Fun email address for Anti GM supporters. Free email address for campaigners against Genetically Modified food. Free email and web space for campaigners against genetically modified crops and gm food, or anyone who is anti-gm. Surprise your friends with an email address tailored to your personality, family, sport interests, hobby, business or profession. There are 100 addresses to suit everyone at Freeola.com
Reyes works for Greenpeace's Research Labratories and is normally based in Exeter but she's just begun a year long project working with our office in India. Reyes already wrote for the blog relay last month but we convinced her to write a monthly update about her adventures in India and here's her first update.
I'm now based in the office
of Greenpeace India in Bangalore,
as part of Greenpeace's
scientific research to develop the agriculture and water campaigns
in Asia.
As I go around the city on
my bicycle, I can feel the impressive growth India is experiencing. I see malls
sprouting up in the main avenues and shining new supermarkets selling ‘plastic-style'
groceries. These are just signs of how much developing countries are eager to
embrace the western ways. And these new ways increasingly include the prevailing
model of industrial agriculture and food.
But agriculture and food
are not as industrial here yet, at least not to the extent multinational
corporations would like them to be. The Green Revolution has brought more grain
farming to India, but also degradation of soil, water and biodiversity. As the country
struggles to produce more food, multinational corporations push to sell their
false solutions.
Greenpeace in India is
working very hard to prevent them from introducing genetically
modified crops into the country's food. Monsanto
is trying to introduce GM brinjal (you'll know it as aubergine but with lots of
delicious local varieties) and Bayer with rice
(the soul of Indian food). But Indians are fighting back. And the recently
appointed environmental minister said
he will work to prevent genetically modified crops getting into Indian food. We
are now going to make him walk the talk!
Here in India you can feel
and taste the beauty of what being close to your food means. Food comes mostly from
the farm, without processing, plastic wrapping or list of ingredients (no need
for that when you can just see and smell). Food is mostly
seasonal. Food is mostly plants. Food is what brings people and earth together.
But food is also an urgent
need for the one billion people in the world that go hungry every day. Climate
change will make this worse. It is urgent that we stop climate change and work
for an ecological farming system now.
As a scientist I'm
interested in the recent studies that back our definition of ecological farming. Ecological
farming ensures healthy farming and healthy food for today and tomorrow, by
protecting soil, water and climate. Ecological farming promotes biodiversity,
and does not contaminate the environment with chemical inputs or genetic
engineering.
And that is what I
will be working on and writing about for the next year while I'm based here, as
well as enjoying all the variety of foods India has to offer.
In a new photo essay, rice farming in southern China is put under the spotlight to show how traditional methods are still working well without any tinkering from the GM industry.
John Novis is the head of
photography for our international office (although he works here in London just a couple of
desks away from me) and his job description is an enviable one. Images from
Greenpeace photographers all over the world cross his desk, whether it's from
an action in Mexico or a
research trip across the Arctic.
But John's also an accomplished photographer and
occasionally gets out into the field himself. One of his recent expeditions was
to China to document how rice is farmed in the southern province of Yunnan.
For the people there, rice is more than just a staple food, it's an essential
part of their culture although the spectre of genetically modified rice puts
this at risk.
In this photo essay, John
explains how he was part of a Greenpeace team who spent time in Yunnan learning
more about the successful farming practices which have been used for
generations, and which don't rely on GM technology. Not all the pictures are
John's, however - as part of a year-long project, farmers were given cameras to
take their own shots and the results are quite remarkable.
It sounds like something that would have appeared on the late, lamented Eurotrash but giant potatoes have been spotted recently cycling through the Netherlands. However, it isn't an offbeat continental cultural outing, but a reminder to the Dutch public about the importance of organic farming and the perils of GM technology.
The potato peddlers have been sent forth on behalf of Pieperpad, a collaboration between our Dutch office and Biologica to raise awareness of the benefits of ecological farming. Handing out free potato samples as they go, their tour covers around 1,000km and passes through Amsterdam and Utrecht.
The Philippine rice terraces, a UNESCO Living Cultural
Heritage site, has been declared a genetically-modified organism (GMO)
free zone
In the world of food staples, rice has a pretty iconic status. Over half of the global population eat it every day. It has been grown
around the world for over 10,000 years. It's cultivated in 113
countries. If rice was a pop group, it would be the Beatles.
As well as being a fairly versatile accompaniment to many more interesting foods, rice is also a key ingredient in a wide variety of processed foods, ranging from baby food to more obvious things like rice noodles.
Of course, it's precisely that iconic status that makes rice a target for the 'If it ain't broke, let's break it' enthusiasm of the genetic engineering corporates. Because if you could cook up a version of rice that was patented to your company, you'd be raking it in.
The German chemical giant Bayer is trying to so just that - it wants to sell a herbicide resistant variety of GE rice to countries for commercial planting. The theory is that it will make it easier to blitz crops with the herbicide glufosinate without killing them. But that just means two things - first, that pesticide use is going to go waaaaay up, and second, that 'conventional rice' - (also known as 'rice') - is at risk of being contaminated by GM strains. Funnily enough, Bayer also manufacture glufosinate, so they'd get to work both ends of the deal quite nicely.
Quite apart from the fact that glufosinate is considered to be so dangerous to humans and the environment that it will soon be banned in Europe, rice traders and producers worldwide have up until this point avoided GM rice, because of high economic risks. The global rice industry lost some 1.2 billion dollars in 2006, when another GEMrice variety from Bayer contaminated global food supplies.
Our colleagues at Greenpeace International are hosting a petition calling on governments to protect consumers, farmers, crops and fields from potential contamination by GM rice.
There are some links with more information here, or you can sign the petition below.
We ask all governments around the world to protect consumers and farmers, their crops and fields by rejecting Bayer’s GE rice, and to stop GE rice field trials.
Chinese farmers are discovering that resurrecting the old tradition of keeping ducks in their rice fields allows them to cut down on the amount of pesticides and artificial fertilisers they need to use to grow their crops.
In this lovely short film from Greenpeace China organic rice farmer Weng Falin explains how his 200 ducks effectively weed his rice fields, and protect the plants by eating many of the insects that naturally attack them.
Climate change makes it likely that pests will become more prevalent in the future, but keeping ducks means that farmers don't have to use pesticides and herbicides.Weng's ducks are protecting both water and soil quality by keeping pest numbers down, and helping to maintain the ecological balance of the land.
Government wonks have once again been druming up support for GM food, the latest tub-thumping courtesy of science minister Ian Pearson. He's been saying that if engineered crops can be demonstrated to alleviate hunger around the world, then the great British public will be only too happy to see them being cultivated in our green and pleasant land as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if Pearson is being egged on by various biotech companies eager to see a return on the millions they've pumped into transgenic research, and just a few months ago Mark Lynas noted that it's economic concerns driving GM technology, not philanthropic ambitions.
Former chief scientist Sir David King also went on record recently to say the rise in organic farming is largely to blame for people starving in Africa, which is a favourite brick the pro-lobby likes to lob in the direction of those opposed to GM food and crops such as Greenpeace, painting us as anti-development. But whether the technology exists or not, hunger and malnourishment would still be rampant in Africa and other parts of the world because the underlying political and economic conditions would still be in place.
And the evidence from a recent study by the University of Kansas has shown that GM crops actually produce smaller yields, not bigger ones. So be wary of misty-eyed PR spin from the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF and their political poodles about feeding the world - it ain't worth a hill of beans.
GM food producers are reeling after new investigations by the European Commission (EC) uncovered problems with three new types of genetically modified crops. The Commission raised concerns over a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize, all of which had previously been given the green light by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). For the first time, Europe's most senior lawmakers are publicly questioning the safety of GM crops.
Potential problems with the three new GM strains first came to light last year when leading experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Pasteur Institute and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) expressed fears about the impact of German chemical giant BASF's GM potato on human health. Their research found that the crop could result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases. Data on Syngenta's two types of GM maize (Bt 11 and 1507) wasn't much better, with scientists concerned that they could harm wildlife such as butterflies and other insects.
"That policy makers at the very highest levels are now questioning the safety of GM crops is very significant." Geert Ritsema, Greenpeace International
Matters first came to a head last October when, after taking these concerns into account, European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas stood up to big agribusiness and refused to allow cultivation of the two varieties of GM maize. BASF and Syngenta challenged the decision and threatened legal action, leading the EC to order a second investigation into the safety of the new strains. During this process we kept up the pressure by posting comments on Commission blogs and sending numerous emails and petitions. Many thanks to the 130,000 of you who took part in our email action to remind the Commissioners of their responsibilities.
Now the results of that research are in, and while it makes unhappy reading for the biotech companies, it's great news for all of us who oppose the genetic modification of our food in pursuit of a quick profit. A pat on the back is definitely in order for the Commissioners for standing up to intense industry pressure and applying the precautionary principle.
Although, having said that, you have to wonder why the Commission asked the EFSA to look again at the crops when it had showed itself completely incapable of doing so the first time round? There is no escaping the facts. The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown. In truth the Commission should have recognised this and rejected the new crops outright first time around but hey, at least they got there in the end.
An unrelated but equally welcome piece of news on the GM front aired last week when the residents of Montville, a small community located in Maine in the US became the first town outside of California to ban the cultivation of genetically engineered crops. To do so, they had to take on the deep pockets and misguided motivations of corporations such as Monsanto, the Halliburton of the farming industry. In this podcast from The Celcias Show Leslie Berliant speaks with some of the courageous farmers and town residents of Montville who helped to make this ban a reality.
Yesterday, EU farm ministers voted on whether
to approve the use of new GM crops including a variety of potato developed by
chemical giant BASF. According to Reuters, they failed to reach a consensus
which is good in the sense that the proposed crops weren't approved, but bad
because the decision will now be passed back to the European Commission. The EC
is heavily pro-GM so it's likely that all five crops under consideration will
be approved with a nod and a wink.
BASF's potato - going by the delicate name of
Amflora - has been developed to produce high amounts of starch for use in
industry, but it also contains an antibiotic resistance marker gene which (as
you might have guessed) conveys a certain resistance to antibiotics. If potato
crops intended for human consumption become contaminated with this gene, that's
bad news and only yesterday, a plant geneticist warned that "It's
clear that zero contamination is impossible at present."
Meanwhile, as reported in the Guardian at the
weekend, our own government is paving the way for future GM trials in this
country by keeping the locations on a need-to-know basis. Or in other words,
secret from those who might object. At the moment, any company registering crop
trials needs to give precise co-ordinates but as crops keep getting ripped up,
it's becoming an expensive business, too expensive to make it worth the
investment. "We've been very clear to government," said Julian
Little of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council. "We have to find a way
of reducing the amount of damage you get when you do a field trial in the UK,
that's absolutely imperative."
And yet the economic benefits of GM
crops have been greatly exaggerated of late. Remember when outgoing chief scientist
Sir David King said that shunning GM technology has cost the UK £4 billion? Well,
the Ecologist (via GM Watch) reports that the government has been unable to
back up those figures. After his extremely misleading claims that GM crops can
feed the world (I feel dirty linking to the Daily Mail, but here it is), it's
just one more fib to add to the list.
Sacre
bleu. At the end of last week, French president Nicolas Sarkozy took a stand against biotech giant Monsanto and banned a strain of GM maize which has previously been grown by French farmers.
Their MON
810 variety - according to AFP, the only type of GM maize currently being grown
in France - has been withdrawn after a committee of scientists, farmers and
politicians raised doubts over its continued use. Advocating the precautionary
principle, Sarkozy invoked an EU clause to stop Monsanto's maize being grown.
It doesn't
mean France
will now be GM-free, as Sarkozy has made it clear that GM research and crops
still have a place on the other side of the Channel, but his decision puts some
meat on the bones of the green policy statement he made in October. It seems
strange that, barely 18 months ago, the French government was trying to have
maps pin-pointing the location of GM crops suppressed.
Needless
to say, this move hasn't gone down well with the biotech industry. A statement
issued by the Biological Industries Organisation claimed that the move is in
violation of European and international trade laws, and "greatly
infringes on the right of French farmers to have equal access and freedom to
choose what crops are best for their farming operations." It's only at the
end of the statement that environmental concerns enter the picture, but perhaps
that's just as well. The biotech lobby has long been peddling the argument that
GM crops are beneficial for the environment and climate change.
There are also rumours of a US trade war unless the EU overturns the
decision, but for now it's a victory for the coalition of campaigners, including
Greenpeace France,
who have been working hard to clear French fields of GM crops.
More on our French site (en
français, naturellement).
Those pesky biotech companies never give up. After recently spinning the line that GM crops can be used to safeguard food production from the ravages of climate change, their latest wheeze is to try and convince us that GM technology can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Money paid by green consumers to offset their flights and by companies
that go carbon-neutral will be used to fund the planting of genetically
modified (GM) crops under plans drawn up by a US biotechnology company.
Arcadia Biosciences is working with the Chinese government to reward
farmers in China that grow the firm's genetically modified (GM) rice,
with carbon credits that they can sell for cash.
Agriculture is responsible for around 14 per cent global greenhouse gas emissions, predominently methane and nitrous oxide (N2O) which have a far greater impact than CO2 on climate change. Arcadia claims the strain of GM rice it has developed requires less fertiliser than conventional crops so less N2O is released.
Sigh, yet another techno-fix we don't need. Instead of changing the crops to fit bad farming practices, why not try changing farming practices to fit the crops? As a new report from our international office suggests, there are far more sensible solutions - minimising the use of fertilisers by adopting organic and sustainable farming methods, for instance.
