GM - A measure of Government corruption

GM - A measure of Government corruption

One key fact about GM crops that needs to be firmly grasped is that they have not been manufactured with a prime objective of feeding the world. They are nothing more than a product in development that large international corporations want to make money from - a lot of money in fact! They plan to make their fortunes by marketing a GM monoculture crop with their own mix of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides. The resultant seed is "owned" by them and sold by them, annually, with no seed saving.

In theory, you subscribe to your annual harvest from a global corporation in much the same way as you pay your licence. It is not local or sustainable - but it is potentially very profitable. And profit, of course, is what it is all about.

As one environmentalist recently wrote: "GM product development is simply a way to make a shed load of money from hungry people in far off countries."

In it's own way GM is no more a solution to a problem than is nuclear power. Both will leave a legacy that could blight mankind for thousands of years to come. Often the same corporations tried exactly the same scam in the pre-GM years with exclusive monocultures. It failed then (as did the crops) and caused poverty and famine - leaving the bio-tech corporations as the sole winners.

Common sense and good scientific practice suggests that you do not trial GM outside of a lab, as the potential "downside" could have devastating consequences for generations to come, not least from cross pollination.

Once, there was a total ban on GM material being released into the wild but unscrupulous government political parties, such as Labour here in Britain, can be guaranteed to put bio-tech corporate bribes ahead of public safety. Are we really to believe that those who hope to profit from GM have the best interests of humanity at heart? No,. of course not, they have the best interests of their shareholders to consider. Do they really understand the nature, extent and consequences of GM pollution? No. Like they didn't understand tobacco, asbestos, radiation, lead in paint, DDT or all the poisonous chemicals they used to spray on food that is now banned. Remember thalidomide anyone?

Clearly GM material should exist outside of a laboratory except under the most restrictive of licenses for purposes where there is no realistic alternative. There are plenty of better alternatives to GM food that will feed the world but, of course, they'll neither make GM product owning corporations rich or help fill Labour Party coffers.

If this Labour governments is stupid or corrupt enough to permit the growing of GM crops then they should also ensure that all derivative products are clearly labelled so as to be avoided. If ever there was a product that demonstrates how corrupt this government is (and their Tory predecessors), and how closely and unethically they snuggle up to big business, and how many difficulties scientists have with the wider ethical ramifications of their work, then this is it!