GM crops increase productivity, provide drought-resistance and can solve a myriad of other problems.

The current crisis atmosphere, in other words, seems to be actually boosting the promotion of policies based on hyperbole about simplistic technofixes ahead of the evidence.

If so, those who stand to gain most from this mess could be the very people who created it.