Why the green movement needs to embrace GM

It has been cast as the great scientific evil of our time - creator of "Frankenstein foods" that will bring untold chaos to the natural order and decimate native species, not to mention damage health of those that consume it. Genetic modification of food crops will cause as much anger and bile at a green conference as nuclear arms, but is the furore deserved?

Let me start by saying that I am far from championing companies like Monsanto and their well documented less than philanthropic approach to spreading GM seed to both the developed and third world. The company have had their share of legal wranglings over various incidents, and as someone not legally qualified, I will not conduct a detailed examination of the charges. Suffice to say that I do not believe them to be the exemplar of marketing and deployment of GM products into the food chain, and that myriad other companies and institutions are doing stirling work that is sadly thrown into the shade by a big corporation doing what so many corporations are wont to do.

So what are the main arguments against GM technology?

1. "Terminator"  or GURT technology

In some GM seedcrop, they are engineered so that their seed will be infertile. It should be noted that this is NOT a strategy used in any commercial seed crops (due in no small part to the massive backlash from farmers and indigenous peoples). In warm, wet climates it has the benefit of stopping crops from sprouting before harvest. However, if it ever was used commercially, there are significant problems for farmers who use saved seed for a large proportion of the next season's crop; this is a matter for bodies such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation to examine and legislate for.

2. Adverse health effects

The Greenpeace website states that "they pose a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health", but does not elaborate further as to what this means. Instead, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine states that in 15 years of GM food consumption, there have been no discernible health effects. In the world of peer reviewed practice, there have been only a small number of papers proposing a deleterious effect, which have subsequently been shown to be severely lacking in their methodology. I have three pieces of advice when researching the topic: 1) stick to reputable academic journals rather than websites and other sources that do not cite their evidence in an accountable manner; 2) find out who is sponsoring or backing the research, as this can highlight what results they were hoping to find, and any inherent bias that may have crept through and 3) look for academic responses to any paper you read, as it will give a good breakdown of just how valid the research methodology is.

3) Adverse effects on the environment

As well as the risk of cross pollination between crop and native species, there are also concerns that as weeds become increasingly glysophate (a popular and relatively low impact weedkiller) tolerant, then farmers will have to fall back on more traditional, and more harmful, weedkillers. Leaving the fact the glysophate itself isn't exactly a bath of ambrosia for the soil anyway, the spectre of more harmful weedkillers is one the many of the organic farming lobby are most vocally protesting. Given that the reduced use of chemicals is one of the great selling points of GM, the problems of pest plant resistance are possibly some of the greatest stumbling blocks to GM crops being the acceptable future of food production.

What are the main benefits of GM?

1) Increased nutritional content

In a world with an expanding population, foods with a higher calorific or nutritional yield per harvest will form a vital factor in feeding the poorest nations, whether by international aid or subsistence farming. Although this is often countered by arguments of intellectual property of GM products blocking benefits for the third world, this is merely political obfuscation of what is a true benefit. Although headlines are dominated by large corporations, they are not the only face of genetic modification.

2) Reduction in pesticide use

I firmly believe that if the organic food movement were to embrace GM products, then there could be real progress on the use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals in world farming. Not just in food crops: the cotton industry is one of the worst offenders for its high usage rate of damaging pesticides. GM cotton has allowed a sharp decline in the amount of pesticides used to be made possible, and further advances could improve upon these results. As well as the obvious environmental benefits of using less pesticides, it also represents a cost saving on the part of farmers - providing that the global community works to ensure that GM seedcrop is provided to farmers at a competitive, and realistic pricing that allows the saving to be felt and not lost.

3) Crops to grow in increasingly hostile environments

Climate change, whatever your standpoint on the cause, is happening. Arid areas are spreading, whilst others are suffering further floods. GM technology can work to bring us crops that can resist drought, cold or diseases associated with dampness such as blight. When water could be a scarce resource, plants that need less of it will be a boon to local economies; by ensuring the GM technology works in hand with other plant breeding techniques, varieties can be produced to help feed people in the face of change.



I conclude by saying that, in principle, I approve of GM technology; I believe that with climate change looking and vast global populations requiring sustenance, it can form part of the way forward. I'm not saying it's a panacea that will free us from all of the troubles the future might bring. I am merely stating that progress is not always an evil. I am always frustrated by naysayers who seem to think that "normal" agriculture has any less in the way of complex scientific procedures behind it; indeed, with practices such as embryo recovery and molecular marker work, it is just as far removed from the "natural world" as any GM procedure. Mankind has been working with, and improving on, nature's model since the first farmers - this is not some kind of rejection of the natural order or deliberate attempt to, dare I say it, "play God". It is about survival. Survival of not just the human race, but the vast ecosystem that sustains us.

Hay Festival - my idea of heaven

Should I be proved wrong and find that there is indeed an afterlife, I hope it resembles the Hay festival. I was there yesterday volunteering for an educational group, and left with the most enormous sense of happiness I've felt in a long time. Yes, it was enough to warm even my miserly misanthropic heart.

I was hoping to get word on their green credentials and policies before making this post, but as I am returning on Sunday to see one half of our current ruling gestalt speak, there will be a more complete "part two" review of the event after then.

Suffice to say I was impressed, especially with Sky's "rainforest rescue" area that encouraged people, children especially, to learn interesting facts about the Amazonian rainforest and help to preserve it. Now, rainforests are one of this curmudgeon's emotional weak spots, a chink in my stubbornly grumbly armour. I was doing fine until we sat down to watch a 3D film of an instantly engaging and mildly moonstruck Brazilian conservationist. I went from sniffles to full blown tears as acres of shorn forest panned across the screen. I'm quite sure that some other members of the audience thought me thoroughly demented.

Thanks for all the fish?

It seems fitting that on Towel Day, a story about the high intelligence of dolphins and whales should crop up. Anyone who has ever read Hitchhikers will fail to be shocked at new discoveries on the relative brain power of these majestic creatures.

This BBC article starts by asking if we should ever be hunting such creatures. Personally, I find that if you have to ask yourself that question, you're a heartless monster. Of course we shouldn't be hunting them - they are intelligent, graceful beings, and not even the fearsomely named Killer Whale is a threat to us. Oh, but apparently they're good for research. Research, one assumes, into how many whales you can kill in a season.

The article goes on to raise brief surprise that public backlash after the death of a handler at SeaWorld was directed towards the captors, not the whale. I'm not sure anyone thought angrily of the whale in this instance, so I'm not sure why the writer thought the lack of anger "surprising". There has been growing unease about keeping such large, socially complicated and fundamentally wild creatures in captivity for any reason, and a tragic event like this only highlights just how inadvisable it is. I could not contemplate seeing such a sight as a voyager of the ocean waves, an animal of such demonstratively social tendencies, being kept in a pen with little company for the entertainment of others. Still, I cried about keeping elephants in British zoos, so maybe I'm just a pathetic liberal whingebag.

My hope is that June's meeting of the IWC rejects whaling as a valid "research" tool and finally starts the process of ending this barbaric practice for good. For more on these issues, I heartily recommend the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society for their website, lots of information and how you can help.

The ConDemNation

After the dust settled, the culls made, the reporters collapsed from exhaustion - we've got a government. It isn't a Conservative government, nor Labour, nor Liberal Democrat. It's that scary c-word that seems to strike fear in to the heart of Nick Robinson and some of the right wing press, and I don't mean Communism. No, dear readers, we have a coalition.

Let's just savour that for a moment. A coalition.

Despite my first instinct to have a very large gin (I'm teetotal, by the way, to put that into perspective), I'm gradually and illogically optimistic about the whole affair. The press are treating it like a marriage - I'm not even kidding, it was referred to as a Civil Partnership - and Cleggeron are here to revolutionise our politics. Already the changes have begun; fixed terms of office, for a start, so we already know when the next election will be. Put May 7th, 2015 into your diaries, fact fans. Electoral reform! Taxation cuts! Taxation rises! All this and more could be ours. It's a bloody well Brave New World, only with less recreational sex and more rampant consumerism.

Except, well, it isn't. You only have to glance at the cabinet for those itching little niggles about the Conservatives to come rising up to the surface again. For a start, the new Home Secretary and Minister for women and equality (that's going to be a business card and a half), Theresa May, doesn't exactly seem the sort of person you'd be expecting to be championing equality. The Pink News has a good run down of her voting history of LGBT issues, although it should be noted that she has been vociferous recently within the party about reclassifying civil partnerships as marriages and equal marriage rights. A change of heart?

For the record, very little mention of any green issues yet. Although, with Caroline Lucas now sitting as an MP, I imagine it won't remain quiet for long on the environment front!

I'll run down the cabinet in a couple of days when I've had a chance to look at each of them in detail. For now, let's just enjoy the blossoming love affair between the left and right, and see how it goes.

Do we have a government yet?

Having now mostly recovered from Votergeddon, I'm feeling mildly anxious that we appear to have no functioning government. Nick Clegg has been a'courting two houses, and like a coy mistress, is giving nothing away.

Yesterday there was the spectacular sight of the media shooting it's load over the prospect of the Lib Dems forming a coalition with Labour to form a "progressive alliance" and gleefully reporting the resignation of Gordon Brown as if he were some kind of tinpot dictator being ousted by an army of angelic freedom fighters. There was even a special "we don't know what is happening, isn't it exciting!" programme on BBC1 last night; I suspect they are just finally relieved that standing out in the cold beside number 10 has a purpose other than looking like a ministerial stalker. I only hope it quietens down soon and we get a conclusion, if only for David Dimbleby's sake.

Please forgive this blogger if this piece seems distracted - I am currently viewing the live feed from BBC news, where a number of developments have crashed through the status quo. It seems Clegg has finally decided which suitor to walk down the aisle with, and it looks like Gordon Brown is resigning for nothing. Downing Street have just announced that the talks with the Lib Dems are over, leaving only an alliance with the Conservatives. A Tory government is looking more and more likely, albeit one tempered by the Lib Dems. Further reports after the 10 o'clock news, when we should know for definite who's going to be living behind the big black door for the foreseeable future.

Were you awake for Lucas?

It took until five to 6 this morning, but eventually the votes for Brighton Pavilion were in - and Caroline Lucas is the new Green MP. This is genuinely the best news I've heard in a long time, and I welled up on seeing her take her place.

Massive congratulations, Caroline. Knock 'em dead.

Breaking news - the votes are being counted, except the ones that aren't

Apparently, plenty of people haven't, because they've been turned away. I've coped and posted this because it's from the rolling news coverage and as of yet has no fixed web address:

1. BREAKING NEWSPolice have been called to some polling stations to move on people who wanted to vote but couldn't because they were still queuing outside at 10pm. In the Manchester Withington constituency, about 200 people were turned away. A spokesman for the returning officer for Manchester said: "The law states that the doors to polling stations must be closed at 10pm exactly, and no-one may be issued with a ballot paper after 10pm."

How widespread is this problem? How many voices are not being heard?

This election is brought to you by Michael Bay

Plane crashes! Fisticuffs! Queuing! Yes, it's election day, and my, what a day it's been already.

Much as I regard UKIP and it's policies with distaste, I would never wish an incident like the one Nigel Farage experienced today. My best wishes are with him and the pilot, and hopes for a speedy recovery. See, I'm not making any jokes about his support crashing or anything. I'm the very model of grown up self control.

The dirty little street brawl on the part of BNP candidate Bob Bailey invokes an entirely different set of emotions with me. I suppose it was bound to happen at some point - and I'm thankful no serious injuries or larger scale violence surged in the wake of the bilious nonsense the BNP spout. 

Reports are also coming in of polling stations positively bustling with voters, indicating a much heftier turnout that the shameful one seen in recent elections. An end to voter apathy? It's a shame it's taken such monumental buffoonery on the part of the political process to get people all fired up.

More later as the results come in...

The Last Day

Rosettes are being polished, smiles of gracious victory practiced, confetti primed, jack boots readied. Well, one of those isn't quite true. The environmental impact of confetti is too much for many modern councils to take.

It's the last day in what has been probably the most exciting, if convoluted, election campaign for as long as the media can remember (i.e. 10-15 years, give or take). When the doors open and the stubby polling booth pencil is hovering over the page, where will your "x" fall? Perhaps the breaking stories this week have influenced your vote; perhaps you'd rather just get in there and use the time honored "eeny meeny", or pin hopes on a last minute divine vision in your dreams this evening. Tonight, you dream of David Cameron! Probably mud wrestling with Nick Clegg. You'll thank me in the morning.

It's in these last days that the most revealing moments have somehow unveiled themselves, as if in the highly caffeinated haze the parties are suddenly waking up. For one, Gordon Brown gave the speech of his life, not even flapped by an anti-nuclear protester (or the enormous heavies ushering him away, one of whom looked remarkably like the Kingpin in an ill-fitting suit). He seemed articulate, passionate, but above all human. Where has this man been in the past weeks? Although the cynic within wonders if he added the references to Cicero and Demosthenes in response to last week's This Week programme discussing the literacy levels of the party leaders, that's a minor moment of pedantry - I was actually incredibly impressed.

Meanwhile, a media blackout reigns on the Phillipa Stroud issue; the Tory party have apparently threatened to sue if the mainstream press run with the story. One commentator at the Guardian worries that the lack of press coverage is emblematic of the fact that "homophobia is a fringe issue" - not because of the right wing bias of much of the media?

There have been some interesting tactics from Labour candidates too - Peter Hain and Ed Balls encouraged us to "vote intelligently" - which apparently involves not voting for them. A rather radical interpretation of party support, but this is put in the shade by the incredible own-goal buffoonery of Labour candidate Manish Sood who lambasted the PM as the worst ever, as well as pining for a Britain of the 1970s (presumably with all the joys of racial, sexual and social inequality?), and demanding more respect for the Queen. If anything, I expect this to gain sympathy for the PM rather than rally fellow "freedom fighters" to Sood's cause.

Amidst the three-party posturing and preening, a little Green voice shines through. Caroline Lucas slammed the leaders' debates as a "three-party stitch up" that meant important issues did not get a proper airing. She rightly points out that with the millions of viewers and blanket coverage, the debates had an enormous influence on the voting public. I can only imagine what might have happened should we have had her influence on the stage, though then we would have also had "the future is orange" Nigel Farage and "no black Welshmen" Nick Griffin making the proceedings about as politically relevant and serious as the average episode of Tiswas.

It's the last day, folks. Tomorrow, use your voice and vote.

David Cameron and the Red Queen

Just call him Dave. Really, he's quite nice you know. He kisses babies and just loves the poor. The old Conservatives are dead! long live the Conservatives!

This is what they want you to believe, of course. That there has been a monumental paradigm shift within the Conservative party, and now they're fluffy liberal bunnies just itching to embrace the lower classes, the LGBT population, the trades union. You have to wonder how many people can see beyond this peeling layer of bullshit coloured paint and into the dark recesses of a party that hasn't changed one jot. The carefully constructed PR exercise that is David Cameron has toiled away to re-brand them as a caring party - but even if you genuinely believe that David Cameron represents such changes (Charlie Brooker certainly doesn't, and I for one can't argue with him) then he's doomed to eternally push and push his veneer of reason to keep up with the tidal wave of vitriol that seeps from within his party ranks.

It'll take all the running he can do, just to stay in the same place.

For every time he comes out in support of a group like Hindus in Britain, there's an MP declaring that homosexuality is not normal on his campaign website. For every performance he gives in a televised debate emphasising how he will help the poor, the vulnerable and the frail, there's an MP with a background in a church that allegedly sought to banish the "demons" of homosexuality and transgenderism from vulnerable individuals. The latter story was broken by the Observer yesterday, and I would be discussing it in more detail, but fear that my mental faculties are currently too clouded by fury to get any further than AAAARGGHHH.

So next time you hear David Cameron talking about social justice, just remember - he's most probably wearing leopard print boxers.

It's not that easy being Green

In the terrifying world of election time, the major parties pump so much effort into mainlining their "message" to the (frequently indifferent) general public, it's hard for smaller parties to get a look in. This isn't always a bad thing, as in the case of the BNP political broadcast, a Freudian nightmare of 1930s style propaganda and distilled bile which I would pay a fortune to not have to witness again. The Greens have been a traditional target of elbow-jabbing sniggering mockery in every election campaign since their inception, so let's take a look at how they're being treated in good old 2010.

First up, the BBC sticks the knife in likening the political broadcast to a trail for a CBBC programme. Harsh words, though the rest of the article grudgingly admits it is something new amidst the buzzword bingo going on amidst other parties' offerings.

Next up, the Grauniad, with a surprisingly vitriolic and cynical view on the manifesto launch. As well as incorrectly stating that the Greens are a one-issue party (they never have been, having always had a full manifesto voted on by members at Conference, the same as any other party), the columnist insinuates that their policies are some kind of pie in the sky fantasy scrawled in green crayon. 

The Telegraph gives a remarkably balanced view on the Green tactics of personalised emails and focusing on social networking. Despite some emotive and negative language slipping in occasionally, the article is pleasantly neutral in tone, and highlights the popularity in key constituencies such as Brighton Pavillion.

For you, dear reader, I have braved the Stygian depths of the Daily Mail to find their opinion on the matter. After my soul gradually dripped out of my ears from scanning over articles varying from criticising a celebrity for being "dowdy" whilst househunting to a repugnantly misogynistic piece of swill from witchfinder general Jan Moir, ostensibly discussing the leaders' wives. The bile rose too high for me to delve any further, I'm afraid.

The daily Express fares rather better, with several relevant articles popping up when I searched. Their review of the manifesto launch, in contrast to the Grauniad, is a fairly standard trotting out of facts and figures, with not a scrap of emotive language, chest thumping or derision. Colour this blogger immensely surprised.

Next, the aggressively brash The Sun website. The experience was like diving for pearls in an oil slick, and finding only abandoned shopping trolleys. A search turned up only three articles in 2010, and two of those were about Pete Doherty. Your guess is as good as mine.

I could probably find much, much more, but feel I have contributed quite enough to my high blood pressure for one day. Find a piece you think I should read? Leave a comment with the link below.

Officially Green

The postman has brought me a lot of exciting post this week, but today's was probably the most important - my membership pack from the Green Party. If you had told me ten, five or even a year ago that I would actually be a paid up member of a political party, I would have been edging away from you as if you were drooling madly. Yet here I am, reading the magazines, logging into the website - and getting fire in my belly about issues again.

Perhaps most flatteringly of all, they consider me to be a Young Green. They clearly haven't seen my grey hairs.

Roll up, roll up for the tragical history tour!

 The final "leaders' debate" was held last night on the cozy old BBC, this time focusing on the economy. I was pleased to see some discussion of alternative energy in the form of wind farms, amidst being hammered by dangerous Dave's constant reminders of his "cut £1 in every £100" mantra. I found the audience members asking the questions much more interesting than the shiny faced dronebags on the stage; one woman was delightfully self centered in asking what would they do for people like her, with her good income family struggling to get onto the housing market? Oh, I'm sorry, we were focusing on ridding the UK of child poverty, but instead we'll focus on getting YOU into a suitably middle class address. For shame.

In an ill-advised move, David Cameron kept reminding us of the past. You'd think that the Conservatives would be wary of this, having to live with spectre of Thatcherism looming over them like grim reaper at a nursing home Christmas party. They thoroughly scuppered the manufacturing industry and private sector whilst in power, and now seem set to attempt the same with the public sector. There might be a fresh wave of voters now who don't remember the miners' strikes, the mass unemployment, the milk snatching - but they are outnumbered by the rumbling, angry crowds who do. If all of this rather purple prose makes you think I'm anti-Conservative, well I hold up my hands. Guilty as charged.

I couldn't help but agree with Nick Clegg on immigration and his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. In effect, he's trying to get to the stage where there's a tabula rasa, which he can then build a new system of immigration controls upon. Amnesty for illegal immigrants, and then we know where we stand, where they are, and how we can help them live happy, meaningful lives here. I'm quite sure it will lose him votes from the Daily Mail readers, who have been force fed the idea that immigrants are workshy, criminal radical Islamists who are here to kill you, rob you or even worse, take benefits! No matter that such an amnesty could save people living in this country from illegal work gangs (that amount to little more than slave labour), forced prostitution and crushing poverty; these are all the sides of illegal immigration that the foaming mouth brigade like to pretend don't exist.

My only thought on Gordon Brown that was his opening gambit of "I've made mistakes, but everybody's human, vote for me!" was interesting to say the least. A mistake is forgetting to pick up a bottle of milk on the way home, not calling one of your life long voters a bigot or selling off our gold reserves at the wrong time. I feel like I tuned out everything he said last night; I certainly can't think of anything meaningful to comment on here. Perhaps this is why he is running third in the polls - he's easy to tune out, to forget, to dismiss.

That's my not particularly eloquent view of last night's debate. I would recommend fellow curmudgeon Charlie Brooker's short article about it as a diverting few minutes reading - I guarantee the debate will appear more interesting if you imagine them all to have been wearing silver sparkling heels.

Green Party Political Broadcast

If I had one, I'd wear my green rosette with pride, so I'd better do some promotion. Here's their short broadcast:



If you fancy reading in more detail about their policies, I would urge at least a scan of their manifesto. I guarantee it will make your skin crawl 100% less than the BNP offering, which in the spirit of impartiality I actually read. Pity me.

That Bigoted Woman

I wouldn't be much of a political commentator if I didn't make some kind of noise about Bigotgate, or whatever the press will inevitably moronically label it. Prime Minister does not like being confronted by mildly irate middle aged woman! There was some other report about bears and something they do in the woods, but I didn't look at the specifics. Yes, it looks bad, but do you really think the other leaders haven't had that moment of venting about someone they'd rather have not clashed with on the campaign trail? I imagine they simply did it rather further away from a microphone.

Basically this is a lot of noise over nothing, more desperate clamouring to make this election about more than trivial issues such as the economy, healthcare or immigration. If you want something to really get angry about, something that really does show the level of hypocrisy in the government, then check out the story of Bita Ghaedi and how she's being deported despite almost certainly facing death. I'll let this story speak for itself.

It's Nick Clegg's fault.

Yes, it's the election that's got me all hot under the collar and actually bothered enough about issues to get me actively blathering about them again.

I grew up as a bit of a right-on environmentalist, fully paid up member of Greenpeace (or at least, their youth subscription) and all round bore, I imagine. Gradually, I could identify less and less with my fellow placard wavers, and by the time I went to university, when you would imagine I would be all firing on all cylinders rebellion wise, I had receded into a vaguely eccentric individual with no particular passions in the lobbying department. Maybe I'm now wiser as well as older, but recently I've been getting involved in causes from LGBT rights to environmental issues to feminism, and actually feeling incensed enough about issues to feel justified. I joined the Green Party as an actual paying member, for crying out loud. I only hope this isn't some terribly middle class mid-life crisis I'm undergoing, because if it is I'm going to die too bloody young.

So yes, this is the blog of a somewhat miserable campaigner, and will probably swing from political ranting to links about fluffy liddle baby birdies (awww). Blame Nick Clegg, it's probably his fault if the Murdoch owned press had anything to say about it.