Scientists say GM dialogue is a front for industry

Two scientists have now resigned from a group charged by the Food Standards Agency with having a “public dialogue” about genetically modified foods.

Last week Dr Helen Wallace, who is part of the think tank Gene Watch UK, resigned from the steering group for the project, and Professor Brian Wynne, who was the group’s Vice Chair, resigned yesterday.

Professor Wynne is an expert on public engagement with science, and said the dialogue programme, which was set up by the previous government, was in fact little more than propaganda for the companies responsible for developing GM food. He added that the Food Standards Agency, which is supposed to act as an independent watchdog that protects the public, had a “dogmatically entrenched” position in favour of GM.

Dr Wallace has similar concerns, arguing:

“It has now become clear to me that the process that the FSA has in mind is nothing more than a PR exercise on behalf of the GM industry. In my view, this would be a significant waste of £500,000 of taxpayers’ money. A process that was barely credible has become a farce.

“Taxpayers’ money should not be wasted on a PR exercise for the GM industry.”

Campaign groups have argued that the whole exercise, which is going to be outsourced to another organisation, will in fact just be used to gather information to allow better marketing and political propaganda efforts as part of an effort to make the public accept GM food.

The last government set up the project to explore the public’s views on the possible wider use of the technology. In the late 1990s GM foods were introduced throughout Britain, including in Scotland, with virtually no public consultation. This led to many massive campaigns, of which the SSP played a key part in several. Now, although GM crops are still grown in the UK, many supermarkets promise not to stock them because of the pressure.

GM protester pulls out crops

Socialists have argued for years that the drive to introduce the technology was coming from massive private companies with an interest in making more money from food, and agricultural products like pesticides and fertilisers. Chemical companies like Monsanto have worked hard to genetically alter organisms so that they will be able to cope with poisons intended for pests being sprayed on them. However, there are concerns that once new genes are introduced into the natural environment they have been shown to spread to other organisms and crops, with unforseen consequences for environmental and human health.

But perhaps most worryingly, these new technologies are not being developed by innocent scientists just interested in advancing knowledge. They are being designed and developed by for-profit corporations, whose sole interest is in making more money. So once a company has altered the genes of an organism, it can claim that this living thing is now their work, and patent it. This means that whenever someone uses that crop or animal in farming, they will have to pay the company for the privilege. In fact, many farmers have been forced to pay who weren’t growing genetically modified crops, after company scientists discovered that what was predicted had happened: their genetic modifications had cross pollinated, and you could find altered genes in non GM crops. Instead of seeing this as a concern, companies like Monsanto see it as a way to make more money, by making these unfortunate farmers pay.

The ultimate consequence of this would be the privatisation of our food supply, so that a few huge corporations would be able to control the seeds and technology necessary for the world to feed itself, and we would have to pay them ransom to survive. One of the most terrifying examples of the way these companies think was the attempt to develop “Terminator” seeds (their name!), which would produce crops that would not themselves go on to produce any seeds. If the companies were ever able to get this product widely used, then farmers would be unable to collect seeds from the previous years’ crops for replanting, meaning they would be completely dependent on seeds bought from the company that owned the patent on Terminator crops.

The resignation of these two scientists follows on from the complete discrediting of the previous government’s relationship with science, after it reclassified cannabis as a Class B drug despite the advice of its own scientists not to, and then rushed through a ban on mephedrone with no concern for real scientific evidence. It remains to be seen whether the ConDems will have a better relationship with the scientific community, but given their support for the mephedrone ban we won’t hold our breath. The Food Standards Agency says it will ask the new government before going ahead with the GM food consultation.

Eating this can not be a good idea

The fact of the matter is, the idea that we need GM crops to end world hunger is a myth peddled by people looking to make money for themselves. The world is more than capable of producing enough food to feed the human race through sustainable, ecological and organic agriculture. The problem isn’t the food we produce so much as the way its distributed. When so much of the land on Earth is dedicated to producing crops and meat for the rich countries, it’s hardly surprising those who live elsewhere go hungry.

Bonus: Check out this article, ‘Can Ecological Agriculture Feed Nine Billion People?‘ (If you can’t be arsed reading the whole thing, the answer’s yes.)

3 Comments

  1. Neil says:

    Nice one Jack. Brian Wynne is a big figure on my uni course, is good to see him take a stand.

    Neil

  2. 4ndy says:

    I was disgusted when I read about this: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/03/eu-approves-gm-food-potato) a while back, as one of the few useful and sensible things the EU ever did was to ban most GM produce and dodgy agricultural chemicals. For a while this problem just used to be away in America, where they had the EPA doing exactly what those scientists described the FSA as doing, but now the lobbyists are bringing their horrible abortion of science even closer to home, with a potato species and 3 types of corn that now may be legally grown in the EU.

    Also, the problem isn’t just with Monsanto et al extorting money out of farmers, trying to legislate against the good parts of nature, patent what they didn’t create, and the risk of strange cancers or other ilnesses developing from the unstable gene structure in some of these strains, but also the risk of the actual pesticides, fungicides and weedkillers that they spray on these crops soaking into the food and straight-up poisoning people.
    Some of the sick corporations are even eager to spread crops that have genes to make them create their own pesticides, so that it doesn’t need to be sprayed, which not only puts the consumer’s health at risk, but creates the extreme risk of spreading into wild crops and destroying the natural ecosystems remaining in the world.

    I’m glad you found that article on ecological agriculture, because I hate constantly hearing the fallacious claim that the world is ‘overpopulated’, when we produce more food than is necessary to feed the world population while not having enough money for them to pay for it all, yet the carrying capacity of the earth is always dependent on the efficiency of technology.
    If we were to use the technology that we have today intelligently, i.e. combining ideas like hydroponics and permaculture, without the logistical inefficiencies, product inferiority and duplicity caused by competition, then we could easily support 10 billion happy human beings while slowly reversing the damage that we have done to the earth.

  3. Strange News says:

    Strange News…

    [...]Scottish Socialist Youth » Scientists say GM dialogue is a front for industry[...]…