» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


Playing Canute and a sorry account of global food fights (12/2/2006)

1.Playing Canute and Juma's Sorry Account of Global Food Fights - GM Watch
2.'Satan's Drink' and a Sorry History of Global Food Fights - Calestous Juma
---

1.Playing Canute and Juma's Sorry Account of Global Food Fights

In the article below - 'Satan's Drink' and a Sorry History of Global Food Fights - Calestous Juma of Harvard argues that the real concerns in Europe over GMOs have little to do with their safety, this being "largely a smokescreen used to conceal concerns about Europe's loss of competitiveness in biotechnology."

In support of his claim that European opposition is really about trade barriers protecting vested interests, Juma draws historical parallels with some of the European reactions to coffee when it was introduced from the New World. Those erecting trade barriers, Juma points out, included Frederick the Great, who banned coffee, and Charles II of England, who attempted to ban coffee houses. Juma quotes Frederick the Great's declaration, "It is disgusting to notice the increase in the quantity of coffee used by my subjects, and the like amount of money that goes out of the country in consequence."

But Juma's suggested parallels could hardly be less to the point. These were clearly top down attempts to protect vested interests from popular tastes, and they failed accordingly. Frederick the Great complains of "the quantity of coffee used by my subjects", ie his subjects were extremely keen to consume the stuff, while Charles II had to withdraw his ban on coffee houses before it was even instituted.

But the European public are hardly clamouring to consume GMOs - the very reverse, in fact - and the real historical parallels lie in exactly the opposite direction to that which Juma suggests. They are to be found in the failed attempts of Europe's political and corporate elite to push through acceptance of GMOs in the face of popular opposition.

In the UK, for instance, opposition to GMOs developed at a time when Britain, far from being concerned about a loss of competitiveness in biotechnology, had the world's very first "life science" company (Zeneca) and a commercialised GM food product - Zeneca's GM tomato paste - ahead of Monsanto.

Popular opposition to GMOs also developed in the teeth of the repeatedly asserted support for biotechnology of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was then at the height of his initial popularity. The governing Labour Party also had as its principle paymaster, Lord Sainsbury, a biotech enthusiast and entrepreneur.

Blair's ministers were also highly supportive of biotechnology with one leading member of the government memorably asserting, "Rest assured, the government is ready to support and enhance the competitiveness of the biotechnology industry. We believe you are a real success story in the UK... We want the UK to remain a leader in this field."
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/tom.htm

Nor was the support for the biotech industry confined to Britains's political and bureaucratic elite. The UK's main farmers' union at the time was under the leadership of Ben Gill whose support for the introduction of GM crops was so striking that he earned the nickname "Biotech Ben".

And not only was Lord Sainsbury Britain's Science Minister, but the UK's public funding body for the bio-sciences - the BBSRC - was under the Chairmanship of the Chief Executive of the biotech company Zeneca. The food industry, including all the major supermarkets, was also highly supportive with the industry's Food and Drink Federation taking a clear pro-GM stand. Yet despite all of this high-powered support, almost nowhere has opposition to GMOs been more marked than in the UK.

Was this due to fears of a "loss of competitiveness in biotechnology"? It hardly seems so! It's been down instead to popular disquiet about GM food and crops and the way in which they were being imposed upon the public.

Leaders like Blair have been seen by the public as the protectors of powerful vested interests. They have been the unsuccessful King Canutes of their day. The recent WTO ruling represents exactly the same kind of top down imposition and it is about as likely to be successful.

As the market analyst Bernd Pomrehn of Bank Sarasin told Dow Jones Newswires last week, "even if the WTO's ruling lifts the moratorium on GMO-based food products in the EU, the European consumer won't easily change its aversion toward GMO food, which is the real reason that holds back further spread of GMO in Europe." (Syngenta Not Seen Impacted By WTO Ruling - Dow Jones)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6215

And popular opposition is not limited to the UK or even to Europe. Consider this recent summary of public attitudes research from just the last 3 years, courtesy of GeneWatch UK:

January 2006 - Mali: At a five day meeting, farmers heard arguments for and against the introduction of GM technology. They rejected GM crops as an attack on their way of life. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article342135.ece

December 2005 - South Africa: Almost six out of 10 South Africans either reject or avoid genetically modified foods, according to the results of a poll. http://allafrica.com/stories/200601160543.html

November 2005 - Switzerland: In a national referendum, the Swiss vote for a five-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops. There was 55.7% in favour of the moratorium with a majority across all 26 cantons, a situation which was unprecedented.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4475044.stm

April 2005 - Greece: research from University of Thessaly shows 'the overall attitude of Greek consumers towards GM food is negative'. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.00916.x

July 2005 - Europe: A Europe-wide survey by the European Commission shows a majority of Europeans (54%) agree that "food made from genetically modified organisms is dangerous". Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive