www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

If you think the GM battle is over, think again, says Lucy Siegle. Beware,
transgenic crops and Terminator Technology are back, March 2006 by Lucy
Siegle.

Given that it is a decade since the first GM seeds were sown in the UK,
this is an apposite question. Arguably, back then it was easier to express
anti-GM sentiments. You merely dressed up in a white boiler suit, ripped up
trial sites for GM crops in the dead of night and very likely got arrested.

Now the GM cloud is more nebulous. In fact, thanks to a five-year European
moratorium on planting GM crops, it may have appeared as if it had
disappeared. UK consumers rejected GM produce so vociferously that only an
insane retailer would bother stocking Flavr Savr tomatoes (in which the
rotting gene had been removed).

However, there's no room for complacency. Last year, on the back of
'scientific advice', the government backed an EU proposal to overturn bans
of GM crops in five EU countries. The green light has now been given for the
commercial planting of maize, although, according to Defra, GM crops will
probably not be grown commercially in the UK until at least 2008 - which
gives everybody something to look forward to. Meanwhile, the US, Canada and
Argentina have won a case against Europe through the World Trade
Organisation, potentially forcing Europe to open its markets fully to GM
produce.

Certainly, global trends suggest we should rouse ourselves from our
complacent slumber. Last year marked the planting of the billionth acre of
GM crops as 8.5m farmers in 21 countries now farm transgenic (GM) crops.
This growth is despite the fact that, contrary to assertions from the
biotech industry, there is still no proof that GM crops are the same as
non-GM crops, nor conclusive evidence that GM has no adverse affect on
health. And there's the very thorny issue of cross-pollination of non-GM
crops, especially of organic crops. A University of Chicago study found one
transgenic plant was 20 times more likely to interbreed with related plants
than its natural counterpart.

At its most picturesque, GM was described by biotechs as the 'golden rice
bowl'. Well, there's still no GM rice, nor has any crop been introduced
specifically for the purpose of alleviating poverty. Meanwhile, Monsanto has
withdrawn a 1999 agreement not to commercialise so-called 'Terminator
Technology', GM crops which produce sterile seeds. Potentially this could
mean some 1.4bn small farmers in the developing world having to buy their
next season's seed from biotechs, rather than 'seed saving' in the
traditional way.

Globally, soy consumption has increased by an average of 4.5m tonnes a year
since 1970, most of it to feed an expanding global animal herd. Brazil, a
major producer with capacity to meet growing demand, is currently deciding
whether to stay predominantly GM-free or to follow the transgenic route like
Argentina.

The latter route would represent a biotech victory, but a Pyrrhic one.
Leaving aside the fact that many people believe GM to be a threat to the
biological integrity of the planet, GM soy monoculture in Argentina has
caused serious social and economic problems. According to Friends of the
Earth, it's time for UK consumers to lobby retailers (see
www.foe.co.uk/campaigns) to support non-GM Brazilian soy. That way, you can
express anti-GM sentiments, and without the white boiler suit.

[observer.guardian.co.uk]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail