Green | August 23, 2008 | 24 comments

Dr. Vandana Shiva: Why Prince Charles is right: we need GM free food for food security

Image
JanforGore
Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have already had an impact at a global level, they are a disaster in the making.

It is therefore unscientific, illogical and irresponsible for the Environmental Minister Mr Woolas to say that Prince Charles must provide "proof" that a disaster has happened.

I would imagine that he is aware of the environmental principle on which the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rest.

The principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It is based on the recognition that when an activity or technology has the potential to cause harm, and there is no conclusive evidence to establish the harm that can be caused, then policy and decision making must err on the side of caution.

The Environment Minister also said "Government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: 'Can GM crops help'?

Minister, if you could travel with me through Vidarbha and see the tears in the eyes of farmers' widows, you would be compelled to ask the question:'Can GM crops harm'? That is your moral responsibility.

It is also your responsibility to sincerely base your decisions on real science, not pseudo science. Science based policy would recognise that an agriculture that conserves biodiversity also produces more food and nutrition per unit acre.

Science based policy would recognise that if farmers fall into debt, it is not an instrument for ending poverty, but a recipe for ending the lives of small farmers.

A science based policy would not blindly spread GM crops to Africa without assessing their role in India's agrarian crisis. A science based policy would not be based on unscientific principle of "substantial equivalence" which has prevented independent and serious testing of GM foods and crops.

That is why the Supreme Court of India has served notice on the Government of India to ask why a GMO moratorium should not be imposed till proper testing protocols and tests and facilities for biosafety are in place.

end of excerpt.
``~~~
Dr. Vandana Shiva is one of the most passionate and knowledgable scholars and environmental activists on the topic of GM foods, the global water crisis, Monsanto ( bio technology), sustainability, and environmental democracy. I trust her words and her judgement on this implicitly as I too have done the research. The world needs to listen to and read her words as she speaks truth about the monopoly taking form to control both our food and water in the guise of companies stating they are pushing GM organisms on us for our own benefit, when it is really for their own.

GM foods and the poisons sprayed on them that are in our water and food are not sustainable and will not save this world from a food crisis, but may well perpetuate it especially in areas of severe drought. We have all the conventional food we need to feed this world save political corruption (World Bank) and those in power looking to deny it to those who need it most to suit their own political, economic, and ideological agendas. I hold Dr. Shiva in the highest esteem and take her word on this based on her years of experience over anyone looking to defend the monstrous crime being perpetrated by these biocompanies on our environment and our health.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Green,   Earth and Science,   Food
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Green Current TV Earth and Science 14 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

24 comments // Dr. Vandana Shiva: Why Prince Charles is right: we need GM free food for food security

  • cibalin
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Thanks to all who participated in this thread. Bravura, you are so right. This is an important issue that people need to know about. The Monsanto tag here as well will give much information about what you will never see on TV in the US, and what it looks like you will never see on Current TV either.

    • 3 years ago
  • wholefreespirit
  • cadsuch
    • 0
      cadsuch  
    • We need competition in everthing we do. We got to BE a superpower BECAUSE we wrote the book on capitalism. We demand that every other country has to follow the rule on competitive capitalism. If we were STILL following our own competitive model, we wouldn't be haveing concerns about the whole tomatoe crop being contaminated by ecoli or all the hamburger patties being contaminated.

      How do you plan on getting these world trading organizattions to BE a good citizen and follow a precautionary system? I contend that if you could do THAT you could get our competitive model back.

    • 3 years ago
  • Dmitri_Molotov
  • ashabpatel
    • 0
      ashabpatel  
    • i've been there! at navdanya - the sustainable farming organization founded by Dr. Shiva ... it is an AMAZING place. They have the world's juiciest mangoes, and quite possibly, best food. I could just live off of their fruit trees.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • ashabpatel:

      Ashabpatel: I envy you. Did you meet Dr. Shiva? I have long admired her courage and passion. She is someone I consider to be a mentor on water issues. I can only imagine how wonderful this place is. Thanks for sharing.

    • 3 years ago
  • Bravura
    • 0
      Bravura  
    • This is a very important issue people must know about. Search "Monsanto" on youtube and there many documentaries on this issue.

    • 3 years ago
  • CedricaBaez
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Wow, Nettle, what a puppet she is. We can feed the world's population (probably half of it on what is thrown out in this country alone in a day.) Perhaps if she cares about "feeding the world" she should tell the World Bank to actually allow food to get to those countries where people are dying of hunger instead of charging unusually high tariffs in order to then push GM biocrap on them they don't want. Perhaps she should then call for more education and hands on training in the developing world to teach farmers how to cultivate crops sustainably...does she also know that with the current global water crisis we are
      facing that nothing will grow without water regardless of its source? If she advocates for Monsanto to take control of our food process and their "patenting" of life, she is nothing but a corporate stooge.

    • 3 years ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • JanforGore:

      I just did a little background search of the GMO advocate Nina Fedoroff, here is a little history. She was listed in 2000
      as the.....
      NINA FEDOROFF, Willaman Chair and Professor of
      Life Sciences, Director, Life Sciences Consortium and
      Biotechnology Institute

      at LSC co-funded faculty
      The Pennsylvania State
      University
      and look who was funding research there? my my....

      The Innovative Biotechnology Research
      Fund held its second competition for seed
      grants in the spring of this year. A total of 80
      proposals were received, with faculty from all
      of the LSC colleges participating in the
      submission of proposals. This year, Monsanto
      made a significant contribution to the fund, in
      addition to the Fund’s endowment and LSC
      funds. A committee comprising faculty from
      several of the colleges, together with a
      representative of the Monsanto Company,
      met to select the 20 most meritorious
      proposals. Abstracts of these proposals have
      been included in this issue of the newsletter.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • queenofit
  • JanforGore
  • SushiBandit
  • JanforGore
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • Image
    • JanforGore,

      Thanks for posting this topic, it got me googling the Precautionary Principle. I found a neat training module for those who work in the field of health. I thought it might be good to share this.

      In this training module it has a quote, which I happen to believe it relevant to this topic on "proof"

      Historically, in case after case, the lack of certainty in science has led to failure to act because of the demand for conclusive evidence of cause and effect. Even when warning signs were very prominent, our pattern has been to call for more studies.

      From 1897, we had some evidence that benzene caused aplastic anemia and was a bone marrow poison. Seventy years later, when workers were suffering from benzene-induced leukemia, action was once again delayed and what ensued was an intense period of study. Since the 1960s, more than 11,000 studies on benzene are recorded in National Institutes of Health's database!3

      Once a chemical is implicated in serious health effects, it is often well dispersed into the environment or in products commonly used by consumers. These chemical products are used so much that they create their own "monopolies." Their discontinued use or ban is very difficult and costly to society. Some examples of chemicals that became monopolies include CFCs; PCB's; Asbestos; DDT; and Chlordane.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  
    • Image
    • Sorry for the propaganda, but this article features a woman who thinks GM foods need to be present in order to feed the world's population.

      Outrage and skepticism to follow.

    • 3 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Thanks for that Queenofit. The precautionary principle is a cornerstone as well of a democratic society and can be applied to any activity not just environmental. In the case of GMOs as we see this has not been the case, which was what Prince Charles was referring to. And while I haven't always agreed with him he is spot on regarding this.

    • 3 years ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • A little more information regarding the Precautionary Principle

      Environmental Research Foundation [Printer-friendly version]
      January 21, 2008

      THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN THE REAL WORLD

      By Peter Montague

      The Wingspread Statement's definition of the precautionary principle
      is now widely quoted:

      "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the
      environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause
      and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

      "In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public,
      should bear the burden of proof.

      "The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open,
      informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties.
      It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives,
      including no action."

      The Essence of Precaution:

      Critics say that the precautionary principle is not well-defined.
      However, the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) points
      out that, in all formulations of the precautionary principle, we find
      three elements:

      1) When we have a reasonable suspicion of harm, and

      2) scientific uncertainty about cause and effect, then

      3) we have a duty to take action to prevent harm.

      The precautionary principle does not tell us what action to take.
      However, proponents of a precautionary approach have suggested a
      series of actions we can take:

      (1) Monitor carefully (pay attention), and heed early warnings.

      (2) Set goals;

      (3) Examine all reasonable ways of achieving the goals, intending to
      adopt the least-harmful way;

      (4) Shift the burden of proof -- when consequences are uncertain, give
      the benefit of the doubt to nature, public health and community
      well-being. Expect responsible parties (not governments or the public)
      to bear the burden of producing needed information. Expect reasonable
      assurances of safety for products before they can be marketed -- just
      as the Food and Drug Administration expects reasonable assurances of
      safety before new pharmaceutical products can be marketed.

      (5) Throughout the decision-making process, honor the knowledge of
      those who will be affected by the decisions, and give them a real
      "say" in the outcome. This approach naturally allows issues of ethics,
      right-and-wrong, history, cultural appropriateness, and justice to
      become important in the decision.

      (6) Monitor results, heed early warnings, and make mid-course
      corrections as needed;

      Instead of asking the basic risk-assessment question -- "How much harm
      is allowable?" -- the precautionary approach asks, "How little harm is
      possible?"

      In sum: Faced with reasonable suspicion of harm, the precautionary
      approach urges a full evaluation of available alternatives for the
      purpose of preventing or minimizing harm.

      ==============

      Further reading:

      In the U.S., the leading proponent of the precautionary approach is
      the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN). Their web
      site is a gold mine of information.

    • 3 years ago
  • karnathis
  • MeganMcKenzie
    • 0
      MeganMcKenzie  
    • Jan, this is a very informative story. Thanks. 20 years ago when I was in college my professors spoke often about how the USA's biggest crisis would be contamination of our food supply by Agri-business.

    • 3 years ago
  • huntre
    • 0
      huntre  
    • The short and, not so, sweet of it is that she knows exactly what she's on about.
      I wonder if "Bonny Prince Charlie" refers to her and others as "elitists"?
      Highly doubtful.

    • 3 years ago
more from Green:

top videos