Battle to Persuade the Public to Accept GM Food

Genetically Modified Politicians: Their Battle to Persuade the Public to Accept GM Food

By Lesley Docksey

The official UK government policy on genetically modified (GM) crops is “precautionary, evidence-based and sensitive to public concerns”.  Who are they kidding?

My heart always sinks when, listening to the BBC’s Today programme, someone from the Department for International Development starts talking about the “international food crisis”, and the starving people in all those poor undeveloped countries (the ones we helped to pauper with our empire building).  I know for sure that in the next day or two, in the top political slot on Today, I’ll be listening to Environment Minister Owen Paterson telling us that we must embrace GM technology if we want to feed the world.  It normally coincides with his giving a speech or two about the wonders of GM crops and food, full of outrageous and unscientific statements.  Prime Minister David Cameron chips in with a comment to the media about how Britain is losing the scientific race to feed the world.

It happens with depressing regularity, and it never goes as smoothly as they hope.  Although Monsanto has, for now, withdrawn from Europe, the lobbying of politicians is relentless.  Last year the GM companies, having met with British ministers at a little-publicised ‘ Growing for Growth’ conference, started another push to promote GM.  They were immediately backed up by Owen Paterson insisting that GM food will sort our problems – no worries.  He was followed in July by David Cameron saying Europe was “being left behind” even though the previous month it had been disclosed that GM food is banned from all the restaurants and cafes in the Palace of Westminster, and he himself was refusing to say whether he’d feed GM food to his family.

Chivvied by the biotech people, Patersonmade a further push later last year but the campaign was spoilt in January by a report stating that almost 50% of the world’s food is wasted.  The hunger is a result of how we manage the world, not the earth’s inability to feed us.

Perhaps the biotech companies were encouraged by a survey published in March last year, showing that more people were now “unconcerned” about GM crops and food.  The trouble with surveys like this is that you can point to the bit that supports your opinion and, if you are the Environment Secretary, Prime Minister or perhaps a biotech CEO, happily ignore the rest.  So while both ministers and media trumpeted the news that more people (25%) were now unconcerned about GM food (up from 17% in 2003), they ignored the other 75%, especially the 46% that remain concerned about the technology and its risks.

However, according to Farmers Weekly, those who took part were also asked which crops they would be happy to see grown – in the UK.  Having obviously listened to Paterson’s intemperate and inaccurate statements about Golden Rice, 64% said they would “theoretically” support rice with added vitamin A.  It would seem the respondents have little knowledge of our climate (rice grows in hot climates and though some high-altitude strains exist, they need levels of sunshine we can’t provide); agriculture (some people have succeeded in growing rice in UK greenhouses, which hardly compares with fields of wheat, maize and canola/rape); biology (carrots, spinach, kale, cabbage, pumpkins, winter squash etc. are all high in beta-carotene/vitamin A. No need to add it to rice, just eat a balanced diet); and geography (the last time I looked, the UK was not part of the Philippines which is where Golden Rice is being developed, and where 1.7 million Filipino children suffer from vitamin A deficiency).

But then Guy Adams wrote in June this year, “a recent survey by Which? found that 71 per cent of Britons believe GM food, and meat from animals fed on GM food, should be banned from supermarkets. A further 15 per cent are “undecided”. In other words, just over one in ten thinks it’s a good idea.”

And a YouGov poll this year found that only 21% of the public supported GM food.  Further, despite the hard sell by Paterson and Cameron, 43% of people said they “were completely against” the government promoting GM technology.  A survey of farmers published at the same time (funded by Barclays Bank in collaboration with Farmers Weekly), found that even farmers are reluctant to grow GM crops and only 15% of them would eat GM food.  They’re at one with Westminster there then, with its reluctance to eat the stuff.

Having failed with the public and with those who grow our food, one could understand that GM companies feel the need to lobby UK politicians in order to further their desire to control our food supply.  But in the United States, where much of the food is now so GM based that it is difficult to avoid eating it, you would think they had won the battle for American hearts and intestines.  But Monsanto still generously supports Republicans and anyone else that can push their agenda forward, which argues that even there the battle over public opinion is not won.

Last April US citizens were outraged by the passing of what became known as the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’, a rider (H.R.933) quietly added to the Agriculture Appropriations bill, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public.  Senator Barbara Mikulski issued a statement apologising for letting this be signed into law.  She said that “she didn’t put the language in the bill and doesn’t support it either.”  According to Russia Today , “Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) has been credited with crafting the language of H.R. 933 by working directly alongside Monsanto.  Blunt has received $64,250 from Monsanto towards his campaign committee between 2008 and 2012.”  Well, there’s a surprise.

Last May, despite the fact that several states wanted it, the Senate refused to allow them to enact laws forcing manufacturers to label products with GM content.  Senators of states that grow a lot of GM crops strongly opposed this move.  Among their reasons were that “labels would raise costs for consumers”.  A bit of honesty and extra ink on a label is going to cost more?

But the public fights on.  In October the Senate killed off the Monsanto Protection Act.  As in Britain, US citizens are suspicious of GM foods.  According to the  Cornucopia Institute, “polling conducted last year by the Mellman Group indicated that nearly 90% of Americans would like GMO foods labelled so they can make a choice about what kinds of foods they purchase in the marketplace.”  Choice?  GM foods?  Where pro-GM politicians are concerned, they don’t belong in the same room, let alone in the same sentence.

And now we hear of the cosy government/biotech relationship in South Africa.  This month the African Centre for Biosafety, having already shown that the entire maize meal market is saturated with GM, released a report showing how a select group of companies (with government backing) now controls the entire maize chain, to the detriment of the poorest people.  In Africa, only South Africa, Egypt, Sudan and Burkino Fasso currently grow commercial GM crops, and despite public opposition, the lobbying of governments by Monsanto and others will most likely mean many more African farmers being pressured into growing them.

You would think, if you listened to the constant bleating of our politicians, that Britain is “being left behind” by the rest of the world, because of our reluctance to join the GM revolution.  Primed by the lobbyists, they give the impression that everywhere but here, people’s fields and fridges are full of GM crops and foods; that if anywhere suffers from food insecurity it will be us; that poor people in the developing countries will suffer from food insecurity unless we grow GM crops here (I’m still trying to understand the logic of that one).  Has the rest of the world really signed up to GM foods – or are the politicians and biotech companies telling GM porkies?*

The reverse of course is the truth.  Politicians who are less joined at the hip to big business are listening to the people, the farmers and consumers.  More places are opting to be GM-free.  Countries like Uruguay that have grown GM crops are banning the introduction of any new crops.  The Mexican government recently banned the planting of all GM maize – but then Mexican farmers surely know more about real maize than Monsanto!  Several South American countries, having grown GM crops for some time, are gradually changing the rules.  In November 2011 Peru introduced a 10-year ban on all GM crops.  Brazil has, for the time being at least, introduced a ban on planting GM seeds.  Paraguay is planning a similar ban.  Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela have all declared national bans on GM foods.

In Europe, despite heavy lobbying and pro-GM politicians trying to open up the market and our fields, people are still making their voices heard. Italy has a complete ban on all GM crops. France, Luxemburg, Germany, Austria, Greece, Romania and Poland have banned Monsanto’s maize. Switzerland has a moratorium on all genetically engineered crops and animals, due for renewal in December 2017.  They did several studies on the risks and benefits of GM crops and although they felt that there may be little danger in growing them, also decided that, for Switzerland, there was little financial benefit to be had either.

This year Hungary, which had banned GM crops, found that the forbidden crops were being grown illegally anyway.  The government didn’t hang about – all the crops were destroyed.  A new Hungarian law enacted back in March stipulates that before any new seeds are introduced into the market, they must first undergo checks to make sure they are free of GMOs.  They are now considering making the planting of GM seeds a felony.  And Russia is considering a total ban.

However, other EU countries have not managed a comprehensive ban, although various areas within countries have taken action.  In the United Kingdom both Scotland and Wales are officially ‘GM-free’, though Owen Paterson will probably ignore such democracy.  Various local authorities, including 17 County Councils, have voted to remain GM-free, mostly in order to help protect organic growers.  In Ireland  there are 9 GM-free counties.  The Republic of Ireland wanted to make the whole island GM-free, but sadly Northern Ireland wouldn’t cooperate.

In North America, some US states like California are GM-free.  Canada’s civil society is constantly campaigning against GM.  New Zealand has a ban as does South Australia and Tasmania.  Japan banned the growing of GM crops but “Japanese food manufacturers are actively importing “Roundup Ready” GMO canola grown in Canada primarily to manufacture canola oil. As a result, scientists have found that the GMO canola variety is now growing wild along roadsides and ports that have been the supply line for canola importation.”

What is noticeable about these bans is that in many places both people and their governments are not against research into genetic modification.  No. They are against the wholesale marketing of the biotech corporations that have no regard for the earth.  But why Poland, Hungary, Paraguay and the rest?  One reason may be that in so many places, despite the globalisation of Western culture, people have managed to maintain their links to a rural peasant culture; a culture that lives according to the pace of nature; that lives closer to the land; whose farmers embody generations of earth-based wisdom and whose people have an interest in growing clean healthy food because it is what they themselves eat.

This is not to say that the bans we have achieved will not be reversed by GM-lobbied politicians.  We must keep up the pressure.  People who love their patch of earth and love the food they eat are turning out to be remarkably GM-resistant – unlike their genetically modified politicians who are now logic- and science-resistant and extremely lobbyist-tolerant.

*For international readers: ‘porkies’ is an example of Cockney rhyming slang.  Pork pies = lies.

 

The BBC: Impartial Reporting or Pro-Israel Bias?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-bbc-impartial-reporting-or-pro-israel-bias/5328095

By Lesley Docksey

The British Broadcasting Corporation has often been accused of anti-Semitism, usually by representatives of the Israeli government, the Israeli Ambassador to the UK or the Chief Rabbi.

Any passing mention of the plight of the Palestinians on the news used to result in either Ambassador Proser or Rabbi Jonathon Sachs elbowing their way into the Today programme studio the following morning to bleat about Israel’s actions being misrepresented. The current Ambassador and Chief Rabbi are not quite so vocal but just as sensitive. Palestinians do not have that ease of access.

But is the BBC anti-Semitic as Israel claims or, as many others claim, does the BBC have a pro-Israel bias in its reporting?

Back in January 2009, when Operation Cast Lead was in full swing with Gaza being reduced to rubble, and its inhabitants had nowhere to flee, the Disasters Emergency Committee issued an appeal on behalf of the Gazan people. DEC is made up of 14 leading UK aid charities. When some major humanitarian crisis occurs they combine their fundraising efforts. The appeal is broadcast on all major TV and radio stations and large adverts appear in the press. The response from the British public is usually swift and generous. But, where the Israeli attack on Gaza was concerned, the BBC said ‘No’. And because the great BBC was refusing to air the appeal, the other channels felt they had to follow suit.

The public outcry was massive. The BBC instantly received over 11,000 complaints. The Minister for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Lord Malloch Brown, was similarly bombarded although protesters were forced to write to him as the FCO took down his email address. Proser and Sachs applauded the BBC’s decision. And the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, was forced into making the following statement, justifying his decision:

“Inevitably, an appeal would use pictures which are the same or similar to those we would be using in our news programmes but would do so with the objective of encouraging public donations, …The danger … is that this could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story. When we’ve turned down DEC appeals in the past on impartiality grounds, it has been because of this risk of giving … the impression that the BBC was taking sides in an ongoing conflict.”

Apart from the fact that the BBC were not showing any pictures from inside Gaza because Israel was preventing any reporters from entering, I was very puzzled by the statement that the BBC had turned down appeals in the past. I couldn’t recall any occasion when they had done so. Using the Freedom of Information Act, I wrote to Mark Thompson, quoting his statement and asking for the answers to the following questions:

On how many occasions has the BBC turned down an appeal by the DEC?

On what dates did the BBC turn down these appeals?

On behalf of which countries/people were the DEC appealing?

It took a month, but I received a very nice reply from the Information & Compliance Manager (the BBC is after all run on public money so they can’t afford to antagonise us too much) stating that the questions I asked were not covered by the FoI Act because…

“Your request falls outside the scope of the Act because the BBC and the other public service broadcasters are covered by the Act only in respect of information held for purposes “other than those of journalism, art or literature” (see Schedule I, Part VI of the Act). We are not therefore obliged to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.”

Silly me. I thought that an appeal for aid came under “other than those of journalism, art or literature”, but BBC logic dictates otherwise. They were certainly being ‘creative’ in their interpretation of the Act. However, the writer did volunteer this:

“Since April 2006, the date when the BBC Executive took over the role of deciding on Emergency appeals from the BBC Governors, the BBC declined requests for appeals for the Middle East in August 2006 and for Gaza in January 2009.”

DEC has never issued an appeal for ‘the Middle East’ although, with the way things are developing there, they may yet have to. Even worse, when I checked with the DCE website, their Appeals Archive page listed no appeals for anywhere at all in 2006. Ooops!

It seems that under other circumstances, the BBC is not worried about appearing to be taking sides in an ongoing story, as they have just aired the DEC appeal for Syria. So, whose side are they on? Are they anti-Semitic in the real meaning of the term, or is it more accurate to say that they have a pro-Israel bias?

Quite a lot of people think the answer to that is ‘Yes’. They are demanding that the BBC Trust holds a Public Inquiry into whether there is pro-Israeli bias at the BBC. They reached their target of 10,000 signatures yesterday, but more would be welcome. It is time this issue was settled once and for all, time for the BBC to be what it claims it is – fair and impartial in the reporting of news. 

“Fuelling Climate Change”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/spinning-out-of-control-governments-banks-and-energy-companies-fuelling-climate-change/5326854

Spinning Out Of Control: Governments, Banks and Energy Companies “Fuelling Climate Change”

By Lesley Docksey

Being born ‘with a silver spoon in your mouth’ means that you start with an advantage that others don’t have: parents with money, property, influence, business connections and so on, connections that can last for generations. A silver spoon that appeared recently was the exceedingly generous compensation paid to British slave owners when the UK abolished slavery in 1833, though not one penny went to the freed slaves. The ancestors of many well-connected people (including David Cameron) benefited. One way or another, the silver spoon allows you to inherit the best of old boys’ networks and a guaranteed place at all sorts of top tables. These days you also appear to be born with a revolving door.

As I pointed out in Revolving Wars, the door between retiring senior military personnel or ministerial-level politicians and a well-paid position in companies supplying the military revolves at great speed, although sadly not at a fast enough rate as to fire the users into outer space – nor would they go without a profitable contract in place. But other such doors exist. And just as the links between government ministers, senior armed forces personnel and the arms trade make it almost impossible to stop our forces from fighting illegal and unnecessary wars, so the links between the government, banks and fossil fuel companies make it impossible to get politicians to take action to mitigate climate change or achieve realistic funding for renewable energy.

The World Development Movement has just published a briefing, Web of Power: the UK government and the energy-finance complex fuelling climate change, and it makes for disheartening reading. Of the 125 MPs and Lords that make up the UK government, no less than 32% have links with finance and/or fossil fuel companies, while the top 5 banks give financial backing to fossil fuel companies and politicians (the City funded David Cameron’s campaign for the leadership of the Tory Party), and the fossil fuel companies give financial backing to government while lobbying hard for their industry. There is a merry-go-round of people serving in government and sitting on the boards of financial institutions and energy companies. It creates a cosy closed shop resulting in a lack of funding for research into and building the infrastructure for renewable energy.

Even worse, despite the noises made by politicians, any effective action to halt climate change is blocked because that would damage business. It would ‘harm’ the economy – meaning that they, all of them, would lose money. But they probably think they are the economy. And of course their mantra – that climate change is not caused by human activity and we can therefore go on chasing and making money from every scrap of oil or gas to fuel our modern lives – is funded and publicised by some very rich people indeed, many of them with links to… you’ve guessed it… fossil fuels and high finance. Anything that might puncture that magic bubble of oil, money and power has to be fought (or bought) off by whatever means.

The thought of losing our comfortable lifestyle is challenging, which is why we are persuaded by their spin machine to see that as more of a threat than the destruction of our climate would be. Even while we are asked to put up with cuts forced upon us by the government, they are proposing to, despite undertaking not to, subsidise companies like EDF with our money, in the hope that they will build nuclear reactors here. And don’t even mention fracking and the carrot they hold out about ‘cheap’ gas. It won’t be. We are also encouraged to allow the bankers to continue paying themselves too much; otherwise they will all go somewhere else. And of course, they’d all far rather we worried about the price we pay to fuel our lives than think about a warming world. Because business as usual means profits as usual. And also because, whatever else happens, the economy (by which I mean that we remain poor and live economically while the rich grow in riches) must be encouraged to grow.

And here is a very basic question that no one is asking, not politicians, bankers nor economists. Even those campaigning about environmental destruction and climate change are not asking it. Why do we have to have growth?

Nothing grows forever, even though it may live for a very long time. Humans, having reached their maximum height, stop growing. Either that or they collapse. Their bones cannot support a body too tall or too fat. It is the same for anything else that grows. Everything has limits. Endless growth is not sustainable. We cannot grow beyond what this planet can supply, nor should we assume that it can, no matter how much we are persuaded to. So why is it a given that the ‘economy’ has to grow? Why can’t it drop back to a level where it might be more sustainable, and maintain a steady position instead?

What most of us want is stability and security, and we have let ourselves be persuaded that these only come if we have more – more money, more possessions, bigger televisions, faster cars – more, more, more. Yet the majority of humanity has spent not centuries but millennia successfully existing by having sufficient. We need enough, not more. And let’s face it, the growth that is demanded by governments and corporations always has and always will go into the pockets of those who are already rich, already have far more than they need and certainly far more than their fair share.

Years ago manufacturers made things that could be serviced and repaired, things that we went on using until they fell to pieces. Then what we bought came with ‘built-in obsolescence’. It wasn’t a question of buying something new when the old had collapsed. The new was designed to collapse and be replaced. Then we were treated to ‘the latest model’ and encouraged to throw away anything that was out of date. But students at Brighton University are now being asked to design a toaster that the buyer would want to keep! On the Today programme Professor Jonathon Chapman explained: “It’s actually very easy to design and manufacture a toaster that will last 20 years; that can be done. What’s not so easy is to design and manufacture a toaster that someone will want to keep for 20 years, because as people, as consumers, we haven’t been trained to do that.”

No. We’ve been trained to always think there is something better out there, and that we both want and need it. And in the same way the people with their revolving doors are doing their best to train us into thinking that, as consumers, our behaviour has absolutely nothing to do with climate change and we can carry on as usual while the government ‘fixes’ the problem, the banks lend our money to companies we wouldn’t give the time of day to, and the energy companies dig up our back gardens while they frack for gas.

Well, you know what? As a ‘consumer’ I have decided that governments, banks and fossil fuels also have built-in obsolescence. They have reached the point of collapse and I want to bin the lot. I don’t want their ‘latest model’ either because it always turns out to be more of the same with a different coat of paint. I want to try something new – or rather, something both radical and reactionary – radical because the idea would be considered ‘impossible’, and reactionary because I want to turn back the clock. I want to return to an old way of life that was sustainable and sufficient to our needs. And, I suspect, far more satisfying than the constant hunger of consumerism. Whether climate change will allow me to do that I don’t know. My time may run out before the toaster fails.