#1 GM Thread: Protest against wheat testing banned

[Bev]

So is Britain in danger of running out of food? It may seem an odd question since the shelves of our supermarkets appear full. Next time, why not check how much of it is imported.

Our farmers and politicians are starting to talk of the need for Britain to be self-sufficient in growing its own food.

"We're aware of the need of energy security. We now have to think in terms of food security, otherwise we'll start to run out," Conservative MP Mark Spencer told me.

He runs his own farm just north of Nottingham and should know his onions.


Complacency is a genuine risk to future UK food security”

Anne McIntosh MP Chair, Rural Affairs Cttee

"This also means the public and policy makers being more prepared to accept genetically modified food," he added.

The Sherwood MP helped shape a report from the parliamentary Rural Affairs Committee that warned of Britain's over-reliance on imported food.

"Complacency is a genuine risk to future UK food security," said committee chair Anne McIntosh.

"If we want our food production and supply systems to be secure, government and food producers must plan to meet the impacts of climate change, population growth and increasing global demand for food," added the North Yorkshire Conservative.

The National Farmers' Union also warned that if Britain had solely relied on home-grown produce so far this year, we would have already run out by this month.

Until the end of the year, food imports would have to fill the gap.
Mark Spencer in Parliament MP Mark Spencer runs a farm near Nottingham

According to the MPs' report, the UK is currently 77% self-sufficient, a figure which has dropped by 10% in recent years.

The NFU claims self-sufficiency in fresh produce - such as fruit and vegetables - fell from 46% in 2000 to 34% in 2013. The gap has been filled with imports, mainly from the USA.

Some ask: Is "Dig for Victory" the new battle cry?

I sought an answer on a visit to Bakewell in Derbyshire, for one of the oldest and largest agricultural shows in Britain.

Food security was a talking point, but have we got the land and the farmers any more?
'Keen farmers'

"I think we have," Derbyshire NFU official Grant Hattle told me.

"We've got good agricultural colleges with a high standard of education.

"And they are full of young people keen to get involved with farming. We just need to make sure we can get them into the industry."
“Start Quote

Locally-sourced food should guarantee better quality and at a fair price”

Mark Spencer MP & farmer

The government's new Rural Affairs Secretary Liz Truss gave farmers a lift with a £400m programme. That cash support will enable the NHS, the military and schools to buy food produced locally rather than relying on imports, even if cheaper.

But where's the benefit for consumers? Will self-sufficiency also result in higher prices at the supermarkets?

"It doesn't necessary mean that at all," said Mark Spencer.

"Locally-sourced food should guarantee better quality and at a fair price, without the costly food miles involved in flying food from the other side of the world."

Could this signal the end of Britain's cheap food policy?

And can the country grow enough food to feed itself?

"Dig for Victory?" We may need some updated slogans to persuade the doubters.

ht tp://ww w.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28712117

[Zander]

We will never be self-reliant until the government stop paying farmers for growing nothing.

[Dawn Cannon]

Asia's rice farmers produce between 1-2 harvests a year depending on the climb and climate of any given region. They do so to sell their rice, generally to mills who in turn sell the final product to exporters or for domestic consumption. Out of each harvest, rice farmers keep a portion for their own consumption, but the vast majority of what they grow is for income.

The UK-based Rice Association claims there are up to 40,000 species of rice, with a wide variety of characteristics suitable for different markets and uses. Rice farmers grow those which local, national and regional markets are best suited to move. In nations where subsidies are offered for rice crops, cheap, easy to grow varieties are chosen. More desirable or exotic species are grown by independent farmers who have developed their own cooperative with millers, marketers and exporters. The rice Asians eat depends on both economic and market realities. The impoverished eat what is cheapest and most easily available, but not necessarily that which is healthiest.


Enter GMO:

Poor diet leads to vitamin deficiencies, a persistent problem among the impoverished. A lack of basic healthcare and education allows the otherwise easily rectified problem to continue unresolved. The World Health Organization (WHO) states on their website, "an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight." This statistic is global, not regionally specific to Asia, but Southeast Asia in particular suffers from such deficiencies.

WHO prescribes cheap vitamin supplements and the promotion of local gardens to produce a variety of fruits and vegetables that can easily solve not only vitamin A deficiency, but other deficiencies as well. WHO states, "for vulnerable rural families, for instance in Africa and South-East Asia, growing fruits and vegetables in home gardens complements dietary diversification and fortification and contributes to better lifelong health."

Surely then, one would expect both regional governments and international organizations to focus on these recommendations. However, there is a vocal and growing cry to solve this problem with another, more radical solution, the implementation of genetically modified (GM) rice containing beta-carotene to target specifically vitamin A deficiency in Asia. Promoted by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), directly funded by agricultural giants Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and others, along with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) which is also partnered with big-business agriculture, genetically modified "Golden Rice" containing beta-carotene is promoted as the solution to saving "millions of children."


Golden Rice: Scourge of Asia

In reality Golden Rice will do nothing of the sort. The promotion of Golden Rice is not unlike any given commercial endeavor. IRRI's website links to articles like, "A senseless fight," which asks, "how could anyone in good conscience seek to thwart technology that has even a remote chance of tackling the problem of vitamin A blindness?" The appeal to emotions and sickly children diverts from the real threat Golden Rice poses to the very people it claims to be helping. People who grow rice, grow it to sell to markets. These markets are well-developed, based on indigenous agricultural technology and tradition, and linked to export markets with stringent requirements (many of which restrict or outright ban GMO). The introduction of GM rice for any reason, would threaten or potentially destroy the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people.

Proponents of Golden Rice suggest rice farmers replace their profitable crops with genetically modified rice that will treat only one of many vitamin and mineral deficiencies they may or may not potentially suffer from, deficiencies that could be easily solved through other methods. Clearly illogical in terms of "helping" the malnourished, Golden Rice must serve another purpose.

The author of IRRI's featured article, "A senseless fight," suggests that "Golden Rice is being developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which is a not-for-profit institute, and the seeds will be distributed to farmers who can resow them as they wish. In these cases, the argument [against Golden Rice] switches to “Golden Rice is a Trojan horse”. In other words, by sneaking below the barriers of suspicion, it will open the floodgates to GMO technology and from then on to a slippery slope and the takeover of the world’s seed supply."

The author, in their attempt to defend Golden Rice, reveals the true agenda behind the otherwise useless crop. Governments, international organizations and the private sector (i.e. Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer) will flood Asia with Golden Rice, where it will intermingle and contaminate rice species that have been in use for centuries and form the foundation of Asia's historical and modern agricultural industry. The livelihoods of some 470 million people who depend on rice farming in Asia (not to mention those that import and consume Asian rice beyond Asia's borders) would be jeopardized by the proliferation of Golden Rice disseminated under the dubious guise of humanitarian concerns.

The marketing machine behind Golden Rice doesn't ever seem to address this critical fact. That Golden Rice seeds will be kept and sown each year by prospective cultivators only increases the dangers of cross-contamination with other, economically and culturally valuable species. It is in all regards a flagrant attempt to infiltrate, corrupt and overtake rice production at its very geographical and socioeconomic heart. It is akin to a plague openly being designed, tested and prepared to be unleashed on a population. The spread of Golden Rice too is a plague that will compound exponentially the challenges already facing millions of farmers across Asia.

When all it takes to solve vitamin A deficiency is what WHO claims is "supplementation" that costs "a couple of cents a dose," and the growing of gardens that solve not only vitamin A deficiencies Golden Rice claims to target, but a whole host of other deficiencies Golden Rice most certainly does not address, the fact that Golden Rice is not what it is promoted to be is obvious. It is, as IRRI coined it, a "Trojan horse," that will not only fail to stop malnutrition, but will expand the very destitution, poverty, and helplessness that causes malnutrition in the first place.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

http://localorg.blogspot.co.uk/2014/...e-of-asia.html

[NewsFeed]

The European Union has approved a law that will enable the bloc’s 28 member states to restrict the cultivation of genetically modified crops, even if the EU has declared them as safe. The law comes despite furious lobbying from multinationals.

Previously, countries that opposed the cultivation of crops approved by Brussels potentially faced legal challenges. Now, any country may unilaterally ban a particular genetically modified variety of seed or even “groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait” and additionally demand that their neighbors do not contaminate their fields.

The EU legislation will come into force in spring next year, pending a formal agreement from the individual states. Among the states likely to find use for the statute are France, Germany, Austria and Poland, which have consistently opposed gene-splicing technologies.

“The agreement, if confirmed, would meet member states’ consistent calls since 2009 to have the final say on whether or not GMOs can be cultivated on their territory, in order to better take into account their national context and, above all, the views of their citizens,” said a statement from EU Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis.

“The text agreed is in line with EU President Juncker’s commitment, as reflected in his political guidelines, to give the democratically elected governments at least the same weight as scientific advice when it comes to important decisions concerning food and environment.”

Some scientists and industry groups say the decision undermines the continent-wide system of certification, a key tenet of the EU’s common market, as well allowing irrational prejudices to overrule reasoned study. All previous EU-commissioned studies have failed to detect harm from GMOs.

Biotech giants had hoped that a clause would be included in the legislation that would force governments to consult with them before terminating any crop.

“Rejecting modern technologies on non-scientific grounds sets a dangerous precedent for the internal market and sends a negative signal for innovative industries worldwide considering whether or not to invest and operate in Europe,” said a written statement from EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries.

Yet some believe that the new law will allow the deadlock over GM crops to be broken after nearly two decades of controversy. Due to opposition from the EU heavyweights, only one GM crop has been approved since 1998. About 0.1 percent of land on the continent is used to grow genetically-modified crops, specifically Monsanto’s MON810 maize.

Officials have speculated that the new nation-oriented rules will allow more leeway for proponents of GM crops, such as Britain and the Iberian states, to go ahead.

The new law is “finally opening the door to genetically-modified organisms across Europe, in spite of citizens’ clear opposition,” said Green MEP Bart Staes, who called the new proposal a “Trojan Horse.”

Meanwhile, market leader Monsanto, which last year said it would not try to get any more GM crops approved in Europe, remained unperturbed, insisting its business does not rely on favors from the EU.

“What we sell in Europe today is 99.5 percent conventional seeds. So if you think about it, we are not a GMO company,” Leticia Goncalves, the company’s Europe and Middle East regional president, told the media.

“To be honest, we have a very healthy business today in terms of growth expectations,” said the executive of the US-based company, which had revenues of nearly $15 billion last year.

Source

GD Star Rating

loading...

Related Posts

Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

read full article at source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEu...3/PNiUXQCMOdg/

[NewsFeed]

http://humansarefree.com/2015/01/bono-partners-with-monsanto-to-destroy.html

As his career continues to free fall into total irrelevance, pop star "Bono" of the rock group U2 has announced his support for a U.S.-backed plan to rape and pillage Africa by stealing its land and agricultural systems and replacing them with corporate-owned GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) and chemicals.

At the recent G8 Summit held at Camp David in Maryland, the Obama regime met with private industry leaders to announce the launch of the "New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition," a thinly-veiled Green Revolution 2.0 that aims to uproot autonomous family farming systems throughout Africa and replace them with toxic monoculture systems controlled by multinational corporations like Monsanto.

The deceptively titled scheme, which investigative journalist Rady Ananda describes as "a euphemism for monocultured, genetically modified crops and toxic agrochemicals aimed at making poor farmers debt slaves to corporations, while destroying the ecosphere for profit," follows the usual script -- all those poor African people need American corporations to take control of their lives so they can be healthy and prosperous.

It is a tired mantra that, upon closer look, is easily exposed as a complete sham to both exploit the vulnerable for obscene profits and seize control over the food supply. And this overtly evil agenda is one that Bono apparently believes is good, at least for the American interests that are slithering their way into Africa under the guise of helping the poor.

"They're future consumers for the United States," stated Bono during a 2012 interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports, referring to the people of Africa who have yet to be assimilated into the beast system. "The president is talking business. This is good. It's a whole new development paradigm today. The old donor/recipient relationship... it's over."

A video clip of Bono speaking these menacing words is available here:

KennySideshow.Blogspot.com.

Africa says NO to agricultural genocide being foisted by US

Africa has long been a target of perverse American exploitation, with its rich diversity of minerals, gems and precious metals, a.k.a. lots of dollar signs for greedy mega-corporations. It is only natural, then, that this insatiable lust for filthy lucre extend to food and agriculture as well, much like it already has in the U.S. where GMOs and corporate monoculture rule the day.

Never mind that the African people are vehemently opposed to having their agricultural heritage stolen from them by U.S. interests. The African Civil Society Organizations recently had this to say about the so-called "public private partnerships" being established to eliminate African sovereignty over its own food supply:

"We request that: -- governments, FAO, the G8, the World Bank and the GAFSP [Global Agriculture and Food Security Program] reconsider their promotion of Public/Private Partnerships which, as they are now conceived, are not suitable instruments to support the family farms which are the very basis of African food security and sovereignty."

There's really no other way to interpret this than Africa telling the U.S. and its corporate masters across the globe to shove it and stay out of their land.

The first Green Revolution was an absolute failure, and this second proposed one will be even worse. Nothing about the plan benefits ordinary farmers or citizens of Africa -- it is all about enriching multinational corporations under the guise of humanitarian aid.

"All these systems are extremely tenuous, vulnerable, not robust, not resilient," explains a report by Volatility about the nature of corporate agriculture. "They're all guaranteed to collapse. Hermetic monoculture, and industrial agriculture as such, is one big hothouse flower which requires perfect conditions to survive."

By Jonathan Benson, Natural News; | References: Food Freedom Group; Willy Loman; Kenny Side Show; Attempter; Science NN;

read full article at source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Human...o-destroy.html

[C18 Australia]

Bono is a fucking maggot!Hopeful that scum has a fatal accident soon.

[NewsFeed]

Contributing Author

European Parliament News

January 18th, 2015


New legislation to allow EU member states to restrict or ban the cultivation of crops containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on their own territory, even if this is allowed at EU level, was passed by MEPs on Tuesday. The legislation, informally agreed by Parliament and Council in December, was originally tabled in 2010 but was then deadlocked for four years due to disagreement between pro and anti-GMO member states.

“This agreement will ensure more flexibility for member states who wish to restrict the cultivation of the GMOs in their territory. It will, moreover, signpost a debate which is far from over between pro- and anti-GMO positions” said Frédérique Ries (ALDE, BE), who is steering the legislation through Parliament.

“As to what comes next, I place my trust in Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s formal pledge to strengthen the democratic process on GMOs in Europe and ensure that research is genuinely independent”, she added. The agreement negotiated with EU ministers was approved by 480 votes to 159, with 58 abstentions.

Risk assessment and management

The new rules would allow member states to ban GMOs on environmental policy grounds other than the risks to health and the environment already assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Member States could also ban GMO crops on other grounds, such as town and country planning requirements, socio-economic impact, avoiding the unintended presence of GMOs in other products and farm policy objectives. Bans could also include groups of GMOs designated by crop or trait.

Before a member state may adopt such measures, the legislation provides for a procedure enabling the GMO crop company to consent to such restrictions on its marketing authorisation. However, if the company disagrees, the member state may impose a ban unilaterally.

MON810 maize is currently the only GM crop cultivated in the EU. The “Amflora” GM potato was banned by the EU General Court in 2013 after an initial green light from the European Commission.

Buffer zones/cross-contamination

Member States should also ensure that GMO crops do not contaminate other products, and particular attention should be paid to preventing cross-border contamination with neighbouring countries, says the text..

Next steps

The new legislation will come into force in spring 2015.

Resources:

GMO OMG

Monsanto vs. the World: The Monsanto Protection Act, GMOs and Our Genetically Modified Future

The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk

The Prepper’s Blueprint: The Step-By-Step Guide To Help You Through Any Disaster

The Prepper’s Cookbook: 300 Recipes to Turn Your Emergency Food into Nutritious, Delicious, Life-Saving Meals

The Pantry Primer: How to Build a One-Year Food Supply in Three Months

Contributed by Contributing Author of European Parliament News.

read full article at source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/eu-pa...-states_012015

[Bev]

Ministers are set to give the go-ahead to the use of gene editing in agriculture which could see altered produce on the supermarket shelves in five years time, i can reveal.

The Government is expected to issue its response to its own consultation on the technology at the end of the month that will give the green light to the “cautious exploration” of genetic engineering in farming.

The move will mark the biggest divergence by the UK away from existing European laws since leaving the EU, which has banned the technique for years amid fears it is unsafe.


Brexit minister Lord Frost announced yesterday the Government’s intention to repeal EU laws governing the use of genetic editing in the UK as part of a statement on “Brexit opportunities” in the coming years.

He told peers that Environment Secretary George Eustice would “shortly set out plans to reform the regulation of gene edited organisms”.

The lifting of the ban would “enable more sustainable and efficient farming and help produce healthier and more nutritious food”, he added.

Gene editing involves the technique of replacing genes that govern certain traits, such as water dependency, disease resistance and nutrition with better-functioning ones from the same species.

It has the potential to make crops much more nutritious and resistant to storms or pests – and to considerably boost the resilience and yields of livestock, advocates say.

The NFU believes gene-edited produce could be on shop shelves within five years. Outdoor trials have been launched to grow GE wheat that “knocks out” acrylamide, a carcinogen that occurs when bread is toasted. It is being grown in a controlled environment in Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire.

The technology may also allow farmers to reduce their dependence on antibiotics in dairy cattle, which can be passed on to humans.

A consultation launched by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs back in January came to a close in March, but the government’s response is only due at the end of this month.

In an interview with i in March, Defra chief scientific advisor Professor Gideon Henderson said: “There is a mindset that we would like to change the law on this – that tendency to go ahead is there. And everything I have heard so far from diverse stakeholder groups taking in the breadth of the views suggests that there is pretty general support for it.”

The decision to lift the ban on gene-editing, which is different to genetically modifying, has been criticised by animal rights groups on the grounds of animal welfare concerns.

A Defra spokesperson said: “Gene editing has the ability to harness the genetic resources that mother nature has provided, such as breeding crops that perform better, benefitting farmers and reducing impacts on the environment.

“Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to make coherent policy decisions on gene editing based on current science and evidence. We are committed to proportionate, science-based regulation that protects people, animals and the environment – and that begins with this consultation.”

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk-gene-edi...policy-1202704

Forget the "empty shelves" panic that they keep going on about. We're saved.

[Bev]

post 279 of the Food Shortages thread in This Just In: great post by Johan and I hope he doesn't mind me nicking it for this thread.

Allotment gardeners as serious criminals: 25,000 euro fine for growing old fruit and vegetable varieties.

There are still seeds of age-old fruit and vegetable varieties. They are hardy and can be propagated beautifully - but they shouldn't. There is a seed trade law in this country that prohibits the trade, exchange and transfer of old seeds. People should rather use genetically modified seeds from criminal big companies.