It’s understandable that many people would like to trust that this rather clever trial is being conducted in good faith by pure scientists in the interests of faraway people whose land and bodies are being poisoned by the agrochemistry industry. Unfortunately the model and history of GMO development, marketing, utilization and the its social and ecological impacts persuades us otherwise. Maize in Mexico, Canola in Canada, Cotton in India... Maurice Maloney (new head of Rothamsted) connections to Monsanto and the ruin of organic growers in Canada (do a cursory google) etc etc blah … can we really believe this is a redemption project?
This wheat crop is out in the open - on the land and now in the public spotlight thanks to its opposers, without whom there would have been no mention of a debate at all. Thus we the farmers, producers, taxpayers and consumers have the rare opportunity to have a say. And yes we are utterly fed up with centralisation of food security decision-making and the role of 'elite science' (Prof. John Pickett, Newsnight) in continually supporting agrochemical company interests.
Decisions about how this GM technology is to be used or patented will NOT be in the open, they will take place behind closed doors. When the patent is sold elsewhere in the world, perhaps where there's less opportunity for public protest, or here perhaps, contaminating UK wheat production, or in our food chain, will we be able to get legal recourse as a result of Rothamsted going back on their good word? Can we hold them to it? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one... I'm not a legal expert... how do we hold them up to legal recourse after the horse has bolted?
Thanks for the Fuller quote. The number of people working in a decentred but interconnected manner and with blood, sweat and tears to envision, fashion and produce alternative models and techniques of local food production more in balance with nature is growing exponentially. And we are starting to create local and decentralized (blue) economies to match – a beautiful over-lapping patchwork reinstating a rich heritage of community, which underpins a reconnection with and care for our long lost land. With brilliant minds like Fuller’s busily and fruitfully inventing, investigating and using the amazing array of NON-ELITE technologies, including language, that can help us get there, with fabulous results. We are working with universities to document and evaluate the results of our labours. And we are a threat to the dominant model. And many of us will be picnicking at Rothamsted on 27th May in full knowledge and consciousness of this ‘top science’ and what it means for everyone’s future. The 27th IS the debate, see you there.
Oh and plants/seeds/genetic codes/ecosystems are not computers, they were not invented by Monsanto or Bayer, that's a frankly rubbish analogy
Take the Flour Back
It’s understandable that many people would like to trust that this rather clever trial is being conducted in good faith by pure scientists in the interests of faraway people whose land and bodies are being poisoned by the agrochemistry industry. Unfortunately the model and history of GMO development, marketing, utilization and the its social and ecological impacts persuades us otherwise. Maize in Mexico, Canola in Canada, Cotton in India... Maurice Maloney (new head of Rothamsted) connections to Monsanto and the ruin of organic growers in Canada (do a cursory google) etc etc blah … can we really believe this is a redemption project?
This wheat crop is out in the open - on the land and now in the public spotlight thanks to its opposers, without whom there would have been no mention of a debate at all. Thus we the farmers, producers, taxpayers and consumers have the rare opportunity to have a say. And yes we are utterly fed up with centralisation of food security decision-making and the role of 'elite science' (Prof. John Pickett, Newsnight) in continually supporting agrochemical company interests.
Decisions about how this GM technology is to be used or patented will NOT be in the open, they will take place behind closed doors. When the patent is sold elsewhere in the world, perhaps where there's less opportunity for public protest, or here perhaps, contaminating UK wheat production, or in our food chain, will we be able to get legal recourse as a result of Rothamsted going back on their good word? Can we hold them to it? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one... I'm not a legal expert... how do we hold them up to legal recourse after the horse has bolted?
Thanks for the Fuller quote. The number of people working in a decentred but interconnected manner and with blood, sweat and tears to envision, fashion and produce alternative models and techniques of local food production more in balance with nature is growing exponentially. And we are starting to create local and decentralized (blue) economies to match – a beautiful over-lapping patchwork reinstating a rich heritage of community, which underpins a reconnection with and care for our long lost land. With brilliant minds like Fuller’s busily and fruitfully inventing, investigating and using the amazing array of NON-ELITE technologies, including language, that can help us get there, with fabulous results. We are working with universities to document and evaluate the results of our labours. And we are a threat to the dominant model. And many of us will be picnicking at Rothamsted on 27th May in full knowledge and consciousness of this ‘top science’ and what it means for everyone’s future. The 27th IS the debate, see you there.
Oh and plants/seeds/genetic codes/ecosystems are not computers, they were not invented by Monsanto or Bayer, that's a frankly rubbish analogy