Kit Knightly: “Genetically Edited” Food – The next stage of the Great Reset?
Posted by Ian M on May 13, 2022, 6:33 pm
A reminder of the kind of journalism Off-Guardian is/was capable of. He manages to hold off from covid comparisons until the concluding paragraphs, though I don't actually disagree with his point about the establishment re-using the smear tactics of dis/misinformation, being in bed with the Russians, or anti-science etc. Time to get the crop-trashing gear out again methinks...
“Genetically Edited” Food – The next stage of the Great Reset? Kit Knightly
The Queen’s Speech was interesting this year.
For all the people outside the UK who don’t understand what the “Queens Speech” actually is, it’s a farcical state occasion in which the Queen (or, in this case, Prince Charles since her majesty is ill/secretly dead/having “mobility issues”) makes a speech about what “her government” intends to do for the next 12 months.
Of course, the Queen doesn’t actually write the speech, or have any input on its content, or have any control at all over what “her” government intends to do. She’s just a mouthpiece in a big gold hat.
It’s the UK equivalent of the State of the Union, only done in Halloween costumes made out of shiny stolen rocks.
The whole thing is nothing but a grand, gilt statement of intent from the British Deep State, wrapped in mink and draped in medals they never earned. It’s a joke, but it is worth listening to.
Or, if you have a sensitive stomach, you can just read the full text the next day on the UK government’s website (that’s what I do).
A lot of the content is entirely predictable.
More money to Ukraine, with a promise the UK will “lead the way in championing security around the world”. More online censorship via the “Online Safety Bill”. A compulsory register for homeschooled children via the “Schools Reform Bill”.
There’s also mention of “securing the constitution” by introducing the UK’s own “Bill of Rights”. We broke down that particular Trojan Horse back in February.
But the part I found most interesting is the stated plan to “encourage agricultural and scientific innovation at home” via the proposed Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.
The proposed bill (which, for some reason is not available through the parliament website) follows on from DEFRA’s announced “loosened regulation” of genetic research back in January.
To quote the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB), the legislation would “take certain precision breeding techniques out of the scope of restrictive GMO rules”.
Essentially, this would see new “gene-edited” foods as distinct from old-fashioned “genetically modified” foods, and therefore not subject to the same rules and oversight.
The claimed distinction is that gene editing, as opposed to genetic modification, doesn’t introduce DNA from other species. Therefore, in effect, is merely speeding up what could potentially naturally happen over time.
Now, you might think this is just semantics, and that such a law will just provide a loophole for ALL “genetically modified” foods to simply rebrand themselves as “genetically edited” foods, and thereby avoid regulation. But that is disgustingly cynical and shame on you for even thinking it.
All in all, this is pretty on-message stuff, and not especially surprising. What’s noteworthy is – by pure happenstance, I’m sure – it appears to coincide with a renewed push on the GM food front in other countries all over the world.
In December 2021, Switzerland added an amendment to its moratorium on GMO crops, permitting the use of certain “gene editing” techniques.
Last month, Egypt announced their new strain of GM wheat. Just two days ago, Ethiopia’s National Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center announced they had researched, and the country will now be growing, genetically modified cotton and maize.
Despite Russia’s sweeping ban on the cultivation and/or importing of genetically modified crops, they have nonetheless created a 111 billion Ruble project to create up to 30 varieties of genetically edited plants and farm animals.
Britain’s deregulation of GM food is always described as a “post-Brexit” move – with the EU chided around the world for its “precautionary principle” on GM crops – and yet as long ago as last April, the EU was calling for a “rethink” on GM crops.
In fact, just today, European Biotechnology Magazine reports:
The EU Commission has launched its final consultation on the deregulation of new breeding techniques in agriculture
Why this? Why now?
So, we’re seeing a sudden increase in the variety of GM crops available and a simultaneous push for deregulation of the industry in Western nations.
Why would they be doing this now?
Well, there is a food crisis.
Or, more accurately, they have just created a food crisis. And as the cliched Hegelian dialectic inevitably goes, their manufactured “problem” is now in need of their contrived “solution”.
We should expect to see genetic engineering pitched as a solution to our food crisis in the very near future…like yesterday. Or indeed, two months ago.
That’s how fast they work now, with barely a pretence at concealing the plan. Spitting out the answer so fast they make it obvious they knew the question beforehand.
On March 15th, when the “special operation” in Ukraine was less than 3 weeks old, the Time was already headlining:
War forces farmers to think again about GM crops
…and reporting:
Genetic modification could make Britain’s food system less susceptible to geopolitical turmoil
A week later Verdict published an article titled “Improving food self-sufficiency with GM crops during geopolitical crises”
Last week, the Times of Israel asked:
Can gene editing help farmers satisfy the rising demand for food?
Four days ago, the Manila Times published an article titled “In times of food scarcity: Revisiting genetically modified crops”.
Two days ago (so before the Queen’s speech specifically mentioning the gene editing bill), Scotland’s Press & Journal ran an opinion piece headlined: “Scottish Government must lift GM crop ban to ease cost of living crisis”.
Yesterday, the “information services” company IHS Markit published an article on GM regulation in Europe, in which they claimed:
The Ukraine-Russia conflict has demonstrated the fragility and vulnerability of global and European food supply chains. Around the world, governments in leading agricultural-producing countries are now catching up with the United States, both to better legislate gene-edited (GE) products, as well as differentiate them from the older Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology, and its negative connotations to some consumers, commentators, farmers, retailers, politicians and lawmakers.
And just today, the Genetic Literacy Project published an article by Ukrainian-Canadian David Zaruk, railing against the EU’s “precautionary principle” on GMOs and calling for an embracing of “new technology” to prevent widespread hunger and increase food sovereignty.
It goes on and on and on. …let’s not forget climate change, guys
Of course, it’s not all about the food crisis – giving corporate giants free rein to genetically alter all the food we eat will also be good for the planet. They talk about that a lot recently.
On February 8th this year, the University of Bonn published a new study claiming “Genetic engineering can have a positive effect on the climate”
On February 24th this year, the Cornell-based NGO “Alliance for Science” published an article claiming “GMOs could shrink Europe’s climate footprint”, based on the study mentioned above.
In a response to the Queen’s Speech, the UK’s National Institute of Agriculture and Botany claimed that genetic modification will make farming “more sustainable”.
In a reminder we’re not just talking about crops but genetically engineering livestock as well, in February Deutsche Welle suggested that genetically altered “Climate sheep and eco pigs could combat global heating”.
Three weeks ago, Stuff.NZ asked simply:
Can GM save the planet?”
The narrative is clearly set: Genetically engineered food will save us all from the food crisis, and global warming too. Plus anything else they can think of. The knives are out for organics
Not content with the semi-constant fluffing of the GM business, the MSM are also turning their guns on organic farming and giving it both barrels.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Ukraine Crisis Reveals the Folly of Organic Farming: As food prices skyrocket, the world needs to admit it can’t live without modern, efficient agriculture.
The Telegraph blames organic farming policies for “tipping Sri Lanka into bloody chaos”
The “Allliance for Science” article mentioned above goes out of its way to criticise the EU’s pro-organic “farm to fork” plans, claiming “[organic farming] has lower yields and would be associated with increases in global [greenhouse gas] emissions by causing land-use changes elsewhere”.
Meanwhile, Erik Fyrwald, the CEO of the Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta (so possessing somewhat of a conflict of interests), told Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag that the West must “stop organic farming to help future food crisis”, adding that organic farming is worse for the planet, because ploughing up fields releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
We already saw wellness “cults” accused of peddling “anti-vax conspiracy theories” last year, this will easily extend to organic farmers and their customers.
NOTE: In an interesting (again, probably totally accidental) parallel, the currently simmering “Bird Flu outbreak” has also hit organic and free-range farmers hard, with one (sponsored) Guardian article asking if “year-round” bird flu could spell “the end of free-range eggs”. Conclusion
Having just seen how the Covid19 “vaccine” campaign unfolded, it’s not hard to see how the pro-GM push will go from here. Genome-edited crops and farm animals are going to become the new “settled science”.
They will be sold to the public as cheaper, more nutritious, better for the environment and good for “preventing future pandemics” (yes, they literally did say that already).
Naturally, anyone who resists the push for gene-edited food, and/or mourns the planned death of organic farming, will be accused of “questioning the science”.
Eating British GM foods will be “doing your part” and “helping Ukraine”, while people who want more expensive organic products will be deemed “unpatriotic” or “selfish”.
Just as we saw Covid sceptics denounced as spreading “Russian disinformation”, despite Russia’s willing complicity in the Covid lie, those who argue against genome-edited food will be said to be “sharing Russian talking points” or “doing Putin’s work for him” despite Russia being well onboard the gene-editing train.
It all gets very predictable from there. Organic farmers will probably be “anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Russian spies” by the end of the summer.
As food prices skyrocket, the world needs to admit it can’t live without modern, efficient agriculture
The energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine disabused many politicians of the notion that the world could make a swift transition to green energy powered by solar, wind and wishful thinking. As food prices skyrocket and the conflict threatens a global food crisis, we need to face another unpopular reality: Organic farming is ineffective, land hungry and very expensive, and it would leave billions hungry if it were embraced world-wide.
For years, politicians and the chattering classes have argued that organic farming is the responsible way to feed the world. The European Union pushed last year for members roughly to triple organic farming by 2030. Influential nonprofits have long promoted organic farming to developing nations, causing fragile countries like Sri Lanka to invest in such methods. In the West, many consumers have been won over: About half the population of Germany believes that organic farming can fight global hunger.
The rise in food prices—buoyed by increased fertilizer, energy and transport costs—amid the conflict in Ukraine has exposed inherent flaws in the argument for organic farming. Because organic agriculture shirks many of the scientific advancements that have allowed farmers to increase crop yields, it’s inherently less efficient than conventional farming. Research has conclusively shown that organic farming produces less food per acre than conventional agriculture. Moreover, organic farming rotates fields in and out of use more often than conventional farming, which can rely on synthetic fertilizer and pesticides to maintain fertility and keep away pests.
Taking this and the lower production in a given field into account, organic farming produces between 29% to 44% less food than conventional methods. It therefore requires as much as 78% more land than conventional agriculture and the food produced costs 50% more—all while generating no measurable increase in human health or animal welfare.
This higher cost is untenable in developing nations, and it was irresponsible for activists in wealthy economies to push inefficient farming methods on them. Nowhere is this tragedy more obvious than Sri Lanka, where the imposition of organics has been calamitous. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa ran for election in 2019 promising a transition to organic food production. This policy produced nothing but misery. The eschewing of fertilizer caused rice production to drop by 20% in the first six months after the switch to organic farming was implemented. Last winter, farmers predicted that tea yields could fall by as much as 40%. Food prices rose; the cost of vegetables quintupled. Protests finally forced Sri Lanka mostly to give up its organic foray this past winter, too late to rescue much of this year’s crop.
Sri Lanka’s example underscores the irresponsibility of organics. Organic farming rejects synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, but there is currently far from enough organic nitrogen to feed the world. It turns out that synthetic nitrogen is directly responsible for feeding four billion people, more than half the world’s population.
Wealthy consumers can take the related price increases, but many poor households in the developing world spend more than half their income on food. Every 1% hike in food prices tips another 10 million people into global poverty. Advocating for global organics implicitly means suggesting that billions should forgo food.
It is easier to ignore these inconvenient details when food shortages aren’t in the headlines, but the war in Ukraine has put world hunger on everyone’s mind. Russia and Ukraine normally provide more than a quarter of the world’s exported wheat and significant supplies of corn, vegetable oil and barley. Almost a third of global potash, a potassium-rich product crucial for plant growth, comes from Russia and Belarus and most is likely subject to sanctions. Russia also produces 8% of the world’s nitrogen, the price of which had already more than tripled over the two years before the invasion. Most nitrogen is made from fossil fuels, and many factories have had to stop production as the pandemic and climate policies have raised the price of nonrenewable energy. And it doesn’t help food prices that the costs of transport have more than doubled since the pandemic began.
The result will be devastation. Rising fertilizer prices could decrease rice yields by 10% in the next season, leading to a drop in food production equivalent to what could feed half a billion people.
Policy makers and nonprofits must urgently focus on ways to produce more food for the world’s poorest at less cost. Genetic engineering, better pest management and more irrigation would go a long way toward increasing yields. Ramping up the production of artificial fertilizer, as well as considering removing regulation that makes its fossil-fuel inputs more expensive, will also help. These simple, common-sense approaches can curb price hikes, avoid hunger and even help the environment. Agriculture already uses 40% of the ice-free land on the earth. Increasing its efficiency will allow us to keep more land wild and natural.
It’s time to let go of this self-indulgent obsession with organics and focus on scientific and effective approaches that can feed the planet.
*****
It points to some genuine problems with organic farming, but the proposed solution will lead to far worse outcomes. Also it made my head spin that they acknowledge the reliance of conventional ag on synthetic fertilisers, the nitrogen from which results in a high percentage of global food production, but somehow fail to make the point that relying on Russian supplies of this is ... a bit of a liability, to put it mildly. Of course they don't mention peak oil which will result in all petro-chemical products gradually becoming too expensive for nearly every activity, economic or otherwise. They want to continue accelerating into the oncoming brick wall, whereas building a little slack into the system and keeping alive the older ways that didn't rely on fossil fuels might mitigate the worst effects of the imminent global crash. Of course the idea that gene 'editing' or any other shiny new tech 'solution' is going to do anything but create worse problems in the long run is utterly delusional.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
Yeah, all these problems are because Putin invaded Ukraine a couple of months ago
21st March 2022 LWA Statement on UK Food Security Concerns in light of War in Ukraine
The crimes taking place in Ukraine have sent shockwaves of deep sadness and uncertainty across the globe. While we don’t mean to downplay the intense suffering of those who remain within Ukraine’s borders, and those who have been forced to flee their homes, we feel that it is important to also address the imminent food crisis which is developing as a consequence of the instability and violence in the regions, as well as how best to respond.
The current global panic over food security sparked by the situation in Ukraine is a brutal reminder of the vulnerabilities which lie at the core of our globalised commodity food system; a system reliant on mass international trade, chemical inputs and fossil fuel power.
The Landworkers’ Alliance wants to be clear that now more than ever we must be pushing for food and farming systems based on the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty.
Measures to improve short-term food security need not, and must not, compromise the longer-term need for environmentally sustainable and resilient food systems.
We stand in solidarity with farmers, food producers and peasants in Ukraine. On top of being subjected to the violence and war crimes of Russian aggressors, their inability to plant seed, to access their farmland and to source fuel for their machinery, coupled with a loss of revenue from exported goods, means that many fields will be left empty this planting season, and countless farmers face destitution.
Already, the situation in Ukraine is having serious ramifications for the global commodity food system. Ukraine and Russia combined produce nearly 30% of the world’s wheat exports, and for countries in the Middle East and North Africa who are particularly reliant on grain imports from the Ukraine - the threat of food insecurity is imminent. As ever, it is countries in the Global South who stand to feel the harshest impacts of this food crisis.
However, as the UK relies on foreign imports for over half of the food it consumes, food prices have hit record highs as a result of the crisis and so the issue of food security has been rushed onto the political agenda.
Despite the glaring vulnerabilities of our current food and farming systems, poorly judged calls for increased productivity, intensification, and expansion of food production in the UK are being made by key lobbying organisations. The National Farmers’ Union in Scotland (NFUS) have called for a moratorium on support scheme rules to allow for the planting of crops on legumes on land designated as Ecological Focus Area land (land which currently only permits farming practices which benefit the climate and environment, with the aim of improving biodiversity). In England, there have been suggestions that Defra might delay the roll-out of the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS), which are designed to foster more environmentally sustainable farming practices, but have been unfairly criticised by NFU and others as posing a threat to agricultural productivity.
Suggestions are also being made to intensify production at the EU level as a means to stabilise food security, but such decisions would likely amount to the rolling back of sustainable food policy objectives laid in the Farm to Fork Biodiversity strategies. In Germany, for example, the government has announced that over a million hectares of ‘greening land’ will be allowed to enter production in response to the developing food crisis.
Not only are these calls for intensifying and expanding food production environmentally regressive, but they are also flawed. 80% of the cereals produced in Scotland, and over half of the arable crops in the UK are grown for animal feed or alcohol, and two-thirds of cereals grown in the EU are used for either biofuels or animal feed. We desperately need to change the way we use our arable land, to ensure that crops are grown first and foremost for human nutrition.
In Scotland, much of the land designated as EFAs is either unsuitable for cereal production as it is close to ditches and along field margins, or is permanent grassland already providing forage for livestock, as well as valuable habitat and holding reserves of carbon which would be released if grassland were ploughed. Ploughing this land for crop production would not improve food security in Scotland, and the environmental fall out would vastly outweigh any marginal increase in food output.
It’s also important to note that Russia is the world’s largest chemical fertiliser producer. This means that sanctions placed on the Kremlin will massively compromise access to fertiliser for the UK market and other importing countries. With the current rising prices for fuel and fertiliser, for many farmers in the UK it is not economically viable to plant their normal area of crops, let alone plough and plant extra. For farmers, not only does reliance on chemical inputs shrink their profit margins, but it also severely reduces environmental and climatic resilience. The current situation therefore calls for an acceleration of the transition towards regenerative, organic and agroecological agriculture, which is not reliant on artificial or imported chemicals.
We welcome the statement made by Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs Mairi Gougeon in which she stresses that: “Events in Ukraine, tragic as they are, do not lessen the adverse global impacts on the climate and on biodiversity that we are facing. Indeed, they only strengthen the case for doing more because, ultimately, that is how we can make our farms and food production systems more resilient.”
We firmly believe that the only way to meet threats to food security is to pursue and strengthen a sustainable and nature-friendly agricultural transition. Food security need not come at the expense of food sovereignty and environmental farming practices.
The Landworkers’ Alliance therefore makes the following recommendations:
1. Use UK arable land to grow crops for human consumption and nutrition; rather than for producing livestock feed, alcohol and biofuels. 2. Initiate a rapid phasing out of chemical inputs in the agriculture sector, and accelerate the transition to environmentally sustainable farming practices. 3. Strengthen resilient local and regional food systems which are not reliant on imports. 4. Put in place robust economic measures to reduce food poverty in the UK.
We believe that a vision for a better food and farming system is one which should be driven by farmers and food producers, with the aim of producing healthy food for local and global populations, as opposed to commodity crops for shareholder profits. This is what our members have to say:
“Food security isn’t about having more productive land, it is about de-commodifying food, building frameworks for food sovereignty and addressing inequalities in the food system.” Nikki Yoxall, farmer in Aberdeenshire
“With around 80% of Scotland’s cereal going towards alcohol production and animal feed, and less than 0.1% of Scottish wheat used for bread, the logic that in order to “address the growing concerns around future food security” we simply need to grow more crops is deeply flawed. But for the NFUS to use the tragic and ongoing humanitarian crisis to attempt to push through a far-reaching change in agenda is, unfortunately, shameful.” Col Gordon, farmer in Invergordon
“Frankly it is outrageous to reverse the small amounts of biodiversity protected through strips of untouched land when more food could be produced through growing food for direct consumption by humans, not animals. Two, far more worthwhile, steps would be to give incentives to all landowners with land next to or near communities to offer small areas of land for Community Supported Agriculture, and to reintroduce school kitchens which can offer locally sourced food.” Anne Thomson, grower near Brechan
“With around 80% of Scotland’s cereal going towards alcohol production and animal feed, and less than 0.1% of Scottish wheat used for bread..."
Amazing statistics. Due to the climate though, the more hardy Barley represents 62 per cent of total cereals which mainly goes to making Whisky and Beer. Wheat is at 23 per cent much of which with other cereals and crops end up as Vodka and Gin: of which the bulk (80 per cent) of UK production is also Scotland.
-I suppose it's the "value added" argument....hic!
Actually I'd love to get my hands on some Barley flour: I have an idea it would make superbly tasty bread.
Re: LWA Statement on UK Food Security Concerns in light of War in Ukraine
Yes, I think it was a no brainer for farmers to grow grain for alcohol rather than direct human consumption for that reason. The crofter who sacked us said that the government had no incentive to change things either, on account of all the tax revenue that came from the worldwide trade in whiskey, though I forget the exact figures he told me.
Let us know how it turns out if you make barley bread - sounds interesting! Any history of it being used that way? I think more of oat cakes and bannock but I'm sure there's much more to it than that...
I ate barley bread on a visit to Finland many years ago. It's a flat bread - very tasty as part of a hearty breakfast with different cheeses, hams etc and wonderful coffee strong enough for the spoon to stand unaided in the mug. Ah, happier times.
They could've had wonderful a wonderful future. Good people in general. Why spoil it now : / nm
"I think more of oat cakes and bannock but I'm sure there's much more to it than that..."
I reckon a lot of the bannocks made in the past used barley rather than oats. It's just not available in the shops. I just checked Amazon...its over £5 a kg. "Any history of it being used that way?"
I reckon it was. Poor people are omnivorous and creative: they can't afford to be otherwise. I do have a 17th c Scottish recipe book somewhere about so I shall have to check. The same book gave me one of my favourite dishes which was leg of lamb seasoned with anchovies and wine...oh yum.... something I didn't see again until the much underrated Keith Floyd.
On oats I do remember the exchange between the conceited Samuel Johnson and Boswell, who was otherwise something of a sycophant:
Johnson: "In England we wouldn't think of eating oats. We only feed them to Horses."
Boswell: "Well, maybe that's why in England you have better horses and in Scotland we have better men..."
Re: LWA Statement on UK Food Security Concerns in light of War in Ukraine
Oh, I thought bannocks were wheat-based. Just basing that on Ray Mears and other bushcrafters I think... Actually looking back I did watch this guy make some for his 4 day highland trek in 17thC drover's attire, and he used a mix of barley flour and oatmeal (watch from 2:30):
Though you're undoubtedly right that any available ingredient would be put to the task.
lol re: Boswell's riposte!
Will call it a night there. Wasn't even on the whiskey...
on May 13, 2022, 6:33 pm
