Agreement of People website

Sign here if you support the campaign for a real democracy

Our blogs


AWTW FacebookAWTW Twitter

Your Say



GM crops: bad science, big profits

You would think that someone holding the post of environment secretary would actually have concerns about, well, the environment. Such is our topsy-turvy world, however, that the opposite is true when it comes to Owen Paterson.

The free marketeer ConDem environment secretary, is a climate change sceptic despite mountains of evidence (as well as casual observation of increasingly erratic weather patterns) to the contrary. No concern for the environment there.

Now Paterson is launching a campaign to get the European Union to dump its ban on genetically-modified (GM) crops that have caused severe problems around the world. Still no concern for the environment, although plenty for the GM corporations.

GMIf the EU does not drop its policy, Paterson wants the United Kingdom to go it alone. He says the government has "a duty to the British public to reassure them GM is a safe, proven and beneficial innovation".

Those are certainly big claims – almost as big as the giant ragweed strangling corn crops in farms across the United States. US farmers are finding that after four or five years growing Monstanto's Round-up ready corn, weeds develop resistance. Up to 15 million acres of crops are now affected.

The farmers must then switch to a different herbicide, and therefore a different GM seed. Monsanto competitor Dow has produced one with resistance to 2,4-D. This is one of the two components of Agent Orange, the defoliant the US army sprayed on crops and forest during the Vietnam war.

However, we are assured that it is not the component that caused the birth defects – just the one that stripped the land bare. So that’s alright then.

Which brings us to the tiny rootworm, which prevents corn from absorbing water and nutrients from the soil and leaves crops in ruins. The US Environmental Protection Agency reports rootworms have been found in Illinois and Iowa that are resistant to the Bt gene bred into Monsanto seed corn.

Insecticide sales are surging after years of decline, and profits are up. Farmers who already paid through the nose for supposedly resistant GM seed are now buying pesticide to kill the rootworm. Dow/Monsanto competitor Syngenta is cashing in with pesticide sales doubling in 2012.

Pesticides are bad for farmers' health, water supplies and the health of whole populations. As well as killing the rootworm, they wipe out beneficial insects, including bees.

Whilst GM makes lots of money for corporations, it doesn't work in the long term. A herbicide will kill weeds for a time, but eventually a rogue gene will appear that has resistance. That weed will survive spraying, and spread. It will have adapted.

The claims made for GM are based on bad biology, bad botany, bad genetics – just bad science really. Bad science but big profits, and Paterson doesn't want corporate farmers and the agri-chemical companies missing out on the European market.

He even stooped so low as to repeat the claim that GM is the answer to world hunger. But if the problems faced by US farmers were repeated across the globe the effect would be disastrous.

"We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food, not farming that helps Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto produce profits."

Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett says GM will make it harder, not easier, to feed the world. "In fact GM is the cuckoo in the nest. It drives out and destroys the systems that international scientists agree we need to feed the world.”

Systems like the one practised by Suman Kumar, who holds the world record for rice yield on his one-acre plot in Bihar in northern India. He achieved 22.4 tons per hectare, where big rice farmers get on average 8 tons.

Kumar and his neighbours are achieving these great yields using a modest amount of inorganic fertiliser and no pesticides or herbicides. They are working with the System of Rice Intensification, where instead of focusing on killing pests and force-feeding, all the effort goes into creating the best possible conditions for the rice plants to flourish.  

As Melchett concludes: "We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food, not farming that helps Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto produce profits."

A revolution in farming on that scale will require a revolution on a political and economic scale too.

Penny Cole
Environment editor
20 June 2013

Bookmark and Share

Your Say

Fiona says:

Would it make any difference if Monsanto and other big GM corporations were taken out of the picture along with the profit motive and we had a 'people's GM'? There was some guy on the Today programme this morning, didn't catch his name, who was praising GM to the skies saying it was the only method of feeding the world and furthermore would completely undermine the need to use pesticides, said that he knew a big arable farmer in America who had got rid of his spraying equipment because he didn't need it anymore after going down the GM route. Also mentioned the use of GM on cotton in India which has vastly increased production over more conventional methods. Most of our cotton is GM produced apparantly. There was no opposing view.

Penny Cole replies:
I can't say whether a "people's GM" could be safe just as I can't say whether there could be a "people's nuclear power". The way in which these extremely risky technologies have been developed under capitalism is entirely reckless with profit as priority. You can use aspects of scientific knowledge, for example genetics or atomic physics, to develop technologies but you can't say they are safe or even useful or good, if you don't consider their impact on the totality of the eco-system. I think that will certainly be a characteristic of "the People's Science", when we are able to achieve it.

Robbie says:

Not surprising there was no opposing view on BBC. This is part of a concerted campaign to push GM through despite what the public wants. It started with the US-EU trade deal announced at that great democratic event - the G8 - and is being pushed by science minister, David Willetts and environment secretary Owen Paterson. The guy you heard on the Today programme was Maurice Moloney, founder of SemBioSys Genetics Inc - so there's a completely unbiased source!

A much more balanced view was shown by Martha Kearney's report on Who Killed the Honey Bee? which revealed how pesticides were decimating bees worldwide. Guess where in the UK bees were unaffected? Central London!!! No pesticides there.

Fiona says:

Thanks for those links Robbie, will look them up. Yes Maurice Moloney would be 'unbiased' wouldn't he. He was very plausible even as he described the success of GM in India particularly with regard to cotton, no mention of the horrendous suicide statistics among Indian peasant farmers who have seen their livelihoods wiped out.

Comments now closed

We do not store your name or email details, but may inform you if someone responds to your comment.

If you want weekly update messages please indicate and we will store your details in a secure database which is not shared with any other organisation.

Your name

Your E-mail
(we will not publish your E-mail)

Do you want Updates?

Anti-spam validation:compare< Please enter these letters>

Note: To counter spammers, all comments are moderated.