the co-option of sustainable agriculture

Adam Payne AdamPayne_5 at hotmail.com
Fri May 18 15:59:42 BST 2012


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







 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20120518/a637f575/attachment.html>


More information about the Diggers350 mailing list