EU court bans honey contaminated by genetically modified crop

[Chris Luck]

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2011/EU-court-bans-honey-contaminated-by-genetically-modified-crop/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/07/europe-honey-gm

Chris

 

[Brosville]

Excellent stuff - I hope Caroline "owns a GM lobbying company" Spelman is taking note..........

 

[Firefly]

Well that is one I would not have guessed!

Dispersal [of maize pollen] away from the vicinity of the crop also takes place by carriage on bees. Evidence is cited that maize pollen is collected by bees in notable amounts. In this way the pollen is transported several miles from the crop plot in suitable weather conditions.

Dr Jean Emberlin
for the Soil Association
January 1999

 

[tonybloke]

Well that is one I would not have guessed!

Dispersal [of maize pollen] away from the vicinity of the crop also takes place by carriage on bees. Evidence is cited that maize pollen is collected by bees in notable amounts. In this way the pollen is transported several miles from the crop plot in suitable weather conditions.

Dr Jean Emberlin
for the Soil Association
January 1999

Nor me 'til Chris Luck informed me of this.

 

[Brosville]

Setting aside all the very real other arguments against allowing the release of GMOs into nature, there is the "biggie" of choice- to allow them removes the right of the rest of us not to have frankencrap in the countryside or in our diet, which is plain, old-fashioned immoral, and everything to do with powerful US based multinationals, and clutter all to do with "feeding the world"...
I'm glad to see this stand against the avowed intent of the US to force it onto a largely unwilling world (they are applying a LOT of pressure to allow it)

 

[Firefly]

Someone with the avatar CaptainMal (and therefore obviously a totally reliable genius, from the perspective of someone with the avatar Firefly!) has added some v good comments to the Guardian atricle, including

>>
3. To be honest I wouldn't worry that much anyway. To make headlines some irresponsible scientists gave the impression that genetic engineering of everything from potatoes to eye colour was just around the corner in the 80s. In reality, in recent years researchers (myself included to the detriment of my research) have discovered that genetically modifying something is much more complicated than previously thought. Even if you manage to succeed in inserting a single useful gene cassette, it will very likely jump out or be silenced in a few generations thus negating all your work. In short it is very expensive, doesn't really work beyond the simplest things and at the moment just buying lots of pesticides, herbicides and artificial fertilisers is still cheaper and easier
>>

 

[Brosville]

Which is an admission that not only it doesn't work, but that these US companies are using nature (and us) as their laboratory in the pursuit of sheer profit, to the extreme detriment of the environment (thanks to all the high tech inputs needed for this type "hell in a handcart" food production)...

 

[Firefly]

Which is an admission that not only it doesn't work, but that these US companies are using nature (and us) as their laboratory in the pursuit of sheer profit, to the extreme detriment of the environment (thanks to all the high tech inputs needed for this type "hell in a handcart" food production)...

Roughly 9000 years ago, some arrogant Syrian scientist (you see, they've always been trouble) crossed Aegilips squarrosa with Triticum dicoccoides (and what could be more unnatural than that!), formed a corporation, patented his foul genetic manipulation, sold it to the world (well, the bit that was then known) and it's been downhill ever since, if you ask me

As I was saying on the hunter-gatherer forum only the other day....

 

[Brosville]

Sounds like someone else who's not yet watched "Farm for the Future" - there's a link somewhere on the site for it.......

 

[Into the lions den]

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2011/EU-court-bans-honey-contaminated-by-genetically-modified-crop/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/07/europe-honey-gm

Chris

Interesting headline, but reading the actual judgement makes it all seem far less clear cut than the green lobby would have us believe.

There is a lot of water to go under the bridge on this one yet, and it seems in part to hinge on an opinion that honey has been manufactured and that the GM pollen is being held to be an 'ingredient' in the recipe.

Sale not actually banned either, just needs an authorisation for sale.

The thought of having to list EVERY constituent substance, either normal or an inadvertant content, on your honey as it is deemed to be an ingredient (the ONLY possible interpretation based on the ruling) is mind boggling. Your label will need to be pages long. The same interpretation would have to apply to all compound natural products, such as an apple for example. The ruling deems that all constituents in a product, whether a naturally occurring part of their production or not, must now be considered as an ingredient.

Have a feeling this one will eventually get kicked way into the long grass and some kind of threshhold will be forthcoming.

 

[Firefly]

Sounds like someone else who's not yet watched "Farm for the Future" - there's a link somewhere on the site for it.......

I enjoyed it so much that I took the trouble to get an informed view about it...


Watched it all through and very interesting. I have always thought that observation is the fundamental skill of farming and I certainly appreciated a few of the comments, particularly the idea of working with the climax vegetation (trees) and it is a worthwhile direction to explore further. However, I suspect there is a difference between biomass production and food (a historic wheat variety has the same/similar biomass as a current variety but has less as grain and therefore food) – and I worry about harvesting in practice. We quite deliberately accept less production, for less labour, because we tend to believe that use of slave labour to do boring jobs is not a good idea...but what else are students for. However, I also agree diet change is an important part of the mix but how do we manage freedom of choice?

(Many of the cereal growing areas in US and South America are areas where the climax vegetation is grass so cereals are more “natural” there. (where I work in Russia the climax is birch trees (difficult to eat) although the soil itself formed under grassland – where it is drier grassland is still the climax vegetation although cereal productivity is lower). It is interesting that historically, and therefore before the advent of “modern” agriculture, forest was still cleared for food or food quality in the UK (?))

The energy argument “peak oil”, and all that, is a popular and genuine concern. I argue that agriculture should be a priority recipient for energy – we harvest a lot more than we put in and the marginal positive return on energy investment (who else does?), while it changes with cost/scarcity, is very good. I see nothing wrong in substituting energy for food to feed a population –a much more important use than most of our energy consumption (although we should try to use less in agriculture too). Quite possibly the result will be food and energy for us wealthy people and neither for anyone else perhaps even (more so) if we adopted the system proposed in the clip. I am much more of a class warrior...

The world cropped area has remained approximately static since at least the 1960s but world production has more than doubled matching population growth, and the increase is just about being maintained (certainly if we allow for swapping from wheat to maize) – more calories per head than ever. It is also very difficult to argue against pesticides (a reduction yes, removal no) since the energy content is small and the odd blight spray together with good hygiene is simply sensible in maximising investment and energy efficiency – or, I suppose, there would be an even better return from GM blight protection – I have seen the crops (well they had been trashed by the time I saw them but the remnants looked impressive).

GM technology will reduce energy even more. The drought tolerant modifications are fascinating (genes are turned back on that the plant still contains, but lost the use of, during the period grain evolved from mosses). I think GM will also focus on improvements to the mycorrhiza to make use of the phosphate lake in much of our soil locked up during 150 years of application. But there will be some big GM mistakes too.

I suspect most farmers understand the relationship between pasture type, stocking density and poaching. There is plenty of science on pasture improvement although the situation is not static. An argument that I think will run is the restoration of carbon under grassland rather than arable use – it is quite large up to the point of equilibrium (say 200 years) but once there utilisation with livestock emits more GHG per year than arable – no idea which is correct. The NFU would condemn me for saying it but our calorie availability in the UK per head is much greater than 50 years ago, although declined over the last 10-15 years, but we waste more through indirect consumption and consequently import more.

Always good to get a different view and be challenged and we need fanatics to do the challenging.

 

[Brosville]

I don't see why the GM leopard will suddenly change it's spots, or pesticides suddenly become benevolent and good for us - and the "article" airily dismisses the sheer impossibility of continuing with our fossil-fuel inputs, (what has become the "norm" brought about by artficially cheap inputs) - a completely "blinkered" view, and displaying a complete inability to understand the true meaning of "sustainable"- it then goes on to become completely laughable
"The world cropped area has remained approximately static since at least the 1960s" - what about all the rainforest flattened to grow GM frankencrap (with the aid of gobbets of "inputs" to feed "feedlot beef" then?

I really would prefer to have someone's own views rather than the cutting and pasting of a frankly risible review instead! Sounds bad enough to have come from the NFU, DEFRA or Monsanto itself...

 

[Firefly]

I really would prefer to have someone's own views rather than the cutting and pasting of a frankly risible review instead! Sounds bad enough to have come from the NFU, DEFRA or Monsanto itself...

These are the responses of a friend of mine in a personal communication to me. The person has spent a lifetime at the sharp end in agriculture, consultancy, conservation and sustainability, and knows what they are talking about - certainly more so than me, and I believe more than most people who are thinking about these things in UK

You don't have to listen, of course

 

[Brosville]

As I said, it seems blinkered and unable to grasp the meaning of true sustainability, but he's not alone, most "conventional agriculture" is dyed in the wool "Big Ag influenced"..... Shame!