('’)

UK Testing GM Potatoes That Offer No Benefit to Farmers or Eaters

How can this happen? Big money talks. When Monsanto-related pseudo-research has ties with politics, Monsanto gets what it wants.

by Heidi Stevenson

18 July 2010

Fanning the flames of fear with the specter of the Irish Potato Famine, the UK is testing genetically modified (GM) potatoes. They have been engineered to resist a fungal blight, which may seem worthy—until you learn that the UK already has blight-resistant potatoes developed through cross-breeding. The GM trial is being done in spite of staunch resistance by the British public.

The trial has been made to look like a pure scientific investigation. The question, though, is why the UK government is sponsoring a trial for a potato that isn't needed. It's being pitched as a panacea that would prevent the need for pesticides on potato crops. But that makes no sense, since it isn't a problem in the UK—at least, not for the blight.

The person heading the project is Jonathan Jones, who runs the Sainsbury Laboratory. During none of his promotion of the project have his ties with Monsanto been noted. The Guardian reports that Jonathan Matthews, the spokesman for GM Watch, pointed out:

The frontman for the latest GM push in the UK is being portrayed as a dedicated public servant doing science in the public interest, but it now appears he not only has vested interests in the success of GM but even commercial connections to Monsanto.

It turns out that Jones not only has links to Monsanto, he has direct financial interests. He founded Mendel Biotechnology, whose most significant customer—and also collaborator—is Monsanto. Yet, he didn't provide that information in a recent tirade against opponents of GM, which he wrote for BBC. He went so far as to call them, "fussy eaters". When confronted with his lack of transparency, he stated to the Observer that he hadn't tried to hide his connections.

Why This Particular GM Trial?

There is nothing to be gained by the UK in this trial of blight-resistant GM potatoes. So what's the purpose of this trial?

The answer is given by Helen Wallace, of GeneWatch UK, who stated:

PR strategy [of Monsanto] relies on seemingly independent scientists making empty promises about the future benefits of GM crops.

So, it seems likely that this trial of genetically modified potatoes—which offer no benefit to either the growers or eaters of potatoes in the UK—is being done for other reasons.

But why? Why would the UK government waste taxpayer money on a trial of GM potatoes that are unlikely to benefit either farmers or consumers in the UK? How did it happen?

Wealth and Politics

There's nothing like being able to buy your way into politics, and then using your political position to manipulate the goals and finances of the nation.

Baron David John Sainsbury was born into wealth, but it wasn't enough to buy him the grades he needed to become a scientist, and it didn't give him his title. So, he joined the family firm, J. Sainsbury's in the personnel department. He became Chairman and retired in 1998, during the rise of the Labour Party. On entering politics, he put his 23% stake in Sainsbury's into a pseudo-blind trust, with the ability to replace the trustee at will.

Shortly after Labour's victory in 2007, Sainsbury was made a baron and given an honorary science degree. He donated and loaned huge sums to the Labour Party, including a £2 million loan that was questioned in the "Cash for Peerages" scandal in 2006. He gave £2 million to Labour in 2007, thus cancelling the need to pay back the £2 million loan. He became the Science and Innovation Minister for Britain under Labour and was made a Baron.

Altogether, it's believed that Sainsbury gave more than £16 million to Labour.

Conflicts of Interest

The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSB) was, of course, founded by the Sainsbury family. From its inception, research has been in "plant-microbe interactions". Though the website claims that their purpose is "curiosity driven research", most of what they do is involved with genetic modification.

TSB's funding comes from:

• The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, which was founded by Baron Sainsbury.
• The John Innes Foundation, on whose land TSB is sited.
• The University of East Anglia.
• The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), which is funded by the UK's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Corporate Watch states, "Lord Sainsbury is a shining example of all that is wrong with mixing business and government." Significant conflicts of interest involving Sainsbury include, but are far from limited to, the following:

• He helped found Sainsbury Laboratories and his Gatsby Foundation is its primary source of funding. The BBSRC gave it £800,000 per year while he was responsible for that agency as a government minister.
• As Science Minister, Sainsbury went to the US in 1999 to research biotechnology. In his entourage were members of the GM industry lobby group, BioIndustry Association. His own company, Diatech, is an associate member of the lobby group.
• Diatech registered a patent for a genetic sequence of the tobacco mosaic virus, which is used in genetically modified plants. It was developed by the Sainsbury Lab.
• He held significant financial interests in Diatech Ltd, a plant genetics company, and Innotech Investments Ltd, involved in both plant genetics and GMO, while he was Science Minister. Innotech held a substantial stake in Paradigm Genetics, which was involved in a GM venture with Monsanto.
• Sainsbury met with three Monsanto officials the eve of an important seminar with environmentalists, clearly showing his disdain for anti-GM activists.

This is only a small part of Sainsbury's conflicts of interest while "serving" the UK government.

Follow the Money

So, why are potatoes genetically modified for resistance to blight, which is not a concern in the UK, being grown in a laboratory experiment? Just follow the money.

In the UK, the vast majority of citizens are strongly against GM food, either grown on farms or for sale in stores. A prior attempt to grow frankentaters was stopped by a group of activists who destroyed the growing plants.

Nonetheless, another GM potato trial is now taking place, with security cameras and controlled access. The public's views are utterly ignored. Neither the public nor the farmers can possibly benefit from it. The operation of the trial was set up under Sainsbury, who stands to profit from the results.

At the same time, the public's resistance is being worn down. Twisted arguments are used to justify the test. The man at the head of the trial, Jonathan Jones, is portrayed as an independent scientist. Yet, he too stands to benefit from its success. He has promoted the trial by saying:

UK potato growers spray crops 10-15 times a year and in 2007 Europe ran out of chemicals to control blight, it was such a wet year. If our research is successful, this will cut chemicals and carbon dioxide generated by the use of tractors.

It sounds good, but on examination, the utter lack of logic is clear. The trial is taking place and being paid for by the UK, which does not have a problem with potato blight. Other countries do—but frankly, it begs credulity to suggest that GM potatoes are being developed in the UK for altruistic reasons.

No, the only explanation for this GM potatoes trial is the lucre that Jones, Sainsbury, and certainly others, stand to take in from their sale. The only other explanation—and perhaps a co-explanation—is that a spoiled rich boy who either didn't have the ability or the fortitude to follow his dream of being a scientist has perverted the course of British politics in an attempt to fill that hole left by the vanished dream.

Share

('’)