Tag Archives: crops

No-dig farming to sustain nutrition in soils, crops, and us Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Ever heard of the Good Gardeners’ Association? It’s a small charity formed in 1966 to promote no-dig, plenty of compost method of growing food – and for over 10 years (2000 – 2011) I used to run it.

Instead of practising conventional ploughing or digging, turning soil upside down on its head each year, it’s all about leaving the soil well alone.

Yes – it’s possible to grow the same things you already do, by leaving the soil undisturbed. Amazing!

One of the perceived benefits of growing food using the no-dig method is that it will be more nutritious. In 2003 I began to investigate how different methods of soil cultivation affect the transfer of essential nutrients, known to effect human health, from soil to crop.

I found partners who shared a similar interest to help. Together we set up GREEN (Gardens for Research Education and Nutrition) as a collaboration between three national charities based in Stroud, Gloucestershire.

Eight years of soil and nutrition data on 23 nutrients

At the heart of this project is a theory that we should respect the integrity of the soil and the complex microbial communities they embody: soil is ‘alive’ and has evolved over billions of years of our planet’s existence to maintain and enrich the nutrient cycles of the ecosystems it supports.

As such, the theory goes, minimal soil disturbance is key to the increase and balance of essential nutrients from soil to crop. To investigate this idea we grew the same food in an organically certified garden, but under three different methods of cultivation.

Each method represents different levels of soil disturbance: no-dig, single-dig and the most extreme ‘double-dig’. To understand the effect of soil disturbance we measured the microbial life in the soil each year and tracked 23 naturally occurring minerals known to effect health, in the soil and in the crop. Samples were sent to professional laboratories and Universities for testing.

We went on to gather eight years of soil and crop data. And the tragedy is, that data is about all that’s left. I no longer work for the charity; the garden project came to an end in 2014; and the charity itself is in the process of closing itself down due to a lack of resources to pursue its work.

But that data – which I still have today – could just be incredibly valuable at this time when the food we eat is increasingly sparse in mineral and other nutrients essential for our health.

So I decided that instead of letting this work die in a filing cabinet I will use crowdfunding to raise money. I can then afford to pay myself to: analyse and write up what was found; get it out into the public domain for feedback comments; talk about the wider context of what this work could mean; and – depending on the findings – go on to promote the nutritional benefits of ‘no dig’ cultivation!

Soil – a rich and complex symbiosis that nourishes us

Life in the soil is a story of symbiosis – a brilliant example of cooperation in nature. Microbes such as bacteria and fungi are the experts at sourcing nutrients from the soil, rocks air and water – for example, nitrogen, copper, zinc, magnesium, calcium and selenium – and passing these on to plants in a form they can use. In return plants produce and supply food for the microbes (carbohydrate). Everything involved benefits.

“A loss of trace elements have been linked to obesity, insulin resistance, heart disease and mental illness” according to nutritionist David Thomas. In 2003 he wrote a report, using government data from 1940 to 1991, which suggests we have lost over 40% of key minerals from the food we eat.

More reports along this line are beginning to gather. Dr Julia Wright recently wrote an article for The Ecologist suggesting it could be as much as an 80% loss of vitamin and mineral content.

Ironically, she goes on to say, we can now produce enough protein and carbohydrate to feed 14 billion people but despite this global malnutrition continues to increase. In other words the foods we eat are no longer providing proper nourishment.

I am delighted that this year 2015 has been designated by the UN as the International Year of Soils. Twelve years ago, when I started the project, I had no idea this would happen. It seems an opportunity to good to miss that I am now at a point where I could contribute with this work.

How I got here

I came to run the Good Gardeners’ Association after completing a degree in ‘Environmental Quality and Resource Management’ at the University of the West of England. I was asked to take on this charity and decided to accept as my way of engaging with the world as an Environmental Manager. Parts of my degree included a module on ecology and another on environmental politics and philosophy – both of which I loved.

I’m intrigued by a fundamental question that environmental philosophers talk about. The way we think / understand how the world works, which deeply influences what we do and how we live, can be classed in two ways: either we believe we are a part of nature; or we believe we stand outside of nature.

The practical outcome of these two philosophies is as follows. If we believe we are a part of nature, then we must logically believe that to harm nature is to harm ourselves. On the other hand if we stand outside of nature, then it’s okay to control it, dominate it, destroy it, and subdue it to our will.

In the short term controlling nature has given us the ‘green revolution’, increased security by having more food, extended life and a whole host of other great things that are frankly pretty damn good. But we are beginning to pay dearly.

Climate change, degradation of soils, pollution of rivers and sea, the loss of wildlife habitats can be seen as the consequence of our collective actions. Related to this there appears to be a rise in chronic degenerative disease. Physical and mental health is deteriorating which is reducing the quality of our newly extended life span.

The majority view at present – at least in the powerful industrialised countries – is that we stand outside of nature. But my belief is that we need radically shift our consciousness and  recognise our own symbiosis with the wider natural world. As the leading organic farmer John Seymour once said:

“For all our technology, we humans are as much creatures of the soil as earthworms – and we can no more live without it than they can. Our survival depends entirely on the top few inches of the earth we walk on – and we forget that at the peril of our own extinction!”

My hope is that by pursuing my analysis into the eight years of data from the GREEN experiment, I may be able to bring that understanding to more people, and show how we can build a richer and healthier relationship with the earth that feeds and sustains us all.

 

 

Support: If you would like to support and learn with me please visit my crowdfunding page where you can make a donation! Thank you.

Closing date: tomorrow Wednesday 4th March, 11.00am.

Matt Adams is developing a small craft cider making business. A former Chief Executive of the Good Gardeners’ Association, he has a B.Sc. in Environmental Quality and Resource Management as well as practical skills and a background in mechanical engineering, and a long held interest in Deep Ecology.

Editor’s note: The trustees of the GGA, in support of Matt’s efforts, have voted to grant him any residual sum that remains in the charity’s account following the charity’s winding up.

 

 




390875

EuroParl votes in new era of GMO farming Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Parliament has just passed a law allowing the cultivation of GMO crops by EU member states, by 480 votes to 159, with 58 abstentions.

The proposed law allows individual member states to ban genetically modified crops, but only on very limited grounds that environmentalists fear could be subject to legal challenges.

The law also opens the door to the possibility of more varieties of GM crops being approved in the EU. Currently only one GM crop – a herbicide resistant strain of maize used for animal feed – is grown in Europe, but a further seven GM varieties are in the pipeline and may be approved early this year.

Green UK MEP Keith Taylor said: “This agreement is not all it seems. While giving EU countries new powers to ban GMOs, I believe what this will mean in reality for the UK is more GMOs not fewer. This is because our pro-GM Government are now able to give the go-ahead to more authorisations.”

Wales and Scotland have welcomed the opportunity to confirm their non-GM position, but they may find that the limited terms of any opt-out may in fact force them to allow GM crops to be grown once approved by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA.

Within the EU, Only Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic currently permit GM crop cultivation. The current UK government is committed to the introduction of GM crops after “a few years”.

Safeguards stripped out

The European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted last November to impose strong safeguards on GM crop cultivation, as reported on The Ecologist.

However the draft law then went to the ‘Trilogue’ – comprising the European Council, the Commission and representatives from the Parliament – for amendment.

An agreement was struck on 3rd December which stripped out most of the safeguards. While the form of national opt-outs remained, any such opt out would only be allowed under highly restricted circumstances.

Responding at the time, Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director said: “Environment ministers say they want to give countries the right to ban GM crop cultivation on their territory, but the text they have agreed does not give governments a legally solid right.

“It ties their hands by not allowing to use evidence of environmental harm to ban GM cultivation. This leaves those countries that want to say ‘no’ to GM crops exposed to legal attacks by the biotech industry.”

The Green French MEP José Bové, also a campaigner against GM crops, added: “in the short term, this change will allow multinationals like Monsanto to challenge national bans at the WTO or, if free trade deals like TTIP are finalised, in arbitration tribunals.”

But – with the exception of the Greens – all the main political groups in the European Parliament united today to back the GMO law.

Regulation devolved to member states

Among the problems in the new law is the absence of strict regulation at the European level. Instead it will be up to member states to impose their own safeguards and regulations.

GM Freeze Director Liz O’Neill explained: “This directive offers no meaningful protection to people who want to make informed choices about what they are eating or to farmers who want to protect their fields from the superweeds and biodiversity loss associated with the kind of GM crops likely to be heading our way.

“There are no EU-wide mandatory measures to prevent contamination within an individual member state and no rules governing liability. That means it’s down to the UK Government to protect our right to grow and eat GM Free.”

GM pollen from crops permitted in one country can easily spread to another neighbouring country. Add to that the largely unrestricted cross border trade in both foodstuffs and seeds, and GM trangenes are likely to spread widely across the EU once permitted in any one country.

Furthermore single market rules that govern EU trade will make it illegal for member states to control imports of GM foods, even if they forbid their cultivation.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association said the new law “fails to require countries to ensure that any GM crops grown will not contaminate GM free farms, nor to ensure that the cost of any contamination will fall on the shoulders of the GM companies who own the patented products, not on farmers or food businesses that suffer from pollution.”

UK – a regulatory void?

As far as the UK is concerned. the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 election committed the Government to “develop a legally-binding protocol covering the separation of GM and non-GM material, including clear industry liability” – however this has not taken place.

A letter from farming minister Lord de Mauley recently stated that there was no problem with transgenes from GMO crops: “cross pollination is, again, a normal process between compatible plant species and there is nothing different about GM crops in this respect.”

As reported on The Ecologist, the UK Government is proposing to introduce “pragmatic rules” to govern the separation of GM and non-GM plants and seeds – by implication, given the UK’s supports for GMOs, “pragmatic” for farmers and the GMO industry, rather than for organic farmers or those that wish to remain GM-free.

Peter Melchett commented: “The rights of farmers who do not wish to grow GM crops, particularly in England are therefore under threat by this proposal. Indeed, the entire organic sector, growing rapidly in Europe and which may double by 2020, is in danger – as are the rights of anyone who wants to buy GM free foods.”

Amid the chaos the law will create, at least one thing is cerrtain: that the situation will be exploited ruthlessly by the GM corporations to establish ‘facts on the ground’ and introduce GMOs as widely as possible with a minimum of regulation.

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




388945

A tale of two farming conferences: the future is ‘real’ and organic Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




In Oxford this week, two major farming conferences have been under way.

The newer, forward-looking Oxford Real Farming Conference is discussing innovations in technology that are needed for farming to face the challenges of achieving massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, tackling the horrendous problems of diet-related ill health, and restoring beauty, colour, wildlife and human cultivators to our farmed countryside.

Meanwhile, speakers at the much older Oxford Farming Conference seem stuck in a time-warp where for decades almost the only new development in agriculture worth discussing is GM crops, and where an annual attack on organic farming seems to be obligatory.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Liz Truss, did her bit in praise of GM – which is now just “one tool in the toolbox”, having been demoted from the “future for all farming and food” that was heralded in the 1990s.

Under what seem to be strict instructions from David Cameron not to do any more damage, if that were possible, to his “greenest government ever” claim, Liz Truss steered clear of saying anything new about GM, or announcing any action that would bring GM crops in England any closer, or indeed doing anything which you might expect an allegedly pro-GM government to do.

However, now that the Scottish referendum is over, the English Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is happy to forget that agriculture is already devolved to Scotland and Wales, and that both those countries remain staunchly opposed to GM crops.

So Liz Truss talked grandly about GM crops coming to the UK, when she’s actually only able to talk about England – 60% of the UK. Nor did she mention the commitment given by one of her junior ministers at the end of last year, namely that GM crops for England are, at best, “several years away“.

Over to you, Lord Krebs …

It was left to Lord Krebs to mount the seemingly obligatory attack on organic farming and food.

That’s the same Lord Krebs who made himself a figure of fun several years ago, when he was chair of the Food Standards Agency. On taking up his position, he announced, without any scientific evidence, that anyone buying organic food because it had nutritional differences with non-organic were “wasting their money”.

In his own field, which does not include nutrition or farming, Lord Krebs is a very distinguished scientist, so it must have hurt somewhat when, last year, a major meta-analysis was published which looked at 343 individual studies comparing antioxidant levels, heavy metals and pesticides in organic and non-organic food, focusing on salad crops, vegetables, grains and pulses.

An international team of scientists, led by Newcastle University, pooled all the existing research, and showed unequivocally that there are significant differences between organic and non-organic food, with 18 – 69% more beneficial antioxidants and 48% less dangerous cadmium.

We need more and better research in this area, and the researchers said that more studies would be likely to confirm the significance of a number of other positive trends in the differences between organic and non-organic food that they detected.

Yes, the science indicates that organic food is healthier!

That research did not look at the impact on our health of eating organic food – this takes many years and is very costly. To get clear results, scientists need to follow large groups of people who eat organic food, and a similar group who do not, for their whole lives.

As many modern diseases, like cancer and heart disease, tend to mainly emerge much later in life, it would take many decades of expensive monitoring to identify any differences. However, health problems that emerge early in life should be identifiable more quickly.

A Dutch study comparing mothers and children who drank organic milk and used organic dairy products with those that did not, found that those children suffered 36% less eczema than children on a non-organic diet.

More recently, a Norwegian study has linked organic vegetable consumption to a 24% lower incidence of pre-eclampsia, a major cause of illness in mothers and deaths of babies worldwide.

But while it is clear is that the way we farm does affect the quality of our food, the jury is still out on whether eating organic food will lead to people suffering less illness or disease over their lifetime.

Now the problem is ‘climate change’, claims Krebs (wrong again)

Given that Lord Krebs could hardly maintain his “it’s a waste of money” position in the face of this overwhelming scientific evidence, he has changed tack, claiming at Oxford that organic farming is bad for climate change, because it yields less than non-organic.

As is often a problem when scientists step outside their own fields of expertise, Lord Krebs has missed two other recently published meta-analyses, covering organic and non-organic farming, looking at yields and climate change impact.

First, a new meta-analysis published by scientists at the University of California at Berkeley pulled together all existing research comparing organic and non-organic yields (reported on The Ecologist), and concluded that the productivity of organic farming has been substantially underestimated.

Scientists found that globally organic yields are generally around 19% below non-organic, and that could reduce to only 8-9% below with better use of modern organic techniques.

It has always been the case that for some crops, like beans, peas, tomatoes, lentils and oats, organic and non-organic yields are the same, while grass-reared beef and lamb will be as or more productive on organic farms.

The study’s author, Professor Claire Kremen said: “This paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture.”

Organic farming sequesters more soil carbon

On an even more positive note, a global meta-analysis looking at farming’s ability to restore carbon in soils came to the conclusion that organic farming stores 3.50 Mg Carbon per hectare more than in nonorganic systems.

The research found an estimated maximum technical mitigation potential from soil carbon sequestration by switching to organic agriculture of 0.37 Gt Carbon sequestered per year globally, thus offsetting up to 3% of all current GHG emissions worldwide, or 25% of total current global agricultural emissions.

The climate summit in Paris at the end of this year is going to focus everyone’s mind on to the appalling threat that climate change poses.

Most attention in climate discussions focuses on emissions from industries like power generation (coal and natural gas versus renewables) and transport (petrol and diesel cars versus public transport and electric cars).

Food and farming, which account for as much greenhouse gas emissions as either of those sectors, is largely ignored – but that cannot continue. Indeed this year Parliament’s official Climate Change Committee will be looking in more detail at greenhouse gas emissions from farming.

The story here is an exciting one – globally, soils contain massive amounts of carbon, the release of which adds to the threat of climate change. However, as research shows, globally soils also offer an amazing opportunity to store more carbon.

The things that farmers need to do to achieve this, which include growing more grass in their rotations, returning crop residues and animal manure to farmland, particularly as compost, and growing green cover-crops through the winter, are all things that organic systems encourage or require.

That is why organic farming sequesters far more carbon in soils than non-organic farming.

Farming must get real!

This was on the agenda at the Oxford Real Farming Conference, where a session on a new report, the Square Meal report, focused on the vital importance of fighting food poverty and diet related ill-health, and the multiple benefits of agro-ecological farming systems – like organic.

These are proven to deliver better animal welfare, more wildlife on farms, lower greenhouse gas emissions, lower levels of pollution from pesticides and fertiliser run-off, and healthier diets.

This broad, inclusive vision for the future of food, farming and the countryside has been supported by ten major public interest groups, but this sort of discussion seems to be off the agenda for the old Oxford farming establishment.

Indeed the question of what this hugely taxpayer-subsidised industry might do in the public interest, rather than the interests of farm businesses, landowners and multi-national food businesses, is off the old Oxford agenda.

It is time the farming industry got real.

 

 

Peter Melchett is an organic farmer, and Policy Director of the Soil Association.

Photo: Sandy Lane Farm.

 




388738

UK ministers prepare for 2017 GM crop rollout Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The government is preparing for the planting of GM crops in the UK by putting in place ‘rules’ to govern their use once the EU has finalised its new regulation – which could take place next week.

In a letter to the Beyond GM campaign group, Lord de Mauley states that “the government will ensure that pragmatic rules are in place to segregate GM and non-GM production, so that choice is facilitated.”

Alarming campaigners, this looks like a significant weakening of the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto which commits the party to “develop a legally-binding protocol covering the separation of GM and non-GM material, including clear industry liability.”

He also makes the astonishing claim that “cross pollination is, again, a normal process between compatible plant species and there is nothing different about GM crops in this respect.”

He is apparently unaware that cross pollination from GM crops introduces GM genes into nearby fields and the wider environment – undermining his later statement: “We support the principle that farmers should be free to choose whether to adopt GM cultivation.”

The last time the UK government engaged in a serious consideration of co-existence of GM, organic and non-GM crops it commissioned Scimac, a pro-GMO industry body to write the rules – and adopted them wholesale in 2002.

There is now good reason to fear that the Government intends to brush the dust off Scimac’s GMO industry focused, voluntary ‘Code of Practice‘. De Mauley’s use of the term ‘rules’ rather than ‘laws’ or ‘regulations’ only adds to such suspicions.

The other danger is that the rules will be made “pragmatic” for the farmers of GM crops who want to be made exempt from liability if organic and non-GM crops and habitats are contaminated – rather than for organic producers and others who want to avoid contamination with GM seeds and pollen.

Commercial plantings ‘at least a few years’ away

The revelation comes in a letter to campaign group Beyond GM from junior environment minister Lord de Mauley, in response to the Beyond GM initiative The Letter from America which was delivered to the Prime Minister’s office in November.

It also provides some reassurance to campaigners who have feared that proposed changes in the EU’s GMO authorisation process would lead to GM crops being grown in England as early as the 2015 planting season:

“We do not expect any commercial planting of GM crops in the UK for at least a few years as no GM crops in the EU approval pipeline are of major interest to UK farmers”, writes de Mauley.

However the letter leaves no doubt that the Government intends to press ahead with growing GM crops in the UK as soon as it is expedient to do so – provided it wins the next general election. During its period in Government, the Conservative Party has become increasingly supportive of growing GM crops in the UK.

But even a Labour election victory could produce the same result. Its 2013 ‘Feeding the Nation‘ food policy review states: “Biotechnology cannot, by itself, increase the UK’s domestic food supply, but it can be one of the tools used to ensure better resilience in the UK food chain, and to reduce environmental damage.”

But at least Labour acknowledges the need for public acceptance: “GM may have a role in UK food security and environmental protection, but public views – informed by the science – must also be heard. Public and political acceptance is vital, as is proof of its benefits to the environment and producers.”

European Parliament vote imminent after secret negotiations

It is likely that the European Parliament will vote in favour of the proposed GMO authorisation process in its imminent plenary session on the 13th of January and thereby open up the EU to GM cropping as early as spring 2015.

This so called ‘opt-out’ regulation is really an ‘opt-in’ measure, as its effect would be to breach the existing de facto moratorium on GMOs, and free up countries such as the UK which want to press ahead with the cultivation of GM crops.

The proposal has already been through a behind-closed-door, non-transparent process known as the trialogue – where the European Commission, Parliament and representatives of the Council of Ministers secretly wheel and deal to facilitate the passage of legislation.

Despite the efforts of the EP’s Environment Committee representatives, the trialogue process stripped out all mandatory measures to prevent contamination of non-GM crops and establish liability rules to give non-GM farmers legal and financial protection.

These issues will be left to EU Member States. Some will put in place robust and legally binding arrangements to protect non-GM farmers and the countryside even if they constrain GMO production – but on current form, the UK is unlikely to be among them.

Action is needed now

The fact that there are virtually no commercial GM crops suitable for the UK in the pipeline does not mean that any of us can feel confident of a GM free future for the UK:

  • The EU’s push to sweep away the ‘Precautionary Principle‘, the ‘polluter pays’ principle, indeed all legal and technical obstacles to GMOs in our farming and food, will increase momentum from the start of 2015.
  • There is a possibility – albeit a remote one – that Syngenta’s GM maize (GA21) with tolerance to glyphosate could find some uptake in the UK by 2016.
  • It is very likely that research institutions in the UK will gear up their GM crop trials and, using taxpayer money, plant more research field trials to benefit the GMO industry and private patent holders.
  • At the same time GM ingredients and products are increasingly finding their way into the UK food system.
  • And of course there is the long running and ongoing scandal that supermarkets refuse to put GM labels on livestock products where the animals have been fed genetically engineered feed.

Lord de Mauley’s letter assures Beyond GM that “In the UK, the Government believes people should know what they are buying in shops or in restaurants.”

But this form of words is much less robust than the 2010 manifesto promise to “ensure that consumers have the right to choose non-GM foods through clear labelling.” Not that the 2010 promise has been kept – products from animals reared on GM feeds are not labelled nor does the government have any plan to require it.

His statement that the government “regards safety as paramount and will only agree to the planting of GM crops and the sale of GM foods if it is clear that people and the environment will not be harmed” also appears reassuring.

But it lacks the rigour of the 2010 manifesto promise to “not permit any commercial planting of GM crops until and unless it has been assessed as safe for people and the environment.” Moreover he makes it clear that the UK will accept the EU’s “robust evaluation system” for GM crops – widely criticised as grossly inadequate and subservient to industry wishes.

Again, this gives little cause for confidence that the Government will put in place effective GM labelling regulations, or measures to protect farmland, the countryside, and the food chain from GMO contamination.

Raising voices and getting heard

Individuals and organisations representing nearly 60 million US citizens – just under 25% of the total adult population – have signed and endorsed the Letter from America which sets out the US experience of GMO food and farming, and warns us not to follow this example.

This is just the tip of the mounting opposition to GMOs in the US, which follows years of growing environmental contamination with herbicides and the decimation of wildlife, including the near extinction of the Monarch butterfly.

The fact that David Cameron – the head of what was meant to be Britain’s “greenest ever government“ – has no interest in citizens’ concerns about GMOs was made clear when he passed the Letter on to Defra. Environment Secretary Liz Truss indicated the same when she, in turn, passed the letter on to a junior minister.

Nonetheless, we are grateful for Lord de Mauley’s reply because it highlights the need for more active and vocal citizen engagement – so that the next time a letter on the issue of GMOs is delivered to 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister is on the doorstep to receive it, and replies in person.

Through campaigns such as the Letter from America, GM Free Me, our support of networks such as Mums Say No to GMOs and other initiatives which will be rolled out during 2015, we aim to stimulate and facilitate an effective opposition to government- and industry-backed GMO invasion of the UK.

GM crops might not be ready for planting in the UK in 2015 or even 2016 – but the ground is being prepared for them now, as is the GMO creep onto our supermarket shelves and into our food.

That means that now is the time for citizens to find their voices, speak up and campaign effectively – especially in the run-up to the 2015 election.

 

 

Lawrence Woodward is founder and director of GM Education and a co-founder of Beyond GM, where a version of this article first appeared.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Oxford Real Farming Conference: Lawrence Woodward and Pat Thomas will be discussing the issues raised in this article at the Oxford Real Farming Conference – tomorrow Tuesday 6th and Wednesday 7th of January 2015.

 




379555

Living with GMOs – a letter from America Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




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