Brown Pushes EU to Allow More GMO Animal Feeds
June 20th, 2008Grim.
Via: Independent:
Gordon Brown is calling on the European Union to relax its rules on importing genetically modified animal feed in a further sign of the Government’s willingness to embrace the controversial technology. Mr Brown believes GM crops are vital to the attempt to cut spiralling food prices.
His proposal comes the day after The Independent revealed that the Environment minister, Phil Woolas, has held private talks with the biotechnology industry about relaxing Britain’s policy on the use of GM crops.
The Prime Minister also signalled that he is happy to see a public debate over whether GM crops should be grown commercially in Britain to reduce global prices by boosting production. His spokesman said last night: “His view is that we must be guided by the scientific evidence.”
Ministers who support GM crops believe there are no convincing arguments against them. They want to turn the tables on environmental groups who campaigned successfully against widespread GM production in Britain during the last government review in 2004. Although there is no ban, the ministers want the rules changed in light of the food crisis, as no GM crops are currently being grown commercially in this country.
At a two-day summit in Brussels which began last night, EU leaders were urged to “bite the bullet” and embrace GM products as a solution to rocketing food prices. The plea came from Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. Several EU countries, led by France, are unconvinced that “Frankenstein foods” are safe.
At the meeting, Mr Brown suggested allowing more GM animal food into the EU. The move may raise safety fears because contaminated feed was blamed for the outbreak in Britain of BSE in the 1990s.
The Commission fears that Europe could run short of animal feed because of its strict licensing regime, which could further raise food prices. Europe is heavily dependent on imports as it does not have enough land to both farm animals and grow the feed they need. The other elements of the Brown plan are a global trade deal; further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; a review of the role to be played by biofuels; and a plan to use aid for poor nations for new technology farm products.
The Independent revealed yesterday that ministers believe Britain’s cautious approach to GM should be relaxed because of current global food problems. But the Government’s rethink provoked a furious backlash from opponents of GM crops.
Tricia O’Rourke, a spokeswoman for Oxfam, said: “The present food crisis needs more than a technology fix. More focus is needed on sustainable technology that 400 million smallholders can use to improve their productivity.”
Caroline Lucas, a Green Party MEP, added: “There are no guarantees that GM crops are safe, sustainable or the solution to the problem of hunger. Over 70 per cent of citizens and several governments in the EU have expressed concerns over the negative effects that such crops may have on human health, biodiversity and the environment.”
Friends of the Earth accused ministers of falling for “hype” by GM firms. Its GM campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: “GM crops do not increase yields or tackle hunger and poverty.”
In response, a Downing Street said: “As Phil Woolas has reiterated, it is… our position that safety is the top priority and that GM crops are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, based entirely on the science.”
I saw a presentation by Jeffrey Smith a few months ago (the author of “Seeds of Deception” and “Genetic Roulette”), and the director for Organic Valley, which hosted the talk, quite generously bought everyone who attended copies of both books. At the time I thought, “hey thanks, but I already know GM foods are bad, do I really need to read a whole book on it?” But since it was a gift I did, and I was suitably impressed by just how BAD this situation really is.
Controlling the distribution of food is shaping up to be every bit as profitable as controlling the distribution of oil has been. For this reason only these food industrialists have bent all the power of Sauron’s Eye toward getting their creations into the mainstream with no unbiased testing whatsoever. Because once they’re out there, they know it’s too late to backpedal. But I urge everyone to spend just 10 minutes leafing through “Genetic Roulette”, which lays out about 57 specific, well-documented concerns–each in its own brief, 2-page, easy to browse format–as to the safety of GM foods on our health and planet.
For instance, one of the most impressive arguments from Smith’s lecture was how every genetic string has a kind of “off” switch in its coding. The “off” switch is what prevents cross-pollination between separate species. It, for instance, prevents you from truly Becoming One with that meal of chicken and peas you just ate. So, as Smith explained, if you really want to cross those specie-boundaries, you first have to remove the off-switch. And there’s no way to put it back again. Now those genes can cross whenever and wherever the conditions are right. Industry scientists assured that these things get eliminated by stomach acids, but of course that’s not entirely the case.
Studies are beginning to reveal that human stomach-wall cells, GI tract cells, etc are showing fundmental changes just from ingestion-contact with, say, the GM corn oil that’s in those Doritos. When a leading GM researcher in the UK becamed convinced of such concerns he immediately tried to speak out–and was swiftly slapped with a legal muzzle. After several months he was able to get it lifted, and almost single handedly turned the EU against GM foods overnight. As Smith relates, this then is precisely what the industry has sought to avoid in the US. And their strategy is simple: they spend countless man-hours and dollars making sure the term “genetically modified” never appears in the press. No matter what an article or program says otherwise, good or bad for the crop or food in question, the term GM is being banished from the conversation altogether. In this way people will learn not to distinguish such foods and in any way unusual. So people can openly discuss the rise of soy allergies, for instance, and never broach the question “what type of soy…real or fake?”
I apolagize for the long comment here, but as Jeffrey Smith advised in the lecture, “This is actually a very easy war to win, you just have to educate people about the problems with GM foods. Because once they know, they’ll stop buying them, and then the food manufacturers will stop using GM ingredients. Because at the end of the day, there are really no benefits in using GMOs for anyone but the seed creators. Even the farmers aren’t realizing any significant benefits.”
And I believe he’s right. Just look at what an uphill struggle it’s become for the Monsantos of the world in the EU. They’re now spending billions of dollars trying to force their seeds down people’s throats. By contrast it’s been relatively clear sailing in the US, where they’ve largely kept the discussion from even being brought to the table in the first place.