{"id":247411,"date":"2016-06-02T19:09:32","date_gmt":"2016-06-02T19:09:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=247411"},"modified":"2016-10-18T13:44:43","modified_gmt":"2016-10-18T13:44:43","slug":"countering-pro-gmo-deceptions-british-press","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/countering-pro-gmo-deceptions-british-press\/","title":{"rendered":"Matt Ridley’s Pro-GMO Blunders and Ignorance in the British Press"},"content":{"rendered":"

In his\u00a0recent piece<\/a>\u00a0for The Times newspaper in the UK, Viscount Matt Ridley argues that a\u00a0new report<\/a>\u00a0from the American National Academies of Sciences (NAS) leaves no room for doubt that genetically engineered crops are as safe or safer, and are certainly better for the environment, than conventionally bred crops.<\/p>\n

Ridley adheres to the belief that GM technology reduces insecticide use and speculates that future GM crops will be even safer, better for the environment and better for human health. He says that it is a disgrace that Greenpeace still campaigns against Golden Rice, a vitamin-enhanced variety that its backers claim could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.<\/p>\n

According to Ridley,\u00a0opposition from rich westerners adds to the cost of bringing such crops to the market, which he argues restricts the spread of GM technology.<\/p>\n

In discussing the labelling of GM food in the US, Ridley argues this leaves consumers with the impression that there is something wrong. He argues that the recent NAS report makes the point that genetic engineering is a method, not a category of crop, and it makes no sense to single it out for special labelling because regulation should be based on traits, not techniques. Ridley implies, therefore, that GM is no different from food that is boiled or roasted as its actual content remains unaffected.<\/p>\n

Ridley finishes by saying the NAS report points out that \u201cemerging genetic technologies have blurred the distinction between genetic engineering and conventional plant breeding to the point where regulatory systems based on process are technically difficult to defend.\u201d<\/p>\n

With a good dose of industry-inspired PR flurry, he concludes that because gene editing in particular will soon allow scientists to improve crops in ways that have none of the even theoretical risks that critics highlight, if Europe does not embrace biotech plants now, its agriculture will wilt.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, for readers of The Times, Ridley\u2019s piece is the usual concoction of misrepresentations, falsehoods and blunders we have come to expect of pro-GMO puff pieces that rely on flawed sources and reports.<\/p>\n

His major blunder is to have accepted at face value the NAS report.<\/p>\n

Ridley basing his piece on a flawed NAS report<\/strong><\/p>\n

The NAS\u00a0is compromised by the serious conflicts of interest within the NAS and its research arm, the National Research Council (NRC). Even studies relied upon by the NAS to show GMO safety are authored by people with conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n

Indeed, the new\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0by Food & Water Watch “Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs” highlights the millions of dollars in donations received by the NAS and NRC from biotech companies.<\/p>\n

On its website, GMWatch\u00a0discusses<\/a>\u00a0the Food & Water Watch report, which documents the one-sided panels of scientists the NRC enlists to carry out its GMO studies and describes the revolving door of its staff directors who shuffle in and out of industry groups. The report also shows how it routinely arrives at watered-down scientific conclusions based on industry science.<\/p>\n

Some 11 out of the 19 members of the NRC committee listed in the NAS report have ties to the GMO industry or to pro-GMO advocacy. The two reviews of animal data relied on by the NAS to claim GMO safety are authored by people who also have conflicts of interest (an analysis of these reviews and why they are misleading is\u00a0here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Readers are advised to read the Food & Water Watch Report to see for themselves the massive conflicts of interests that Ridley either remains ignorant of or wishes to gloss over in order to push a pro-GMO agenda.<\/p>\n

GMWatch notes that the NAS committee member chosen to speak about the food safety aspect of the report to the online magazine\u00a0The Conversation<\/a>\u00a0was Michael A. Gallo, emeritus professor of environmental and occupational medicine at Rutgers University. Gallo is a regular pro-corporate commentator who in 2004\u00a0defended\u00a0farmed salmon in the wake of research showing it contained high levels of toxic PCB chemicals.<\/p>\n

In his piece for The Conversation, Gallo makes false and misleading statements, which are apparently designed to reassure the public about the safety of GM foods. For example, he says that any changes seen in GMO feeding experiments were \u201cwithin normal ranges\u201d. GMWatch states that this is an unscientific statement of a type often used to\u00a0dismiss<\/a>\u00a0significant differences found in GM-fed animals compared with the non-GM-fed controls and goes on to highlight how pro-GM scientists make \u201ca nonsense of the scientific method\u201d and to come up with conclusions designed to mislead.<\/p>\n

GMWatch concludes:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIt is well\u00a0established\u00a0that conflicts of interest affect scientific outcomes and conclusions in every field that has been investigated, from tobacco to pharmaceuticals to GM crops and foods. The public deserves better than the NAS\u2019s biased attempt to convince the public that GMOs are safe.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It is not the first time advocates for GM like Matt Ridley have used flawed reports to push for this technology and to attempt to pass off tainted sources as \u2018independent\u2019 and thus beyond reproach (see\u00a0this<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0this<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Readers may also wish to read\u00a0these commentaries<\/a>\u00a0on the NAS report.<\/p>\n

Rosemary Mason\u2019s 44-page open letter response to Ridley<\/strong><\/p>\n

Matt Ridley\u2019s piece in The Times may be regarded as part of the government’s on-going push to get GMOs into Britain and is a timely intervention as the debate about glyphosate in the EU reaches a head. The final vote on renewing the licence for glyphosate use in the EU will take place on 6th June 2016. The British Government is supporting the European Food and Safety Authority\u2019s assertion that it doesn\u2019t cause cancer, despite the WHO saying it is \u201cprobably carcinogenic.\u201d<\/p>\n

In her 44-page open letter (1\/6\/2016) to Ridley and the editor-in-chief of The Times, Rosemary Mason responds to Ridley\u2019s piece by saying, \u201cI think I smell an industry rat.\u201d<\/p>\n

While Ridley takes about the safety of GM crops and reduced chemical use, Mason rubbishes such claims by referring to Charles Benbrook\u2019s\u00a0paper<\/a>\u00a0on the massive increases in glyphosate use in trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally (2016) which states that:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cSince 1974 in the U.S., over 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate active ingredient have been applied, or 19 % of estimated global use of glyphosate (8.6 billion kilograms). Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called ‘Roundup\u00ae Ready’.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If recent evidence demonstrates anything, it is that GM crops and glyphosate use are joined at the hip where industry profits are concerned. GMOs drive the sales of glyphosate.<\/p>\n

As if to underline this, referring to Monsanto, Jack Kasky on\u00a0Bloomberg<\/a>\u00a0reports:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cChairman and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant is focused on selling more genetically modified seeds in Latin America to drive earnings growth outside the core US market. Sales of soybean seeds and genetic licenses climbed 16 percent, and revenue in the unit that makes glyphosate weed killer, sold as Roundup, rose 24 percent.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the same piece, Chris Shaw, a New York-based analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt & Co states that \u201cGlyphosate really crushed it,\u201d implying it was a major boost to Monsanto’s profits.<\/p>\n

The bottom line is sales and profit maximisation \u2013 and the unflinching and defence of glyphosate despite the\u00a0cover up<\/a>\u00a0of its harm and the effects on communities in Latin America, where cancers, birth defects, infertility and DNA changes since being exposed to GM Roundup\u00ae Ready Crops are\u00a0reported<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mason draws Ridley’s attention to a\u00a0recent piece<\/a>\u00a0in the New Eastern Outlook. William Engdahl discusses the relicensing of glyphosate in the EU by stating:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhat is amazing about the entire ongoing battle over glyphosate re-approval is that opposition and awareness that the EU Commission is willing by any means possible to bow to the chemical industry glyphosate weed-killer cartel and approve a probable carcinogen, is growing by leaps and bounds, and internationally. That awareness is in turn bringing light to the very dark corners of the world of GMO itself, something that Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Monsanto, Syngenta and friends are none too able to withstand. To date the EU Commission has received a staggering 1.5 million citizen petitions demanding they not re-approve glyphosate. The opposition to EU Commission approval of glyphosate has taken on a self-expanding character and that has the agribusiness weed-killer cartel alarmed. The process is exposing to the general public, for the first time in such a clear manner, the degree of corruption in not only Brussels but also in the so-called scientific bodies that advise it on what is safe and what not.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Signed by individuals and groups representing 60 million US citizens, Mason also brings the\u00a0Letter from America<\/a>\u00a0to the attention of Ridley, which warned David Cameron (and the rest of the EU) not to authorise GM crops. It confirmed the devastating effects on human health and the environment. GM is not about public good or feeding the hungry as lobbyists claimed, but about corporate control of the food system. It stated:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cStudies 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\u2026 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. 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 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Most of the countries in the EU apart from Britain took that advice and opted out of GM (including Scotland, Wales and Ireland). .<\/p>\n

Mason argues that glyphosate is a biocide: it kills life. She knows this from her direct experience on her nature reserve in the UK and cites various sources of evidence to highlight a correlation of the huge loss of biodiversity with GMOs and glyphosate use in the US, the massive adverse impacts on human health and links between herbicide use (including glyphosate) and antibiotic resistance.<\/p>\n

In citing a wide array of sources throughout her letter, Mason also highlights the ongoing collusion between academia and biotech companies, not least Monsanto, resulting in fraudulent practices intended to deceive the public and fool it into accepting harmful but highly profitable products.<\/p>\n

Readers are urged to read Mason\u2019s open letter to Ridley in full here:\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Open Letter to 5th Viscount Ridley and Editor-in-Chief of The Times<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In it, she outlines how GMOs, glyphosate and the increasingly globalised system of chemical-intensive food and agriculture have led not only to academic fraud but also to an increase in congenital anomalies in the UK, decreased mental acuity and adverse impacts on fetal and child development and a wide range of diseases and illnesses.<\/p>\n

And she also takes apart Ridley\u2019s claim about GM crops and new techniques being no\u00a0different from conventionally bred crops and safer (as have\u00a0others<\/a>), highlights various conflicts of interest within prominent bodies which shape policy and public opinion and addresses the issue of Golden Rice that Ridley also misrepresents in his piece (see this<\/a> as well).<\/p>\n

Ideology and self-interest driving the pro-GMO lobby<\/strong><\/p>\n

Whereas Ridley offers a short but prominent newspaper article based on a flawed report, industry-inspired clich\u00e9s and falsehoods, Mason is compelled to respond with a 44-page, comprehensive and fully-referenced text that pulls together relevant scientific research on GMOs and glyphosate.\u00a0At the same time, she highlights the corruption and deceptions that have made it possible for powerful commercial interests to destroy the environment and human health for profit.<\/p>\n

A\u00a0privileged viscount<\/a>\u00a0like Ridley, affluent biotech company CEOs, politicians and well-paid career scientists\u00a0spout public relations rhetoric<\/a>\u00a0and deride critics for denying GM to the hungry poor. However, the pro-GMO lobby relies on\u00a0fraud<\/a>,\u00a0regulatory delinquency<\/a>,\u00a0non-transparent practices<\/a>,\u00a0smear campaigns<\/a>, dirty tricks<\/a>, the debasement of science<\/a>\u00a0and PR messages such as a\u00a0trillion meals<\/a>\u00a0containing GMOs have been eaten and no one has died or become ill as a result and that \u2018the debate is over<\/a>\u2019. Aside from\u00a0well-funded slick PR<\/a>, it also relies on\u00a0secretive studies<\/a> and makes baseless claims\u00a0wrapped up as scientific facts.<\/p>\n

And yet it is their critics who are dismissed for supposedly being emotive, unscientific, ideologues driven by self-interest.<\/p>\n

In making such accusations, pro-GMO figures attempt to deflect attention from their own\u00a0self-interested motives<\/a>,\u00a0their\u00a0hypocrisy<\/a>\u00a0concerning their policies towards the poor or their massive political influence. These people tend to be part of an enclosed world that promotes allegiance to a corporate-dominated paradigm that is intolerant of alternative views. The result is\u00a0a certain self-righteousness that leads them to impose their\u00a0will and neoliberal ideology<\/a>\u00a0on the rest of humanity in collusion with the\u00a0machinery<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0active backing<\/a>\u00a0of national states, while they set out to denigrate\u00a0models of agriculture<\/a>\u00a0that could sustainably feed much of the world and ignore\u00a0those factors<\/a>\u00a0(largely fuelled by the neoliberal system they support) that currently create poverty, hunger and food insecurity.<\/p>\n

When saying that Europe’s agriculture will wilt if it rejects GM, Ridley mirrors the claim made by Owen Paterson that Europe will become a\u00a0museum of world farming<\/a>\u00a0if it does not embrace GM crops (and, by implication, its chemical inputs). The\u00a0evidence indicates<\/a>\u00a0that this is nothing more than fear-mongering.\u00a0Ridley’s tone also reflect Paterson’s\u00a0baseless attacks<\/a>\u00a0on critics of GM.<\/p>\n

Finally, for those who may not be aware, Owen Paterson is a British MP and former the former environment minister. Due to his ongoing promotion of GM, fellow Conservative Party MP Zac Goldsmith described him as\u00a0a puppet<\/a>\u00a0of the biotech industry.\u00a0He is also Matt Ridley’s brother-in-law.<\/p>\n

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer – website<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In his\u00a0recent piece\u00a0for The Times newspaper in the UK, Viscount Matt Ridley argues that a\u00a0new report\u00a0from the American National Academies of Sciences (NAS) leaves no room for doubt that genetically engineered crops are as safe or safer, and are certainly better for the environment, than conventionally bred crops. Ridley adheres to the belief that GM […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1214,"featured_media":247422,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487,461],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-247411","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-breaking-news","8":"category-editorials"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247411","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1214"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247411"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247411\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/247422"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247411"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247411"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247411"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}