Save our Seeds

The UK General Election campaigns are very much underway. Three issues have dominated the election so far, the debate around funding for the National Health Service (NHS), immigration and of course, the economy. As The Independent newspaper reported, the matter of GM is being left until after the election [1]. So, where do the parties stand on genetically modified (GM) food in general? Despite the mostly anti-GM British public, the two largest parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are mostly in agreement on GM [2].

CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Owen Paterson (the former Secretary of State for environment, food and rural affairs) caused a political storm a couple of years ago when he stated his outright support for GM, as well as openly referring to anti-GM activists and other environmentalists as ‘the Greenblob’ and ‘wicked’. He argued that as a result of the anti-GM movement, which has prevented the introduction of ‘Golden Rice’ (a GM grain) around the world, ‘over the last 15 years…7 million children have gone blind or died’ – a claim wholly without evidence [3]. The remarks saw a fellow Conservative MP accuse him of being an ‘industry puppet’, despite this, it seems that Prime-Minister (PM) and Conservative Party leader supports Paterson’s position on GM. He even stated that he was ‘perfectly happy’ to feed his family GM food [4]. The PM office further stated that there is ‘no credible basis’ for the claims that GM crops were not safe [5]. More recently, Paterson’s successor Elizabeth Truss has argued in favour of the introduction of GM foods because they are more ‘eco-friendly’. This suggests that Conservative policy on GM is not going to change any time soon. The Party Manifesto simply states, ‘we will support a science-led approach to GM-crops’.

LABOUR PARTY

The Labour Party are largely in agreement with the Conservatives. In their Feeding the Nation report (2013) it is stated that biotechnology ‘can be one of the tools used to ensure better resilience in the UK food chain, and to reduce environmental damage’ [6]. A further statement reiterated that ‘GM may have a role in UK food security and environmental protection’ before going on to say that ‘public views – informed by science – must also be heard’. This suggests some recognition of public concern about GM, while at the same time, the common assumption that once the public comes to understand the science they will have no reason to oppose GM. The current shadow secretary for environment, food and rural affairs stated that ‘GM foods are a scientific issue’ thus again failing to grasp the environmental and socio-economic concerns around GM. The matter is entirely overlooked in the party manifesto.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (LIB DEMS)

The Lib Dems – the junior coalition partner in the last government – although have no statement on GM in their party manifesto, previous statements suggest that they are largely in agreement with the other two parties on GM. In 2013 Lady Parminter (the Lib Dem spokesperson on food, the environment and rural affairs) said in the House of Lords (the British second chamber) that Paterson was ‘cheer leading for the GM industry’. Despite that, she further stated that ‘Lib Dems are not opposed to GM’ and that it ‘should be a science-led decision’ [7]. In 2010 The Guardian remarked on how the Lib Dems ‘dodge the issue’ of GM completely by simply asking for ‘another debate’, this seems to be the case again in 2015 [8].

GREEN PARTY

There is no ambiguity in the Green Party manifesto. They state in no uncertain terms that ‘genetic engineering will not solve the problems created by industrialised agriculture and it may add to them’ [9]. They explain how GM crops simply ‘secure large profits for a few multinational companies’ and that ‘the use of GM crops in poor countries has proved disastrous to farming communities’. If elected, the Greens promise to ‘uphold the rights of consumers, farmers and local authorities to choose GM-free food and to establish GM-free zones’.

SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY (SNP)

Although there is no mention of GM in the manifesto, it is thought that the SNP share this anti-GM stance with the Greens. The SNP are concerned about, what they call ‘Downing Street’s pro-GM agenda’, which represents yet another divide between Scotland and the Westminster government [10]. MSP (Member of Scottish Parliament) Rob Gibson, the convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs Committee stated in 2014 that, ‘Paterson’s [the former Secretary for State] failure to explain to the Scottish Government why he did not represent Scotland’s interests despite agreeing to do so is extremely disappointing’. The EU ‘opt out’ policy, Gibson argued, ‘gives too much power to GM companies and puts them on an equal status to Member States vis-à-vis GM issues’.

UKIP (UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENCE PARTY)

The UKIP are a right-wing party whose main objective is to bring about the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union. In their manifesto they offer an ‘open vote’ – individual MPs could vote at will rather than be subject to party whips – on the GM foods [11]. It is unclear how this, if implemented, would play out. UKIP have however spoken positively about GM before and support ‘further research into GM food’ but they are also in favour of the labelling of GM products [12]. (Joseph Dodd)

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/trials-of-gm-super-spud-scheduled-after-election-due-to-public-sensitivity-10131345.html

[2] http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/21/many-britain-remain-sceptical-gm-foods/

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/11427506/Owen-Paterson-the-Green-Blob-is-threatening-lives-in-Africa.html

[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346233/I-WOULD-feed-family-GM-food-says-Cameron-tries-win-public-issue.html

[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10132218/Downing-St-refuses-to-say-whether-David-Cameron-would-eat-GM-food.html

[6] http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/Feeding_the_nation.pdf

[7] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/198b9a3c-d9bc-11e2-98fa-00144feab7de.html#axzz3XwzM4qHM

[8] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/15/general-election-2010-labour-tory-lib-dem-manifesto

[9] http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto_Searchable.pdf

[10] http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2004/mar/snp-force-vote-gm-crops

[11] http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32318683

[12] http://www.ukipmeps.org/articles_716_Stuart-Agnew-on-pesticide-ban-GMOs-and-cannibal-chickens.html

The European Commission's proposed new rules on the approval of food derived from genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), published on Wednesday (22 April), have immediately attracted criticism from both environment NGOs and the agribusiness sector. For the first time, the proposal formally allows EU countries to opt-out from the Europe-wide approval system.

(.....)

Only one GM crop is currently grown in Europe, Monsanto's maize MON810, in Spain and Portugal.

But the new proposal attracted criticism by Greenpeace, which said the proposed reform would still allow the Commission to authorise the import of GMOs, even when a majority of national governments, the European Parliament and the public oppose them.

“The Commission’s proposal is a farce because it leaves the current undemocratic system untouched. It would allow the Commission to continue ignoring major opposition to GM crops, despite president Juncker’s promise to allow a majority of EU countries to halt Commission decisions on GMOs," said Greenpeace EU's food policy director Franziska Achterberg.

Seventeen new genetically modified food products will be authorised for import to Europe before the end of May in a significant acceleration of biotech trade, the Guardian has learned.

A growing demand for organics, and the near-total reliance by U.S. farmers on genetically modified corn and soybeans, is driving a surge in imports from other nations where crops largely are free of bioengineering.

This is an interesting article about a small but significant farmer shift from GMO to non-GMO crops in the GMO heartland of Iowa.

Ein Vorschlag des EU-Kommissionspräsidenten Jean Claude Juncker sieht vor, dass in Zukunft jedes EU-Land selbst entscheiden kann, ob Gentechnikpflanzen für die Lebens- und Futtermittel importiert werden dürfen oder nicht. Dieses Vorgehen kritisierte der Bund Ökologischer Lebensmittelwirtschaft (BÖLW) scharf: „Der Großteil der Bevölkerung, der Landwirte und Lebensmittelhersteller will keine Gentechnik auf dem Acker oder auf dem Teller! Statt sich immer absurdere Vorschläge für Flickenteppich-Lösungen auszudenken, müssen die politisch Verantwortlichen endlich an die Wurzel des Problems und die Mängel des unzureichenden EU-Zulassungsverfahren für Gentechnik-Pflanzen beheben und das EU-Parlament an den Entscheidungen beteiligen!“, kommentierte der Geschäftsführer des BÖLW Röhrig den von der EU-Kommission diskutierten Entwurf.

Röhrig bezeichnete diesen als bloßes Ablenkungsmanöver, welcher das Gentechnikzulassungsverfahren weder demokratischer noch besser mache. Außerdem beurteilte er die vergleichende Risikoprüfung, die Gentechnikpflanzen derzeit durchlaufen müssen, um in der EU zugelassen zu werden, als veraltet. Ein weiterer Kritikpunkt läge in der Industrienähe der zuständigen EU-Prüfbehörde EFSA.

Erwartet werde von Bundeslandwirtschaftsminister Christian Schmidt, dass er sich im Sinne der Bürger und eines bereits vor längerem gefassten Entschlusses des Bundesrates mit aller Kraft für eine Verbesserung des Gentechnik-Zulassungsverfahrens einsetze. Der Bundeslandwirtschaftsminister müsse zudem konkrete Vorschläge vorlegen, wie die verpflichtende Kennzeichnung tierischer Produkte, die mit Gentechnik-Futtermitteln hergestellt wurden, umgesetzt werden soll. Vor allem im Hinblick auf das geplante Freihandelsabkommen TTIP sei es noch wichtiger endlich Transparenz in der Importzulassung von Gentechnikpflanzen herzustellen.

March 2015 was an eventful month for the subject of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. The two tempests stirred up by recent news and all the other issues in this long-running debate look to be headed for some kind of resolution this year – although the two sides are no closer today than they’ve ever been.

This morning 300 peasants organized by La Via Campesina occupied the meeting of the Brazil National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio) in Brasilia, which was convening to discuss the release of three new varieties of transgenic plants in Brazil including a request by FuturaGene to legalize their genetically engineered eucalyptus trees. The CTNBio meeting was interrupted and eventually cancelled.

La Via Campesina | GRAIN | 08 April 2015 | Publications

Seeds are under attack everywhere. Under corporate pressure, laws in many countries increasingly put limitations on what farmers can do with their seeds and with the seeds they buy. Seed saving, a thousand-year-old practice which forms the basis of farming, is fast becoming criminalised. What can we do about this?

(.....)

Finally, perhaps the most important lesson to be learned is that this is a long battle. Our common experience has been that, after the short respite following the defeat of a seed law, business and government return to the fray. And, if they win, they will always ask for more in the future. We must be constantly prepared for another round of resistance and struggle in the defence of our seeds.

This Wednesday 15 April, some key decisions may be taken in the European Commission regarding GMOs. Commission President Juncker had promised to make EU decisions on GMOs more democratic. However, the proposed 'solution' currently on the table will not do anything to that end. What's more, on the same day the Commission intends to authorise up to 17 new GM crops for import as food and feed. All of these are tolerant to one or more herbicides, and/or produce (multiple) insecticides. Take action now to tell Juncker to keep his promise on the GMO authorisation rules, and to urge him to not allow this wave of new GM crops for import.