Tag Archives: america

UKIP uncut – acoloytes of America’s far-right corporate gunslingers Updated for 2026





Few if any of those electing the UKIP candidate in yesterday’s Rochester by-election knew of the party’s links with American right-wingers who support corporations’ rights above those of both people and planet.

But as an Ecologist investigation reveals, the party and three of its elected MEPs have links with the powerful by shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the associated Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank reported to have received millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests.

ALEC is a truly American phenomenon: it’s a right-wing corporate lobbying group which shortcuts the traditional nuances of persuasion by drafting bills and encouraging lawmakers across the 50 states to sign up to them wholesale, and push them through their legislatures.

Typically 1,000 such bills are introduced every year, and several hundred are enacted.

The ‘charity’ that’s anything but charitable

And although it’s registered as a charity – giving it huge tax breaks and enabling it to anonymise much of its income – ALEC is not on the side of the angels.

ALEC-drafted legislation has provided fossil fuel industries with enormous subsidies; imposed connection surcharges on small ‘rooftop’ solar power generators; promoted the anti-evolution, pro-creationism agenda of extreme evangelical groups; stripped away restrictions on Americans’ right to carry guns; and even includes ‘Jim Crow’ laws to get poor Black voters off electoral registers.

Yet three UKIP MEPs have chosen to put their names to official ALEC correspondence.

One of the signatories, Roger Helmer MEP, UKIP’s energy spokesperson, has also spoken at numerous Heartland Institute climate change denial conferences including the 7th – taking place in May 2012 (see photo and Youtube presentation).

The conference was sponsored by nearly 60 organisations that had collectively received nearly $22m from Exxon Mobil and the Koch oil billionaire family since 1998, according to a Desmogblog analysis.

Heartland Institute is one of the US’s main organisations that denies climate change and promotes the interests of the fossil fuel industries which are among its principal funders.

It also has close links to big tobacco, having received both funds and support from Philip Morris, Altria and Reynolds American. And it strongly supports the privatisation of public services including health care provision and education.

‘I think the global warming theory is bad science’

Like Heartland, ALEC does all it can to challenge the global scientific consensus on climate change – its ‘model’ climate change bill suggested global warming is “possibly beneficial” to the planet.

Climate change deniers are encouraged to “educate” lawmakers by claiming there is no scientific consensus on the issue. Its most recent meeting in Dallas saw one of its speakers deliver a presentation dismissing the International Panel on Climate Change as being “not a credible source of man-made economics”.

ALEC’s incoming national chair, the Texan Republican Phil King, has said: “I think the global warming theory is bad science.” At a recent ALEC meeting in Dallas, Heartland’s President Joseph Bast led a workshop featuring a presentation arguing that:

  • “There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.”
  • “There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.”
  • “Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.”
  • The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “is not a credible source of science or economics.”
  • “The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.”

The presentation also reveals how Heartland Insitute works in partnership with ALEC – whose role is to draft legislation implementing Heartland’s right-wing agenda, and push it out to state legislatures. Draft bills would expedite fossil fuel developments, cut renewables out of energy markets and even “lift regulation of nuclear power”.

In the US, thanks to the strength of the Tea Party, this kind of extremism is tolerated and even celebrated. In Britain it would be challenged and ridiculed – which is why the deepening links between a British political party and UKIP needs highlighting.

Now here’s a funny thing … UKIP MEPs signing ALEC’s letter

The latest indications about Nigel Farage’s party’s anti-environment attitudes followed Google’s withdrawal from ALEC after a prolonged campaign by Forecast the Facts that denounced the contradiction of Google stated views on climate change and other issues, and ALEC’s legislative agenda.

Google’s Eric Schmidt’s conclusion that ALEC’s views on climate change are “hurting our children and our grandchildren” was greeted with condemnation by ALEC’s supporters – following which over 200 US legislators put their name to an angry letter to Google.

The letter blames “misinformation from climate activists” for Google’s decision. Instead it points to ALEC’s climate change policy, which suggests climate change only “may” be causing global warming, as evidence that it is upholds a moderate view. That just about says it all.

Scroll right down to the bottom of the letter, and you can spot something odd: three UKIP MEPs have also added their names. The three British signatories are those of south-east MEP Janice Atkinson, the West Midlands’ Bill Etheridge – and Roger Helmer.

It is Helmer who holds the key to all this, for he has perhaps the deepest relationship with ALEC of any other British politician. The group appointed Helmer ‘Adam Smith Scholar’ back in 2005.

He was also a member of its ‘international task force’ and boasts of having “developed close relationships with conservative political groups in the USA”. Since then he has pursued a bold policy on green issues that makes him one of Britain’s leading climate change deniers.

He spent £9,000 on a poster campaign attacking the “Great Climate Myth” in 2010. The poster suggested actions to address global warming were “probably unnecessary, certainly ineffectual, ruinously expensive”. After the campaign attracted inevitable criticism he insisted he was speaking for a majority of British voters.

The following year he appeared at ALEC’s annual meeting in a workshop called ‘benefit analysis of CO2‘. Not the most fascinating of meeting titles, you might say. In fact this was an alteration from its original name: ‘Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2‘.

Helmer is also a supporter of the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE), whose ideological position of fossil fuels and climate change is identical to that of Heartland and ALEC – and a personal friend of its Executive Director Marita Noon (see photo).

‘Big Green tells lies’

Now Helmer is advocating an energy policy for Britain based on “proven technologies” including coal and gas. In his speech to the party’s conference in Doncaster this year, titled ‘Big green is obscene’, he told delegates:

“‘Big green’ hates industry, hates capitalism. ‘Big green’ campaigns against jobs and growth and prosperity. Oh, and by the way, ‘big green’ tells lies.”

Helmer’s speech focused on energy security, and argued that UKIP’s focus on energy independence, which includes repealing the 2008 Climate Change Act, contrasted with that of the Westminster parties.

“We in UKIP have carved out a distinctive position on energy that puts clear purple water between us and them. Look at what the old parties are doing, look at the Lib-Lab-Con policies. They slavishly follow Brussels diktats. They want a massive waste of resources on renewables. They want to cover the country in wind farms and solar arrays and they are wedded to green taxes, levies and subsidies. Now compare our position. UKIP’s policy has one clear objective: secure affordable energy for households and industry.”

In one recent blog, ‘Roger Harrabin’s new normal‘, he opines: “CO2 is just one minor factor amongst many in a vast and chaotic climate system which is poorly understood and very difficult to model. CO2 is not even the most serious greenhouse gas. Both water vapour and methane have a bigger effect – and we can do nothing about water vapour until we can stop the winds blowing over the ocean.”

UKIP – ALEC’s bridgehead across the Atlantic?

ALEC and Heartland may well be willing to assist UKIP’s cause – and with Helmer’s long-standing links with the American ‘charity’, they have already established a bridgehead across the Atlantic.

The involvement of Atkinson and Etheridge provides evidence that UKIP’s links with ALEC – and by extension with American corporate, fossil fuel and right-wing evangelical and ‘Tea Party’ interests – are only deepening as the party’s influence increases.

But there is something a little illogical about this. UKIP’s big-picture goal is a bid to achieve independence from the European Union – but in backing the agenda of ALEC and Heartland it appears only too keen to turn us into vassals of unaccountable American corporations.

Helmer’s response to these concerns is to dismiss them outright. “When will these people understand?” he asks. “We don’t want to leave the EU to join something else – we want to leave the EU to regain our independence.”

Resisting any kind of big government, promoting free-market rhetoric whatever the cost and, above all else, undermining the rationale behind acting on climate change … Helmer has a lot in common with ALEC.

UKIP’s ‘special relationship’ with ALEC, Heartland and CARE needs watching closely as the party’s influence in Britain and Europe gathers momentum.

 


 

Alex Stevenson is parliamentary editor of politics.co.uk, and a regular contributor to The Ecologist.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




387082

Living with GMOs – a letter from America Updated for 2026





We are writing as concerned American citizens to share with you our experience of genetically modified (GM) crops and the resulting damage to our agricultural system and adulteration of our food supply.

In our country, GM crops account for about half of harvested cropland. Around 94% of the soy, 93% of corn (maize) and 96% of cotton grown is GM. i

The UK and the rest of the EU have yet to adopt GM crops in the way that we have, but you are currently under tremendous pressure from governments, biotech lobbyists, and large corporations to adopt what we now regard as a failing agricultural technology.

Polls consistently show that 72% of Americans do not want to eat GM foods and over 90% of Americans believe GM foods should be labeled. ii

In spite of this massive public mandate, efforts to get our federal iii and state iv governments to better regulate, or simply label, GMOs are being undermined by large biotech and food corporations with unlimited budgets v and undue influence.

As you consider your options, we’d like to share with you what nearly two decades of GM crops in the United States has brought us. We believe our experience serves as a warning for what will happen in your countries should you follow us down this road.

Broken promises

GM crops were released onto the market with a promise that they would consistently increase yields and decrease pesticide use. They have done neither. vi In fact, according to a recent US government report yields from GM crops can be lower than their non-GM equivalents. vii

Farmers were told that GM crops would yield bigger profits too. The reality, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, is different. viii Profitability is highly variable, while the cost of growing these crops has spiraled. ix

GM seeds cannot legally be saved for replanting, which means farmers must buy new seeds each year. Biotech companies control the price of seeds, which cost farmers 3-6 times more than conventional seeds. x This, combined with the huge chemical inputs they require, means GM crops have proved more costly to grow than conventional crops.

Because of the disproportionate emphasis on GM crops, conventional seed varieties are no longer widely available leaving farmers with less choice and control over what they plant. xi

Farmers who have chosen not to grow GM crops can find their fields contaminated with GM crops as a result of cross pollination between related species of plants xii and GM and non-GM seeds being mixed together during storage.

Because of this our farmers are losing export markets. Many countries have restrictions or outright bans on growing or importing GM crops xiii and as a result, these crops have become responsible for a rise in trade disputes when shipments of grain are found to be contaminated with GM organisms (GMOs).xiv

The burgeoning organic market here in the US is also being affected. Many organic farmers have lost contracts for organic seed due to high levels of contamination. This problem is increasing and is expected to get much bigger in the coming years.

Pesticides and superweeds

The most widely grown types of GM crops are known as ‘Roundup Ready’ crops. These crops, mostly corn and soy, have been genetically engineered so that when they are sprayed with the herbicide Roundup – the active ingredient of which is glyphosate – the weeds die but the crop continues to grow.

This has created a vicious circle. Weeds have become resistant to the herbicide, causing farmers to spray even more. Heavier use of herbicides creates ever more ‘superweeds’ and even higher herbicide use.

A recent review found that between 1996 and 2011, farmers who planted Roundup Ready crops used 24% more herbicide than non-GMO farmers planting the same crops. xv

If we remain on this trajectory with Roundup Ready crops we can expect to see herbicide rates increase by 25% each year for the foreseeable future.

This pesticide treadmill means that in the last decade in the US at least 14 new glyphosate-resistant weed species have emerged, xvi and over half of US farms are plagued with herbicide-resistant weeds. xvii

Biotech companies, which sell both the GM seeds and the herbicides, xviii have proposed to address this problem with the creation of new crop varieties that will be able to withstand even stronger and more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba.

However it is estimated that if these new varieties are approved, this could drive herbicide use up by as much as 50%. xix

Environmental harm

Studies have shown that the increased herbicide use on Roundup Ready crops is highly destructive to the natural environment. For example, Roundup kills milkweeds, which are the key food source for the iconic Monarch butterfly xx and poses a threat to other important insects such as bees. xxi

It is also damaging to soil, killing beneficial organisms that keep it healthy and productive xxii and making essential micronutrients unavailable to the plant. xxiii

Other types of GM plants, which have been engineered to produce their own insecticide (e.g. “Bt” cotton plants), have also been shown to harm beneficial insects including green lacewings xxiv, the Daphnia magna waterflea xxv and other aquatic insects, xxvi and ladybugs (ladybirds). xxvii

Resistance to the insecticides in these plants is also growing xxviii, creating new varieties of resistant “superbugs” and requiring more applications of insecticides at different points in the growth cycle, for instance on the seed before it is planted. xxix In spite of this, new Bt varieties of corn and soy have been approved here and will soon be planted.

A threat to human health

GM ingredients are everywhere in our food chain. It is estimated that 70% of processed foods consumed in the US have been produced using GM ingredients. If products from animals fed GM feed are included, the percentage is significantly higher.

Research shows that Roundup Ready crops contain many times more glyphosate, and its toxic breakdown product AMPA, than normal crops. xxx

Traces of glyphosate have been found in the breastmilk and urine of American mothers, as well as in their drinking water. xxxi The levels in breastmilk were worryingly high – around 1,600 times higher than what is allowable in European drinking water.

Passed on to babies through breastmilk, or the water used to make formula, this could represent an unacceptable risk to infant health since glyphosate is a suspected hormone disrupter. xxxii Recent studies suggest that this herbicide is also toxic to sperm. xxxiii

Likewise, traces of the Bt toxin have been found in the blood of mothers and their babies. xxxiv

GM foods were not subjected to human trials before being released into the food chain and the health impacts of having these substances circulating and accumulating in our bodies are not being studied by any government agency, nor by the companies that produce them.

Studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate, however, show worrying trends including damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities, and even tumors. xxxv

These scientific studies point to potentially serious human health problems that could not have been anticipated when our country first embraced GMOs, and yet they continue to be ignored by those who should be protecting us.

Instead our regulators rely on outdated studies and other information funded and supplied by biotech companies that, not surprisingly, dismiss all health concerns.

A denial of science

This spin of corporate science stands in stark contrast to the findings of independent scientists.

In fact, in 2013, nearly 300 independent scientists from around the world issued a public warning that there was no scientific consensus about the safety of eating genetically modified food, and that the risks, as demonstrated in independent research, gave “serious cause for concern.” xxxvi

It’s not easy for independent scientists like these to speak out. Those who do have faced obstacles in publishing their results, been systematically vilified by pro-GMO scientists, been denied research funding, and in some cases have had their jobs and careers threatened. xxxvii

Control of the food supply

Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system.

This control extends into areas of life that deeply affect our day-to-day well-being, including food security, science, and democracy. It undermines the development of genuinely sustainable, environmentally friendly agriculture and prevents the creation of a transparent, healthy food supply for all.

Today in the US, from seed to plate, the production, distribution, marketing, safety testing, and consumption of food is controlled by a handful of companies, many of which have commercial interests in genetic engineering technology.

They create the problems, and then sell us the so-called solutions in a closed cycle of profit generation that is unequalled in any other type of commerce.

We all need to eat, which is why every citizen should strive to understand these issues.

Time to speak out!

Americans are reaping the detrimental impacts of this risky and unproven agricultural technology. EU countries should take note: there are no benefits from GM crops great enough to offset these impacts. Officials who continue to ignore this fact are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

We, the undersigned, are sharing our experience and what we have learned with you so that you don’t make our mistakes.

We strongly urge you to resist the approval of genetically modified crops, to refuse to plant those crops that have been approved, to reject the import and/or sale of GM-containing animal feeds and foods intended for human consumption, and to speak out against the corporate influence over politics, regulation and science.

If the UK and the rest of Europe becomes the new market for genetically modified crops and food our own efforts to label and regulate GMOs will be all the more difficult, if not impossible. If our efforts fail, your attempts to keep GMOs out of Europe will also fail.

If we work together, however, we can revitalize our global food system, ensuring healthy soil, healthy fields, healthy food and healthy people.

 


 

See below for Signatories – NGOs, academics, scientists, anti-GM groups, celebrities, food manufacturers, and others representing around 57 million Americans.

References

i