[RTF- UK ] the co-option of sustainable agriculture

[Ram Selva]

Thanks Adam.

It all starts with Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture and 
is designed to end with them (commercialise this technology whereby 
signals that mimic insects' own are made to be secreted by crops)

This is beyond the nutters at Rothamsted claiming ownership and 
promising magnanimity (if they are to be believed that is!) - ie, the 
technology apparently will not be patented and commercialised!!

Last night (17th May) on BBC NewsNight set-up Sense About Science's 
Tracy Brown, a long time paid pro-GM campaigner cum social scientist was 
misleading the world alongside rep from Rothamsted Research.

Its interesting to note that that Maurice Moloney, the industry plant 
and who is now CEO of Rothamsted Research has been doing few rounds 
since arriving back in the UK  to co-opt another set of ideals, Climate 
Change and theories of Peak Oil, as part of underhand attempts to 
legitimise GM crops.

Sense About Science on the other hand has been going out of the way to 
poo-poo these very same theories and concepts.

On Moloney and Peak Oil refer to :
Food Security after Peak Oil
APPGOPO 29 - October 2010
Vicki Hird (Friends of the Earth)
Prof. Maurice Moloney (Rothamsted Research)
http://www.vimeo.com/15804133


Last week's forced resignation of European Food Safety Authority chair 
Banati over conflict of interest to do with biotech industry should call 
in to question how 'permission' had been granted in the first place.

Ram



On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:59:42 +0000, Adam Payne wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is a little piece I wrote on the co-option of 'sustainable
> agriculture' by the Biotech industry behind the Rothamsted wheat
> trials. feecback welcome!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The co-option
> of Sustainable Agriculture.
>
>
> The open air trials of
> Genetically Modified (GM) wheat have caused renewed public debate in 
> the last
> few weeks. Scientists, celebrities and civil society groups alike are
> pitching
> their opinions into the arguments around the trials being run by the
> Rothamsted
> Research Institute.
>
>
> One element of the resulting war
> of words that has as yet gone unchallenged is the somewhat bizarre
> claims made
> by the scientists at Rothamsted Research (or by the PR companies they
> employ) to
> be ‘environmentalists’ who have dedicated their lives to working for
> ‘sustainable agriculture’.
>
>
>
> Many of us in the community food
> movement have spent years working for what we believe to be 
> sustainable
> agriculture precisely because it places the health and resilience of 
> people,
> communities and ecosystems before the profit of corporations. And now 
> a small
> group of research scientists, intent on pursuing risky experiments 
> that may
> have irreversible effects to our food systems are taking up the same 
> slogan.
> What is this all about: can genetic modification really be the new 
> front of
> sustainable agriculture, or are they trying to draw on the public
> popularity of
> the term for ulterior ends?
>
> We must remember that attempts by
> power holders to co-opt the language of grassroots movements that 
> challenge
> their interests are common. It is an issue that the movement against 
> climate
> change has struggled with for years. Indeed the recent claim by 
> pro-GM
> scientists that they are ‘environmentalists’ who strive ‘to work with 
> nature,
> not against it’[i]
> are reminiscent in their absurdity to BP’s claims in the 1980’s that 
> their
> ‘supergreen’ petrol ‘caused no pollution to the environment’.
>
>
> The full argument made by the
> scientists is that by engineering a gene that will deter aphids from
> wheat they
> will be able to increase the amount of food that can be grown from 
> the same
> amount of land, without the need for pesticides. They will therefore
> be able to
> increase crop yields whilst doing less damage to wildlife. They even
> go as far
> as to compare their work in the laboratory to that done by peasant
> seed savers
> who, since the first crops were cultivated, have ensured agricultural
> biodiversity by selecting and using seeds from plants most suited to 
> local
> conditions.
>
> The logic behind these arguments
> is not new, even if their attempt to co-opt the language of 
> sustainable
> agriculture is. Claims by pro-GM companies to reduce pesticide use 
> have been
> employed for decades and widely discredited[ii].
> Findings in the US, Canada and India show that both weeds and pests 
> rapidly
> develop immunity to GM technologies resulting in the use of ever 
> increasing
> amounts of herbicides and pesticides[iii].
> Independent research from the US shows that since 1996 the 
> cultivation of GM
> Soy, Corn and Cotton has led to an increase in pesticide use 
> amounting to 55
> million Kilos[iv].
>
>
>
> Closer to home, in the last few
> weeks we have seen the publication by Swiss scientists of data 
> demonstrating
> that the chemical emitted as a pesticide by genetically modified Bt 
> corn
> increases mortality in young ladybird larvae, an insect essential in 
> organic
> pest management.[v]
> This is just another example of how ecosystems can be inadvertently 
> harmed by
> unforeseen problems with GM technologies.
>
>
> This is an experiment in which a
> very small number of powerful stakeholders are taking risks that 
> could
> irreversibly affect the countries food and agriculture. The public
> dressing up of reckless science as
> sustainable agriculture is a call for us all to stand up and voice
> our support
> for real sustainability in our food systems. This means sustainable
> agriculture
> that is sure of its safety for human health; that safeguards the
> insects vital
> to pollination; and that is based on equitable systems of food
> distribution and
> access to land.
>
>
> Mohandas Gandhi, a hero on the
> Indian independence movement, is credited with the famous adage on 
> how
> power-holders respond to grassroots social movements: ‘first they 
> ignore you,
> then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win’. It 
> remains to
> be seen how close the movement for sustainable agriculture is to 
> victory over
> the threat posed by the GM industry, but their attempts to co-opt the
> language
> of the grassroots is a sure sign that they are feeling the pressure.
>
>
> If you oppose the open air trials
> of GM wheat, and want to make a stand for real sustainability in our
> agriculture, join us for the public action against GM wheat trials on
> the 27th May. For
> information about the action see www.taketheflourback.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [i]
> In an open letter  by scientists on
> behalf of Rothamsted Research to ‘take the flour back’ an anti-gm
> movement who
> plan to ‘decontaminate’, or pull up, the GM wheat experiment on the 
> 27th
> may 2012.
>
>
>
>
>
> [ii]
> 
> http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/food-sovereignty/2000-2007/gmcrops2006execsummary.pdf/view
> accessed 16/05/12
>
>
>
>
>
> [iii]
> http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/who_benefits.pdf
> accessed 16/05/12
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [iv]
> 
> http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/food-sovereignty/2000-2007/gmcrops2006execsummary.pdf/view
> accessed 16/05/12
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [v]
> www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/10  accessed 16/05/12