Category Archives: United States

Britain, Canada, Economic, Environment, European Union, Government, Health, Research, Science, Technology, United States

GM crops: The arguments presented by the Environment Secretary don’t stack up…

Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson MP: Fervent advocate of GM

Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson MP: Fervent advocate of GM

UK Government ministers want GM crops on supermarket shelves by the end of the decade after declaring they are ‘categorically’ safer than conventional food.

The UK Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson MP, made the extraordinary claim that millions of children in the developing world are ‘dying or going blind’ because the controversial practice has not been more widely adopted.

He blamed European reluctance to grow ‘Frankenfoods’ for ‘generating unwarranted resistance to the technology in the parts of the world’ that need it most.

In a statement Mr Paterson said:

… Over the last 15 years… every attempt to deploy Golden Rice (modified to boost Vitamin A) has been thwarted and in that time seven million children have gone blind or died.

… I think all those who have thwarted the attempts to bring this in, for free, should reflect those are real young people.

… Young people will wake up this morning able to see and they will go to bed blind for life. Some of them will die today.

His bold claims that GM crops are safer and would save lives were dismissed by critics as ‘hysterical’ and ‘emotional nonsense’, which deflects from more sustainable ways of improving food security.

Earlier this year, the International Rice Research Institute, which is working on the Golden Rice project, denied reports that it was available for commercial planting, saying it has yet to pass safety tests or prove it could reduce vitamin A deficiency.

Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch, an organisation which campaigns to ensure any use of GM is in the public interest, said: ‘Owen Paterson has lost the plot when he starts claiming that GM food is safer than the food we all eat every day.

Dr Wallace continued:

… Genetic engineering can introduce new proteins into food or cause unexpected changes that are not fully understood and it is important that people can avoid such foods if they don’t want to eat them.

… Claims that critics of GM are killing babies everywhere in the world are verging on hysteria. A decision on whether to grow Golden Rice will be made in the Philippines, not Europe. It is in any case an unproven approach to tackling vitamin A deficiency and better ways exist to stop children growing blind.

Peter Melchett, the policy director at the Soil Association, said: ‘Paterson is simply ignoring the science when claiming GM crops are safe when there is no scientific evidence to support that statement… And his claims that millions of people have died in developing countries because efforts to grow Golden Rice have been thwarted is emotional nonsense. No one in Europe had any control over GM Golden Rice and therefore, no way of stopping it.’

Due to public concern, there are only a handful of products containing GM-crops currently available on British high streets.

For the record, the Prime Minister, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, and David Willetts, the Science Minister, have all voiced support for the controversial technology. Many scientists, too, have also voiced their support for the technique.

But a British Science Association study showed public support for ‘Frankenstein foods’ declining from 46 per cent in 2002 to only 27 per cent now.

Various campaign groups have also raised concerns over ministers’ secret meetings with GM lobby groups – details of which emerged following freedom of information requests.

Currently, there are no commercial GM crops in Britain, but livestock is commonly reared on imported GM feed. So far biotech firms have been deterred due to tough European regulations.

Mr Paterson, a long-standing advocate of GM technology, wants to see an easing of the restrictions. He said he wants to see the controversial produce on British supermarket shelves before the end of the decade or ‘as soon as possible’.

Mr Paterson delivered his statement from the Rothamsted Research Centre in Hertfordshire, which is conducting the only active GM crop trial in Britain. He insists the technology was safer than conventional farming methods.

Regardless of the view in Westminster, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales remain firmly opposed to GM.

An analysis of claims made by the Environment Secretary:

PUBLIC HEALTH

Claim: GM food is ‘probably safer’ than the meals we eat today. ‘There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health,’ said Mr Paterson.

Reality: In May 2011, independent doctors in Canada reported that toxins implanted into GM crops to kill pests were reaching the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies.

Ninety-three per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent of umbilical cords showed traces of the chemicals, probably ingested by eating meat, milk and eggs from livestock fed GM corn.

There is no conclusive evidence about the health effects, but these toxins could conceivably trigger changes in the body, including allergies, miscarriages, abnormalities and even cancer.

GOLDEN RICE

Claim: This modified crop – which developing countries have been reluctant to accept because of fears over GM – contains high levels of Vitamin A, which can protect the eyesight.

Mr Paterson’s emotive claim was that: ‘Over the last 15 years… every attempt to deploy Golden Rice has been thwarted and in that time seven million children have gone blind or died.’

Reality: Children do not go blind overnight through a lack of Vitamin A in their diet. In any case, the same vitamin is available more cheaply through many other natural foods such as green vegetables. Doctors can also offer cheap supplement tablets where there is evidence of a problem.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Claim: GM farming is good for the environment. ‘There is a very strong environmental case for GM,’ said Mr Paterson. ‘We can farm more efficiently, using new technology and using less land. It gives a wonderful opportunity to free up land for wilderness and forestry.’

Reality: Evidence from UK trials and commercial cultivation in the US points to real damage to the ecosystem.

British farms were planted with crops of oilseed rape and beet that had been genetically modified to make them immune to heavy spraying with a powerful weedkiller.

The results, published in 2003, revealed this spraying not only wiped out weeds, but also wild plants and insects. Butterfly numbers were down almost a quarter in some areas.

One strain of GM corn – Mon 810 – has been created by US biotech firm Monsanto to include a toxin which kills pests. Poland banned the crop last year because its pollen was believed to be harming bees. It is also banned in Germany, France, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, and Luxembourg.

PESTICIDES

Claim: GM crops are better for the environment because farmers use fewer pesticides.

Reality: Evidence from the US suggests that initial reductions in the use of chemicals on GM crops are now being reversed.

A study by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University, found the weight of chemicals used on US farms has increased by 404 million lb since GM was introduced in 1996.

Professor Benbrook warned: ‘Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GM crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 per cent.’

SUPERWEEDS AND SUPERBUGS

Claim: ‘Thanks to biotechnology, farmers around the world have been able to protect yields, prevent damage from insects and pests and reduce farming’s impact on the environment,’ said Mr Paterson.

Reality: Weeds and insects sprayed with chemicals on GM farms in the US have evolved to become immune to them.

As a result, superweeds are now so rampant in some areas that growers have resorted to machetes, flame throwers and defoliant chemicals used during the Vietnam war. The biggest threats are giant ragweed and pigweed, which grow at a rate of more than one inch a day and reach a height of 10ft.

YIELDS

Claim: High-yield GM crops will save billions from starvation: ‘At this very moment there are one billion people on this planet who are chronically hungry,’ said Mr Paterson.

‘Are we really going to look them in the eye and say we have the proven technology to help, but the issue’s just too difficult to deal with, it’s just too controversial?’

Reality: Research published in the last few days shows that increases in crop yields have been much greater in countries which have not adopted GM.

Yields of maize or corn in Europe, where farmers have rejected GM, have risen more quickly over the last 30 years than those in the US. Yields of oilseed rape have always been higher in Western Europe than Canada. This gap has grown since Canada started cultivating GM varieties.

The research was carried out by a team based at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, and published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.

INDIAN COTTON FARMERS

Claim: Growing GM cotton has been of huge economic benefit to poor communities in India. ‘It has been a massive boon to some or the least advantaged people in the world,’ said Mr Paterson.

Reality: Prince Charles has pointed out the high rate of suicide in India among farmers growing GM cotton.

Speaking in 2008, he highlighted the ‘truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties.’ He has been accused by the GM lobby of being ‘Luddite’ and ‘ignoring’ the potential benefits of GM crops to feed the Third World.

Related:

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, Government, Politics, United States

The United States and Britain hold peace talks with the Taliban…

The UK has announced it is set to join peace talks with the Taliban to bring an end to the 12-year conflict in Afghanistan that has cost more than 400 British lives.

Washington announced earlier this week that negotiations with the Taliban will begin as early as today in the Gulf state of Qatar.

David Cameron gave his backing to the peace plan and revealed that the UK has been ‘fully engaged’ in the process for some time.

A number of Conservative MPs warn the talks could lead to a sell-out that hands southern Afghanistan back to the militants who have killed 444 British servicemen since 2001. It has also emerged that Taliban fighters are likely to be released as a ‘confidence-building measure’ as part of the talks.

It is understood that British intelligence officers have been conducting secret negotiations with the Taliban for the past two years to help pave the way for the talks. Intelligence agents and diplomats are likely to join in if the initial exchanges suggest that a deal can be done.

Under the terms of the arrangement, the Taliban has vowed to break its links with Al-Qaeda terrorists in exchange for a role in running Afghanistan when Western combat troops withdraw at the end of next year.

The announcement was made immediately after NATO handed over control for combat operations to Afghan security forces in every region of the country.

The talks in the Qatari capital, Doha, where the Taliban has opened an office, may also include representatives of the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai.

While the US will have its first formal meeting with the Taliban in several years, it is expected that will be quickly followed up by a meeting between the Taliban and the High Peace Council – the structure that President Karzai has set up for talks of this nature.

The initial meeting with the Taliban is likely to be an ‘exchange of agendas’ in which both sides lay out what issues they want addressed. Prisoner exchanges will be one topic for discussion.

MI6 officers have been engaged on and off for more than two years in an attempt to get Afghans to talk to each other. The intelligence service believes this will lead to a positive outcome.

Mr Cameron has acknowledged that the talks would be ‘difficult’ for many people to accept, but he said we need to match the security response in Afghanistan with a political process to try and make sure that as many people as possible give up violence and join the political process.

The Prime Minister said that we should be very proud of what our Armed Forces have done because the proportion of terror plots against Britain emanating from Afghanistan has ‘radically reduced’ since 2001.

Conservative MP Bob Stewart, who commanded British Forces in Bosnia, has warned that the Taliban holds the ‘whip hand’ and negotiators need to ‘get the talks right’ or British service people would have ‘died in vain.’

General Khodaidad of Afghanistan, the former counter-narcotics minister, said the country’s armed forces would need to be able to prevent the return of Taliban control in the south, including Helmand province where British troops have been fighting.

Khodaidad says that the Afghan National Army will not be able to control Afghanistan for the long term. Like others he believes that some parts of Afghanistan will fall into the hands of the Taliban.

The military have always been clear that there needs to be a political solution. The irony now is that the country is not just handed back to the Taliban, the very regime which was toppled by the West in 2001.

Standard
Iran, Syria, United States

Will Iran’s new president alter its policy on Syria?

Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, is faced with a plethora of national and international challenges.

Rouhani’s presidential term starts at a particularly challenging time. The Islamic Republic of Iran is facing an unprecedented level of regional and international isolation, largely due to the US/EU sanctions because of Iranian aspirations in building a nuclear bomb.

One of the most crucial foreign policy objectives in Rouhani’s agenda will be the Syrian conflict, which has now entered its third year.

Iran’s election result raises vital questions as to whether its foreign policy towards the Assad regime will be altered or whether the Iranian-Syrian alliance will evolve into a new phase. The presidency of the centrist Rouhani could change the diplomatic ties with Damascus, with a change possible in Iran’s support for Assad. Tehran has provided the Syrian state with political, military, intelligence and advisory support to its army and security services. That support has, until now, been unconditional.

While there are high expectations among Western political leaders that the election of the centrist Rouhani might influence a change in Iran’s support of Assad, that enthusiasm must be balanced against a number of factors including the realism of Iran’s centrist ideology, the power of the presidential office, Iran’s political structure, and Tehran’s foreign policy objectives.

The political spectrum of the centrists in Iran analyses Syria more from a religious and geopolitical angle and how the realms of the balance-of-power lies. It is least interested in any deterioration in human rights.

Although Rouhani argues for constructive interactions with other countries, and supports applying a softer political tone – as opposed to the combative, controversial and provocative language used by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – Rouhani has not yet called for an overall sweeping shift in Iran’s foreign policy towards Syria. Rouhani has neither asked Assad to step down from power nor pressed to halt the intelligence, financial and advisory support to Damascus.

However, withdrawing support to Damascus could be perceived by some centrists as an attempt to undermine Tehran’s geopolitical leverage and balance of power in the region, which ultimately could endanger their own influence and power. This is particularly significant to those Iranian leaders who argue that they are surrounded by what they perceive as ‘existential and strategic enemies’. Military bases of the United States, for instance, are located throughout Iran’s borders and in the Gulf Arab states – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

The role of the Supreme Leader, too, plays a significant part in Iran’s foreign policy objectives. It may then be unrealistic to argue that Rouhani would be in a position to immediately alter Iran’s current political status quo towards the Assad regime. Iran’s policy towards Damascus is closely guarded by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the high generals of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Etela’at – Iran’s intelligence service. Rouhani will, though, have the ability to set the tone in regional and international circles for the Supreme Leader.

Ali Khamenei has been very clear about his political stance on Syria, stating that Assad’s regime is targeted by Israeli and US-backed groups, foreign conspirators and terrorists.

The religious and pious angle is hugely important. One of the major pillars of Iran’s foreign policy has been that it has proclaimed itself as the safe-guardian of Islamic values, particularly Shi’ite. The Alawite sect-based state of Syria serves as a crucial instrument for advancing, empowering, and achieving this foreign policy objective. Many analysts will be of the view that Rouhani is unlikely to push for regime change in Syria, or by asking Assad to step aside as many Western and Arab Gulf states have done. The domino effect of halting any advisory assistance, be it political, military, or intelligence, to Assad’s ruling Alawite and socialist Bath party, would likely weaken Iran’s own regional influence and foreign policy leverage.

If the Alawites lose power, the next government in Syria is likely to be constituted from the current opposition groups: the Sunni majority in Syria comprises around 74% of the population. As in Egypt and Tunisia, where the Islamic Sunni parties were the ones who won the elections, in Damascus, the Sunni groups are more likely to win most of the parliamentary seats in any new government after Assad. When this happens this will be regarded as a considerable shift in regional and international power against Iran and in favour of the Arab Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Meantime, it seems likely that Iran will continue implementing its current strategies towards Syria to preserve Iran’s regional influence, its political and economic national interests, and the survival of the ruling clerics.

Standard