UK: New Farmers Organisation set up as NFU chief joins GM lab Council (30 March 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part-funded by the British government the John Innes Centre in
Norwich is
the most high profile research institute in the UK pro-actively
promoting
the use of GM crops in British agriculture.
According to the Centre's current newsletter National Farmers
Union
president Ben Gill has "recently joined the JIC Governing
Council" (see
also: http://www.jic.bbsrc.ac.uk/corporate/About_JIC/gov_council_bio.htm
).
Because of his enthusiasm for genetic engineering Mr Gill has
previously
been dubbed "Biotech Ben" by the satirical magazine
"Private Eye".
The article below in Farmers Weekly regarding the NFU's own
recent Council
vote in favour of a motion that GM crops should be part of
commercial
agriculture in Britain is interesting in this context.
The proposer of the motion states: "We have to base this
decision on
science. If we don't base this on sound science and logic, what
else?"
Unfortunately, this position overlooks the fact that most of the
basic
science has yet to be done.
'Transgenics' (the introduction of novel recombinant DNA using
genetic
engineering) is being attempted when 'genomics' (the
understanding of the
genetic structure and function of existing organisms to which
such foreign
DNA is being randomly introduced) is still in its infancy.
This is a
fundamental scientific error which, illogically, puts the cart
before the
horse.
Any strategy that promotes transgenics ahead of competency in
genomics is
profoundly unscientific. Neither the government, nor the NFU
leadership
appears to understand this. As is pointed out in the
article below,
however, the vote of the NFU Council does not necessarily
constitute the
view of its membership. This is likely to be more divided on the
issue.
For some time the NFU Council has been accused of being out of
touch with
its grass root membership on a variety of issues. One reaction to
this has
been the recent formation by a group of farmers of the
alternative
organisation: "FARM".
FARM describes itself as "a campaigning and membership
organisation,
fighting for a viable future for independent and family farms. We
exist to
protect and promote the interests of farmers, to get their voices
heard by
decision-makers, and to campaign for a positive future for
farming, rural
communities and the countryside."
FARM is concerned that "the crisis in farming, and the
closure of ordinary
farms, are caused by a series of inter-related factors,
including:
* the steady take-over of food production and distribution by
large
agribusiness companies and conglomerates
* the failure of government to stand up for the long-term
interests of
farmers, consumers and rural communities
* lack of public awareness of the scale or implications of the
farming
crisis."
Before establishing FARM its founders commissioned an independent
survey
which confirmed that 68% of farmers polled would support a new
organisation
which existed to campaign on their behalf.
FARM's web site is at: http://www.farm.org.uk/
FARM recently criticised the publication of a scientific paper by
scientists
at another part-government funded research institute. FARM
considered the
presentation of the research to be misleading to farmers by
greatly
exaggerating claimed benefits from GM sugar beet (see:
http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78
).
FARM has also recently conducted a poll on its web site regarding
the 'need'
for GM crops only to find that 72% of responses in favour of GM
crops had
been submitted by employees of Monsanto and fellow agri-business
giant
Cargill, the international grain trader. FARM reports that
Monsanto and
Cargill are collaborating on pro-GM joint ventures. (see:
http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?action=detail&id=81
).
In the field of biotechnology FARM favours the use of 'marker
assisted
selection' (MAS) for modern plant breeding based on the
development of
genomics, rather than the use of transgenics
(http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=73
).
For more on MAS technology - which unlike transgenics does not
commonly
compromise the chromosomal integrity of the genome - see:
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/monsantoMASpossibilities.htm
In this respect it is interesting to note the recent remarks of
the
Assistant Director of Agriculture of the Food and Agriculture
Organisation
of the United Nations in relation to the genomics based
technology preferred
by FARM.
Mr Louise O Fresco stated at the EU Discussion Forum 'Towards
Sustainable
Agriculture for Developing Countries: Options from Life Sciences
and
Biotechnologies', Brussels, 30-31 January 2003:
"Perhaps the greatest
potential of biotechnologies does not come from GMOs but from
genetic
markers, genomics and proteomics which can complement
conventional breeding
strategies and enhance their efficiency".
It seems, therefore, that FARM may be several steps ahead of the
NFU Council
when it comes to backing 'sound science' and responsibility
towards the long
term well-being of UK farming and the wider community it serves.
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
The Acceptable Face Of Ag-biotech
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/monsantoMASpossibilities.htm
'Peace Store' - shop for peace at:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/peacestore.htm
========================================================================
Farmers Weekly, 21 March 2003
Members to help form GM policy
THE NFU wants farmers to join the debate on genetically modified
crops to
help form union policy. Its ruling body debated theissue of GM
crops on Mar
7.
Council members voted three to one in the favour of a motion that
GMs should
be part of commercial agriculture in Britain.
But union vice-president, Michael Paske, said the vote did not
mean that the
NFU now had a policy of supporting GM crops.
The organisation had been asked by the Agriculture, Environment
and
Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) to hold meetings at a regional
level to see
what farmers think, he said.
"This vote is not going to affect policy now," said Mr
Paske. "This is part
of a process involving the results of the field-
scale trials and feedback from members [from the meetings].
"Until we have all that, the NFU council cannot take a
definitive position
on this issue."
The debate did highlight how people's views differ on the issue.
Proposing
the motion, Archie Montgomery said GM crops
could allow farmers to grow a bigger acreage with less management
input.
GM crops had been rigorously tested, so were probably safer than
anything on
the market.
"We have to base this decision on science. If we don't base
this on sound
science and logic, what else?" said Mr Montgomery.
But organic farmer Oliver Dowding said the technology could lead
to problems
which would put farmers back on the
defensive with their customers.
"Will adopting this new science win back public support
orwill it alienate
us even further?"
he asked.