Turning the World into a Desert
Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC (February 6th 2009)
For months the media has been saturated with stories about the economic downturn, lack of confidence in the banking system and rising unemployment. The language used by journalists and commentators has become increasingly shrill, with words like ‘catastrophe’ and ‘unprecedented’ appearing regularly. Everything else, including tackling climate change, seems to have been put on the back-burner. Such a course of action would be truly disastrous because climate change will continue to take its toll on people and the environment if radical measures are not taken now to move away from a global carbon-based economy.
Most people are aware that increases in the frequency and power of hurricanes and typhoons can be attributed to climate change. The devastating scenes from New Orleans after it had been struck by hurricane Katrina are still vivid in people’s minds. Few people are aware that climate change will cause severe droughts in many parts of the world and turn fertile lands in deserts..
In 2006, Eleanor Burke and her colleague at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain wrote that one third of the planet will be desert by 2100 if climate change is not addressed urgently. They used a measure called Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) to predict where moderate to severe droughts will happen. The PDSI figures for moderate droughts at the moment are 25% of the Earth’s land surface. The study found that this will increase to 50% by the end of this century. The findings for severe droughts are even more alarming. These will jump from a current 8% to 40%, and extreme droughts, which affect 3% of the Earth today, will affect 30% of the earth within 100 years. The authors of the report admitted that there are “uncertainties” with their predictions since they only used one climate change model and one future scenario of greenhouse gas emission which is in the moderate-to-severe range. Nevertheless, the head of the Hadley Centre’s climate programme, Vicky Pope, said that the findings were significant.[1]
Africa immediately comes to mind when we think of droughts. There have been crippling droughts in east Africa. Kenya’s Rift Valley has experienced droughts though-out this decade, which left cattle and other animals dead from lack of food and water and humans malnourished and hungry. In 2006, 11 million people in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Tanzania were affected by drought.
It is not only poor countries in Africa which are in danger of having more prolonged droughts. In early February 2009, Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate who has been appointed Secretary of Energy by President Barack Obama, told the Los Angeles Times, that California’s agriculture could be reduced to a dust bowl and its cities disappear unless there is timely action on climate change. [2] Chu pointed out that the warming has caused a marked decline in the Sierra mountains snow-pack. These snow capped mountains act as a natural storage system for water for both agriculture and human consumption. Chu predicted that unless global warming is contained there could be a 90% reduction in the Sierra snow-pack. This would mean disaster for California.
But even this year water is a problem. Bill Diedrich, who is a fourth generation almond grower in California’s Central Valley, expects that many of his trees will not survive the drought. “It is one of the grimmest water situations we’ve ever faced,” he said. It’s an absolute emergency and anything to get the water flowing quickly is needed.”[3] Lester Snow, director of the California Department of Water Resources told reporters that the state faces its most severe drought since the early 1990s. The Central Valley in California, stretching 400 miles, is the world’s largest agricultural area. Half of the salads and vegetables consumed in the U.S. are grown there. Huge areas are covered with almond trees. |If this rich farm-land is lost to agriculture, as Secretary Chu fears, this will be a catastrophe for the U.S. and the World.
Chu is alarmed because he does not think that “the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen (through climate change).” How could they after 8 years of denial that climate change was happening by the administration of former President George W. Bush, He was not alone: A whole swathe of U.S. industries, especially in the petrochemical ones, through the Carbon Club television advertisements, bombarded the American people with anti-climate change propaganda through-out the 1900s? In 2008, Exxon was still bankrolling climate sceptics.
Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC
County Meath, Ireland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]
[2] Suzanne Goldenberg, “California dust bowl warning: energy chief says cities will perish unless action is taken,” The Guardian, February 5th 2009, pages 26 and 27.
[3] Dan Glaister, “It’s an absolute emergency says farmers on the frontline,” The Guardian, February 5, 2009, page 27.
Fr. Sean - Letters from Ireland
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Fr. Sean - Letters from Ireland
by Oscar » Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:10 am
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9964
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Fr. Sean - Golden Rice/Corporate Control of Food - Feb.09
by Oscar » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:42 pm
Two articles on the GMOs and the Study Week organised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome in May....Fr. Sean
------------------------------------
Golden Rice
Fr. Sean McDonagh SSC (February 20th 2009)
How could anyone oppose crop that promises to deliver untold benefits to poor people? This the cri de coer (cry from heart) will be voiced by Dr. Igno Potrykus during the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week on Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development (151-19 May). In his abstract “My Experience With Golden Rice,” he claims that onerous regulatory processes in many countries have slowed down access to this Vitamin A enhanced rice for the past 10 years. In his estimation the fact that it has taken more than 10 years for this genetically engineered rice to complete the regulatory process has led to the death of 400,000 people. He alleges that, “there is probably no scientific justification for the world-wide established regulatory system which is responsible for such damage.” This is quite a generalisation but at superficial reading of the situation many unbiased people might be inclined to agree with Dr. Potrykus’s comments on golden rice. However, once one digs a little beneath the surface things appear to be different.
“Foodwatch”, a German non-government organisation, raises serious questions about the Golden Rice. The rice is modified to generate carotenoids which the human body synthesizes into vitamin A. They claim that the serious questions which have been raised about the quality and safety of the product have not yet been answered. Even data about how much carotenoid remains in the rice after it has been cooked or stored have not been made available to the public. In the absence of such basic data it is difficult to judge whether this product is helpful or harmful to human beings and the environment “Foodwatch” points out that, while Dr. Potrykus claims that the product meets the highest safety standards, he is actively campaigning for a broad loosening of the regulatory process. In fact one of the goals of the Pontifical Academy’s Study Week is to “explore ways how to change regulations such that it enables use of the technology for the benefit of the poor, without compromising safety……”
The Indian Scientists Dr. Vandana Shive dismisses “ Genetically Engineered ‘Vitamin A Rice’ ( as) A Blind Approach to a Blindness Prevention. She points out that there are many other sources of Vitamin A such as eggs, chicken, meat, milk and butter. Betacarotene, the vitamin A precursors, is also found in green leafy vegetables such as spinach, carrots and pumpkin. It is also available in fruits such as mangos. She makes the point that concurs with my own experience during the years I spent working in Mindanao with the T’boli people, that the way to achieve lower-cost, accessible and safer alternatives to genetically engineered rice is to increase biodiversity in agriculture.” She points out that a shift to rice and irrigation will have serious consequences for water conservation in communities where water is often scarce. Cultivating Vitamin a rice will lead to mining water from aquifers or building of large irrigation dams with associated environmental problems such as salinization and water logging. Sourcing Vitamin A from indigenous green vegetables and fruit is better both for humans and the environment. Furthermore, eating Vitamin A rice at every meal is both monotonous and not a balance died. Why shouldn’t the poor have access to a balanced diet which would includes cereals, root crops, fruit and meat?
Other reputable scientists dispute Potrykus’s claims about the safety of Vitamin A rice. In a letter to Professor Russell of Tufts University in February 2009, more than 20 scientists, including the well-known geneticist David Suzuki, criticised the feeding trials on golden rice which were being carried out at the university. The letter stated, “ we wish to remind you that the variety of Golden Rice used in these experiments (GR2) is inadequately described in terms of biological and biochemical characterisation on the Clinical Trials website and indeed anywhere else in the publicly available literature and has woefully inadequate preclinical evaluation. It is a genetically modified product which has not been shown to be distinctive, uniform and stable over time. It has never been through a regulatory/approval process anywhere in the world…. More specifically, our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested on animals and there is an extensive medical literature showing that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are both toxic and cause birth defects. In these circumstances the use of human subjects (including children who are already suffering illness as a result of vitamin A deficiency) for GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable. The three Projects listed breach the Nuremberg Code/medical ethics code on a number of counts, and we urge you to call them to a halt immediately.”
Finally, golden rice is being used by corporations as a battering ram to get support for GMOs globally under the cloak of helping the poor. In fact corporate controlled GM crops would lead to a disaster in food production globally.
Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC
County Meath, Ireland
========================================
Corporate Control of Food
Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (February 22, 2009).
The geneticists and biotechnologists who are ‘using’ the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week in May 2009 to demand reduction in the regulatory regimes appear to be living in a parallel universe from many other crop scientists.
Nowhere is there better evidence of this, than in the introduction to the paper for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week, “Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development,” written by Dr. Potrykus In Dr. Potrykus world just about everyone is conspiring against GMOs. He claims that the current “regulatory regime (established without any scientific justification) prevents using the technology to the benefit of the poor.” He also believes that the (negative) “political climate surrounding GMOs which has spread from Europe to the rest of the world.” has led to “GMO-over-regulation which makes the use of GMOs for the public sector inaccessible for cost and time reasons.” Finally, he states that there is “financial support from governments to professional anti-GMO lobby groups.” No one appears have told him that GM crops are being produced by transnational corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta who have powerful political allies in Washington, Brussels and every capital city in the world,
A very different scenario is painted by the journalist Andrew Pollack in an article in The New York Times,(Feb. 19th 2009) where 26. scientists write that biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. They are accusing biotech companies of preventing university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of GM crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions," the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. The (U.S) E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.
These 26 corn insect specialists have withheld their names because they fear being cut off from research grants by the companies. The problem, according to the scientists is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honour company patent rights and environmental regulations. These agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes.
While the university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the biotech corporation. companies. At times permission is denied. On other occasions the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published.
One scientists, Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who has signed the statement told the author, “If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research.”
These scientists are not opposed to GM technology. “Rather, they say, the industry's chokehold on research means that they cannot supply some information to farmers about how best to grow the crops. And, they say, the data being provided to government regulators is being "unduly limited."”
William S. Niebur, the vice president in charge of crop research at the biotech company Du Pont defended his company’s policies on the grounds that they were following government regulations. Monsanto and Syngenta spokespersons made similar robust defense of their policies.
However E.P.A. spokesman, Dale Kemery, said on February 17th 2009, that the government required only management of the crops' insect resistance and that any other contractual restrictions were put in place by the companies.
Mark A. Boetel, associate professor of entomology at North Dakota State University, said that before genetically engineered sugar beet seeds were sold to farmers for the first time last year, he wanted to test how the crop would react to an insecticide treatment. But the university could not come to an agreement with Monsanto and Syngenta, the companies responsible, over issues such as the right to publish research findings.
One of the most pernicious developments in recent years was highlighted by Dr. Shields of Cornell who points out that financing for agricultural research had gradually shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists at universities dependent on financing or technical co-operation from the big seed companies. "People are afraid of being blacklisted," he said. "If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can't do your job."
This is the real world of corporate control of crop research, not the fanciful world being portrayed by Dr. Potrykus.
Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC
County Meath, Ireland
------------------------------------
Golden Rice
Fr. Sean McDonagh SSC (February 20th 2009)
How could anyone oppose crop that promises to deliver untold benefits to poor people? This the cri de coer (cry from heart) will be voiced by Dr. Igno Potrykus during the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week on Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development (151-19 May). In his abstract “My Experience With Golden Rice,” he claims that onerous regulatory processes in many countries have slowed down access to this Vitamin A enhanced rice for the past 10 years. In his estimation the fact that it has taken more than 10 years for this genetically engineered rice to complete the regulatory process has led to the death of 400,000 people. He alleges that, “there is probably no scientific justification for the world-wide established regulatory system which is responsible for such damage.” This is quite a generalisation but at superficial reading of the situation many unbiased people might be inclined to agree with Dr. Potrykus’s comments on golden rice. However, once one digs a little beneath the surface things appear to be different.
“Foodwatch”, a German non-government organisation, raises serious questions about the Golden Rice. The rice is modified to generate carotenoids which the human body synthesizes into vitamin A. They claim that the serious questions which have been raised about the quality and safety of the product have not yet been answered. Even data about how much carotenoid remains in the rice after it has been cooked or stored have not been made available to the public. In the absence of such basic data it is difficult to judge whether this product is helpful or harmful to human beings and the environment “Foodwatch” points out that, while Dr. Potrykus claims that the product meets the highest safety standards, he is actively campaigning for a broad loosening of the regulatory process. In fact one of the goals of the Pontifical Academy’s Study Week is to “explore ways how to change regulations such that it enables use of the technology for the benefit of the poor, without compromising safety……”
The Indian Scientists Dr. Vandana Shive dismisses “ Genetically Engineered ‘Vitamin A Rice’ ( as) A Blind Approach to a Blindness Prevention. She points out that there are many other sources of Vitamin A such as eggs, chicken, meat, milk and butter. Betacarotene, the vitamin A precursors, is also found in green leafy vegetables such as spinach, carrots and pumpkin. It is also available in fruits such as mangos. She makes the point that concurs with my own experience during the years I spent working in Mindanao with the T’boli people, that the way to achieve lower-cost, accessible and safer alternatives to genetically engineered rice is to increase biodiversity in agriculture.” She points out that a shift to rice and irrigation will have serious consequences for water conservation in communities where water is often scarce. Cultivating Vitamin a rice will lead to mining water from aquifers or building of large irrigation dams with associated environmental problems such as salinization and water logging. Sourcing Vitamin A from indigenous green vegetables and fruit is better both for humans and the environment. Furthermore, eating Vitamin A rice at every meal is both monotonous and not a balance died. Why shouldn’t the poor have access to a balanced diet which would includes cereals, root crops, fruit and meat?
Other reputable scientists dispute Potrykus’s claims about the safety of Vitamin A rice. In a letter to Professor Russell of Tufts University in February 2009, more than 20 scientists, including the well-known geneticist David Suzuki, criticised the feeding trials on golden rice which were being carried out at the university. The letter stated, “ we wish to remind you that the variety of Golden Rice used in these experiments (GR2) is inadequately described in terms of biological and biochemical characterisation on the Clinical Trials website and indeed anywhere else in the publicly available literature and has woefully inadequate preclinical evaluation. It is a genetically modified product which has not been shown to be distinctive, uniform and stable over time. It has never been through a regulatory/approval process anywhere in the world…. More specifically, our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested on animals and there is an extensive medical literature showing that retinoids that can be derived from beta carotene are both toxic and cause birth defects. In these circumstances the use of human subjects (including children who are already suffering illness as a result of vitamin A deficiency) for GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable. The three Projects listed breach the Nuremberg Code/medical ethics code on a number of counts, and we urge you to call them to a halt immediately.”
Finally, golden rice is being used by corporations as a battering ram to get support for GMOs globally under the cloak of helping the poor. In fact corporate controlled GM crops would lead to a disaster in food production globally.
Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC
County Meath, Ireland
========================================
Corporate Control of Food
Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (February 22, 2009).
The geneticists and biotechnologists who are ‘using’ the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week in May 2009 to demand reduction in the regulatory regimes appear to be living in a parallel universe from many other crop scientists.
Nowhere is there better evidence of this, than in the introduction to the paper for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study-Week, “Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development,” written by Dr. Potrykus In Dr. Potrykus world just about everyone is conspiring against GMOs. He claims that the current “regulatory regime (established without any scientific justification) prevents using the technology to the benefit of the poor.” He also believes that the (negative) “political climate surrounding GMOs which has spread from Europe to the rest of the world.” has led to “GMO-over-regulation which makes the use of GMOs for the public sector inaccessible for cost and time reasons.” Finally, he states that there is “financial support from governments to professional anti-GMO lobby groups.” No one appears have told him that GM crops are being produced by transnational corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta who have powerful political allies in Washington, Brussels and every capital city in the world,
A very different scenario is painted by the journalist Andrew Pollack in an article in The New York Times,(Feb. 19th 2009) where 26. scientists write that biotechnology seed companies are thwarting research. They are accusing biotech companies of preventing university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of GM crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions," the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. The (U.S) E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.
These 26 corn insect specialists have withheld their names because they fear being cut off from research grants by the companies. The problem, according to the scientists is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honour company patent rights and environmental regulations. These agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes.
While the university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the biotech corporation. companies. At times permission is denied. On other occasions the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published.
One scientists, Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who has signed the statement told the author, “If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research.”
These scientists are not opposed to GM technology. “Rather, they say, the industry's chokehold on research means that they cannot supply some information to farmers about how best to grow the crops. And, they say, the data being provided to government regulators is being "unduly limited."”
William S. Niebur, the vice president in charge of crop research at the biotech company Du Pont defended his company’s policies on the grounds that they were following government regulations. Monsanto and Syngenta spokespersons made similar robust defense of their policies.
However E.P.A. spokesman, Dale Kemery, said on February 17th 2009, that the government required only management of the crops' insect resistance and that any other contractual restrictions were put in place by the companies.
Mark A. Boetel, associate professor of entomology at North Dakota State University, said that before genetically engineered sugar beet seeds were sold to farmers for the first time last year, he wanted to test how the crop would react to an insecticide treatment. But the university could not come to an agreement with Monsanto and Syngenta, the companies responsible, over issues such as the right to publish research findings.
One of the most pernicious developments in recent years was highlighted by Dr. Shields of Cornell who points out that financing for agricultural research had gradually shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists at universities dependent on financing or technical co-operation from the big seed companies. "People are afraid of being blacklisted," he said. "If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can't do your job."
This is the real world of corporate control of crop research, not the fanciful world being portrayed by Dr. Potrykus.
Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC
County Meath, Ireland
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9964
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Why is the British Government Promoting GM Crops?
by Oscar » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:06 pm
Why is the British Government Promoting GM Crops?
Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (March 21, 2009)
Why do governments find it so difficult to listen when citizens give clear answers? In Ireland it happens around European Union Referenda. The people voted No to the Maastricht Treaty. Rather than accept this verdict the government insisted on putting the treaty to the people a second time, in order to get the ‘right’ answer. We are scheduled to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty in the autumn, presumably, in order, once again, to get the ‘right’ answer.
In Britain it happens around GM Food. In the late 1990s, New Labour led by Prime Minister Blair, Biotech corporations and some scientists sang paeans of praise for GM crops. GM food was touted as the solution to world hunger and a variety of diseases. The citizens, especially women shoppers, said: No! We do not want GM food! Instead of honouring that decision, Gordon Browne’s government has commissioned a new study, according to Andrew Grice writing in The Independent (March 18th 2009). [1] Presumably they are hoping that the study will give the right answer, that GM crops are safe and that they will play a significant role in solving world hunger.
We are told that the study will be headed by the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, John Beddington and that it will be conducted by the Foresight Institute, a science and technology think-tank which studies long-term challenges for the government. While the study’s remit includes how to feed 9 billion people by 2050, there is no mention of GM crops. However, the Minister of Farming and the Environment, Jane Kennedy told The Independent that “the group’s work would include the potential for GM crops and food.”
Why do we need a new study when there is a plethora of good studies which have refuted claims by the Biotech companies that GM crops will play a significant role in alleviating global hunger. In April 2008, a report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was published. It was a very extensive report involving the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Health Organisation, agronomists from many government agencies, civic society groups and scientific bodies. More than 400 scientists were involved in the research which took four years to complete. It maintained that GM crops were controversial and that they will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenge of climate change, the loss of biodiversity, food security, poverty and hunger. It did not rule out a role for GM crops in the future, but highlighted the problems which the current regime of patenting crops has had for farmers and researchers.
The report maintained that the most pressing agricultural need is to support small-scale farmers who operate in diverse ecosystems. These farmers need better access to education and more appropriate technology designed to improve farming in a particular location. Micro-credit schemes are needed to protect farmers from loan-sharks. Robert Watson, the director of IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, responded to a question from a reporter with The Daily Mail: “Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty?” with the words, “I would argue, no.” [2]
In November 2008, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) produced a document entitled, Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. The researchers found that, contrary to claims that the only way to increase agricultural output is through modernising agriculture, organic farming holds the key to food security in Africa.
In February 2009, Friends of the Earth International published a substantial report on Food Sovereignty; Who benefits from GM crops? [3] It concluded that, “GM crops cannot, and are unlikely to ever contribute to poverty reduction, global food security or sustainable farming.”
Firstly, hunger is chiefly attributed to poverty, not lack of food production.
Secondly, the vast bulk of GM crops are fed to animals, not to the world’s poor.
Thirdly, GM crops do not increase yield and they often lead to a greater use of pesticide.
Fourthly, the real beneficiaries of GM crops are the biotech corporations who have make huge profits from selling expensive seeds and pesticides.
Finally, what is John Beddington’s position on GM crops?
In reply to a question: “Is Prince Charles right about GM crops?” He answered: “not entirely!” GM offers one of many technologies which one day could play an important role in ensuring food security for a growing population.” [4] I guess that the new study will come up with the ‘right’ answers!
------------------------
[1] Andrew Grice, “Government launches bid to ally fears over GM food.” The Independent, March 18th 2009, page 4.
[2] Seán Poulter, “GM food ’not the answer’ to world’ food shortage crisis, says report,” The Daily Mail, April 16th 2008.
[3] Who benefits from gm crops?: feeding the biotech giants, not the world’s poor, Friends of the Earth International, PO Box 19199, 1000 GD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[4] www.journalisted/com/article?id=79375 (downloaded on March 20th 2009)
By Fr. Sean McDonagh, SCC - County Meath, Ireland
Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (March 21, 2009)
Why do governments find it so difficult to listen when citizens give clear answers? In Ireland it happens around European Union Referenda. The people voted No to the Maastricht Treaty. Rather than accept this verdict the government insisted on putting the treaty to the people a second time, in order to get the ‘right’ answer. We are scheduled to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty in the autumn, presumably, in order, once again, to get the ‘right’ answer.
In Britain it happens around GM Food. In the late 1990s, New Labour led by Prime Minister Blair, Biotech corporations and some scientists sang paeans of praise for GM crops. GM food was touted as the solution to world hunger and a variety of diseases. The citizens, especially women shoppers, said: No! We do not want GM food! Instead of honouring that decision, Gordon Browne’s government has commissioned a new study, according to Andrew Grice writing in The Independent (March 18th 2009). [1] Presumably they are hoping that the study will give the right answer, that GM crops are safe and that they will play a significant role in solving world hunger.
We are told that the study will be headed by the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, John Beddington and that it will be conducted by the Foresight Institute, a science and technology think-tank which studies long-term challenges for the government. While the study’s remit includes how to feed 9 billion people by 2050, there is no mention of GM crops. However, the Minister of Farming and the Environment, Jane Kennedy told The Independent that “the group’s work would include the potential for GM crops and food.”
Why do we need a new study when there is a plethora of good studies which have refuted claims by the Biotech companies that GM crops will play a significant role in alleviating global hunger. In April 2008, a report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was published. It was a very extensive report involving the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Health Organisation, agronomists from many government agencies, civic society groups and scientific bodies. More than 400 scientists were involved in the research which took four years to complete. It maintained that GM crops were controversial and that they will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenge of climate change, the loss of biodiversity, food security, poverty and hunger. It did not rule out a role for GM crops in the future, but highlighted the problems which the current regime of patenting crops has had for farmers and researchers.
The report maintained that the most pressing agricultural need is to support small-scale farmers who operate in diverse ecosystems. These farmers need better access to education and more appropriate technology designed to improve farming in a particular location. Micro-credit schemes are needed to protect farmers from loan-sharks. Robert Watson, the director of IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, responded to a question from a reporter with The Daily Mail: “Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty?” with the words, “I would argue, no.” [2]
In November 2008, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) produced a document entitled, Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. The researchers found that, contrary to claims that the only way to increase agricultural output is through modernising agriculture, organic farming holds the key to food security in Africa.
In February 2009, Friends of the Earth International published a substantial report on Food Sovereignty; Who benefits from GM crops? [3] It concluded that, “GM crops cannot, and are unlikely to ever contribute to poverty reduction, global food security or sustainable farming.”
Firstly, hunger is chiefly attributed to poverty, not lack of food production.
Secondly, the vast bulk of GM crops are fed to animals, not to the world’s poor.
Thirdly, GM crops do not increase yield and they often lead to a greater use of pesticide.
Fourthly, the real beneficiaries of GM crops are the biotech corporations who have make huge profits from selling expensive seeds and pesticides.
Finally, what is John Beddington’s position on GM crops?
In reply to a question: “Is Prince Charles right about GM crops?” He answered: “not entirely!” GM offers one of many technologies which one day could play an important role in ensuring food security for a growing population.” [4] I guess that the new study will come up with the ‘right’ answers!
------------------------
[1] Andrew Grice, “Government launches bid to ally fears over GM food.” The Independent, March 18th 2009, page 4.
[2] Seán Poulter, “GM food ’not the answer’ to world’ food shortage crisis, says report,” The Daily Mail, April 16th 2008.
[3] Who benefits from gm crops?: feeding the biotech giants, not the world’s poor, Friends of the Earth International, PO Box 19199, 1000 GD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[4] www.journalisted/com/article?id=79375 (downloaded on March 20th 2009)
By Fr. Sean McDonagh, SCC - County Meath, Ireland
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9964
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
GM Crops Benefit Rich Corporations, Not the Poor
by Oscar » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:09 pm
GM Crops Benefit Rich Corporations, Not the Poor
By Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (March 22,2009)
On Monday, 18 May 2009, Matin Qaim will lecture on Benefits of GM crops for the poor at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study Week on “Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development” in Rome. In his abstract he writes: “Among these benefits are insecticide savings, higher effective yields through reduced crop losses, and net revenue gains, in spite of higher seed prices.”
Almost all of these claims are contested in the Friends of the Earth study: Food Sovereignty: who benefits from gm crops? Feeding the biotech giants, not the world’s poor. The Friends of the Earth study refutes the claim that GM crops lead to major reductions in pesticide use. In Argentina overall glyphosate use more than tripled from 65.5 million litres in 1999/2000 to over 200 million litres in 2005/6. In 2007, a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) one of the most damaging weeds in the world had infested 120,000 hectares of the prime cropland in the country. Farmers are now using more toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine to control weeds. It is estimated that 25 million litres of herbicides will be needed each year to control resistant weeds which, in turn, will increase overall production costs dramatically. [1]
The claims for higher yield from GM crops are also disputed. The Friends of the Earth study states that “none of the GM crops on the market are modified for increased yield potential.” Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture admits that “genetic engineering has not increased the yield potential of any commercialized GM crop.” They point to a University of Nebraska study which attributes a 6% yield drag directly to unintended effects of the genetic modification process used to create Roundup Ready soybeans. [2]
The one certainty about GM crops is that they are making massive profits for biotech corporations such as Monsanto. The silence on this crucial matter from all who will speak at the Pontifical Academy event is staggering. Monsanto is the largest seed firm in the world. It now has almost a monopoly on biotech “traits” incorporated into GM seeds such as herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). It also markets the Roundup pesticides. Because of this extraordinary control Monsanto’s revenue is expected to increase by 74% between 2007 and 2010. In money terms that involves a jump from $8.6 billion to $14.9 billion.
Despite these profits, seed prices have risen dramatically. The average price of soybean seed has increased by 50% in the past two years in the U.S. The company is expected to roll out a more costly version of their patented Roundup Ready soybeans (called RoundUp Ready 2) in 2009. This will further increase costs for farmers. Monsanto is also raising the GM corn seeds by $90 to $100 a bag in 2009. The Friends of the Earth Report claims that “the company (Monsanto) has also raised its trait prices for its less expensive single and double-stack corn seed more sharply than for triple-stack corn in order to move as many customers to triple stacks as possible, creating a captive customer base for the 2010 launch of its SmartStax octo-stack product. “ [3]
The retail price of Monsanto’s glyphosate, Roundup has increased by 134% in less than two years. The revenue from Roundup in 2006 was $2.3 billion dollars so the further increase has brought hundreds of millions of dollars into Monsanto’s coffers. A similar pattern has emerged from Argentina. At the end of 2007, the increased demand from agrochemicals coincided with a substantial rise in the price of Roundup when compared to the price of herbicides which are used on conventional crops.
The virtual monopoly position enjoyed by Monsanto has further negative consequences for U.S. farmers. Monsanto are now incorporating Roundup Ready traits into maize which until now had only been modified to be resistant to insect pests (Bt crops). Now the farmers find these crops have herbicide resistant traits as well. This “trait penetration” strategy means higher profits from selling the seeds and the herbicide. It also copper-fastens the farmers’ dependence on GM traits and Roundup.
GM has made a fortune for biotech companies. Monsanto’s monopoly position has meant that it can increase both the price of its GM seeds and herbicide even when food prices are increasing rapidly, thus pushing more and more people into poverty. They are also stacking traits in order to make more money. How this technology which is owned by corporations can help the poor is beyond me.
[1] Food sovereignty. Who benefits from gm crops? Feeding the biotech giants, not the world’s poor, Friends of the Earth International, Issue 116, February 2009, PO Box 19199, 1000GD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. info@foei.org.> page 7.
[2] Ibid page 7.
[3] Ibid page 6.
By Fr. Sean McDonagh, SCC - County Meath, Ireland
By Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC (March 22,2009)
On Monday, 18 May 2009, Matin Qaim will lecture on Benefits of GM crops for the poor at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Study Week on “Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development” in Rome. In his abstract he writes: “Among these benefits are insecticide savings, higher effective yields through reduced crop losses, and net revenue gains, in spite of higher seed prices.”
Almost all of these claims are contested in the Friends of the Earth study: Food Sovereignty: who benefits from gm crops? Feeding the biotech giants, not the world’s poor. The Friends of the Earth study refutes the claim that GM crops lead to major reductions in pesticide use. In Argentina overall glyphosate use more than tripled from 65.5 million litres in 1999/2000 to over 200 million litres in 2005/6. In 2007, a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) one of the most damaging weeds in the world had infested 120,000 hectares of the prime cropland in the country. Farmers are now using more toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine to control weeds. It is estimated that 25 million litres of herbicides will be needed each year to control resistant weeds which, in turn, will increase overall production costs dramatically. [1]
The claims for higher yield from GM crops are also disputed. The Friends of the Earth study states that “none of the GM crops on the market are modified for increased yield potential.” Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture admits that “genetic engineering has not increased the yield potential of any commercialized GM crop.” They point to a University of Nebraska study which attributes a 6% yield drag directly to unintended effects of the genetic modification process used to create Roundup Ready soybeans. [2]
The one certainty about GM crops is that they are making massive profits for biotech corporations such as Monsanto. The silence on this crucial matter from all who will speak at the Pontifical Academy event is staggering. Monsanto is the largest seed firm in the world. It now has almost a monopoly on biotech “traits” incorporated into GM seeds such as herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). It also markets the Roundup pesticides. Because of this extraordinary control Monsanto’s revenue is expected to increase by 74% between 2007 and 2010. In money terms that involves a jump from $8.6 billion to $14.9 billion.
Despite these profits, seed prices have risen dramatically. The average price of soybean seed has increased by 50% in the past two years in the U.S. The company is expected to roll out a more costly version of their patented Roundup Ready soybeans (called RoundUp Ready 2) in 2009. This will further increase costs for farmers. Monsanto is also raising the GM corn seeds by $90 to $100 a bag in 2009. The Friends of the Earth Report claims that “the company (Monsanto) has also raised its trait prices for its less expensive single and double-stack corn seed more sharply than for triple-stack corn in order to move as many customers to triple stacks as possible, creating a captive customer base for the 2010 launch of its SmartStax octo-stack product. “ [3]
The retail price of Monsanto’s glyphosate, Roundup has increased by 134% in less than two years. The revenue from Roundup in 2006 was $2.3 billion dollars so the further increase has brought hundreds of millions of dollars into Monsanto’s coffers. A similar pattern has emerged from Argentina. At the end of 2007, the increased demand from agrochemicals coincided with a substantial rise in the price of Roundup when compared to the price of herbicides which are used on conventional crops.
The virtual monopoly position enjoyed by Monsanto has further negative consequences for U.S. farmers. Monsanto are now incorporating Roundup Ready traits into maize which until now had only been modified to be resistant to insect pests (Bt crops). Now the farmers find these crops have herbicide resistant traits as well. This “trait penetration” strategy means higher profits from selling the seeds and the herbicide. It also copper-fastens the farmers’ dependence on GM traits and Roundup.
GM has made a fortune for biotech companies. Monsanto’s monopoly position has meant that it can increase both the price of its GM seeds and herbicide even when food prices are increasing rapidly, thus pushing more and more people into poverty. They are also stacking traits in order to make more money. How this technology which is owned by corporations can help the poor is beyond me.
[1] Food sovereignty. Who benefits from gm crops? Feeding the biotech giants, not the world’s poor, Friends of the Earth International, Issue 116, February 2009, PO Box 19199, 1000GD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. info@foei.org.> page 7.
[2] Ibid page 7.
[3] Ibid page 6.
By Fr. Sean McDonagh, SCC - County Meath, Ireland
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9964
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests