M ichael "nine-houses" Meacher
has used his abrupt sacking as / Environment Minister to create a stir about the government's rigged "debate" about planting genetically modified (GM) crops.
Meacher has objected to US and UK GM food policy before, last year describing the dumping of GM crops on starving Africans as "wicked" and pointing out in an interview in the Ecologist this March that he had concerns about long-term safety and that GM is not necessary to deal with world hunger. It is a pity his actions in office provided a cover for the GM industry.
After his sacking he highlighted a study which had shown that genetic material from GM food transferred to bacteria in the human gut. One concern is that genes that confer resistance to antibiotics (these are used as markers to show where the new genes have entered a host's DNA) might transfer to such bacteria, which might then spread an untreatable infection.
Although such an event may be extremely unlikely, the consequences could be serious. The argument is similar to that about nuclear power: a meltdown may be very unlikely, but the effects are catastrophic.
Meacher has also criticised Blair's attack on opponents of GM as "anti-science". In fact, GM itself is riddled with poor scientific method and uncertainties, starting from the idea - manifest in the "crop trials" all over the EU - that whether GM crops harm the environment should be studied by releasing them into the environment! This is also reminiscent of the nuclear industry, where radioactive gases have been deliberately released in order to see what happens! But there are other problems too, including the idea that single genes play the determinate role in defining some human or other species characteristics. This "reductionism" - reminding us of the "race-genesintelligence" debates of the 60s and 70s -does not explain how we have only 25,000 genes, while rice - which most people would agree is slightly less complicated than a person - has 60,000.
Furthermore, it has been shown that a single gene, Hox, which is supposed to control the disposition of organs in the body during development, is the same in humans, fruit flies, fish and frogs and can be changed between different species with no discernable effect.
Hox's action must be controlled not only by its structure, but by other genes and proteins in its "environment" or by the nongene parts of DNA. Thus, there are unpredicted effects in GM crops which reductionists are unable to explain, such as some strains of "Roundup-ready" soya being less resistant to heat stress. More unpredicted effects can be forecast, as GM crops are exposed to an ever wider range of conditions.
Despite these considerations, the US and agribusiness multinationals are determinedly introducing GM crops. The EU is only holding back because of the environmental and consumer movement and may buckle now that the US and 12 other countries have lodged a complaint that the EU's moratorium on importing GM food is a restriction of "free trade".
China was not amongst the other 12, but is the second largest producer of GM crops and has a massive research programme
The methods the US-based companies use are persuasive. Along with dumping in
..... Not leaving it to Meacher: anti-GM protest targets an Oxfordshire field Africa, the promotion of "solidarity soya" in Argentina has been reported in the Ecologist. Agribusiness has cynically used the crisis in the country to get people dependent on GM soya as a substitute for the traditional pasta, meat, milk and cheese that have become prohibitively expensive Much is being given away in the poor neighbourhoods, but soya is also being used to bulk up cheap processed foods, so that "solving world hunger" ... .... there are now real concerns about the nutritional effects
Now 95% of Argentina's massively expanded soya crop is of Monsanto's "Roundup-ready" type. What is basically an export crop for cattle feed has replaced different food crops grown for local use. Argentina shows that GM is driven by the interests of agribusiness and has no role in