GMO - Where we stand.

  

The SOYMB blog has been criticised as being more reflective of “middle class Green Party” policies in regards to our recent condemnatory articles on the topic of genetically modified food. This post is hopefully refutes that wrong impression. One thing should be noted that every article in our magazine the Socialist Standard goes before an elected editorial committee for approval. Posts on the blog has not got this “peer-review” process and so we hold up our hands to sometimes not expressing ourselves as clearly as we should and that may lead to some confusion on where the Socialist Party sits on various issues It should also be noted that on some things the party are neither anti or pro as explained in this blog-post:

 "Within the Socialist Party there exists differing opinions on the benefits or otherwise of GMO food. There is no party-line on the issue, just the various and sometimes conflicting thoughts of our members. Fortunately, no-one subscribes to the theory that Big-Ag is involved in a conspiracy to create a docile and dependent population of automatons. We are neither enthusiasts nor alarmists. The problem with GMOs is not necessarily the GM technology but the nature of the businesses tasked with running this industry."

Our party blog explains elsewhere:

"The prudent application of GM technology could be of some benefit to humanity and may be developed in socialism where food will be produced simply to feed people and not for profit. Properly applied to enhance human welfare, as for instance by developing varieties of crops that grow better in conditions that are currently unfavourable, it has a future in a socialist world free of profits, patents and markets. GM technology could allow the development of plant varieties suitable to organic farming and there is no reason why GM crops too couldn't be grown organically. The opposition organic/non-organic does not have to be the same as the opposition GM/non-GM."

Our companion party the Socialist Party of Canada in an article in their magazine on fracking reflects what would be considered as the exercise of the precautionary principle: 

"What is significant is that at no time have any of the scientists called for an end to the practice of fracking. We know it causes earthquakes, that they are occurring more frequently, and affecting faults further and further away from the drilling and contaminating the land and water. The scientists obviously want to institute damage control, i.e. an admission that there will be damage. Clearly the practice of fracking in drilling for oil is causing some very worrisome problems. The solution would be to stop the practice until it can be made safe or abandon the practice if this is impossible. However, this is not feasible within the economic laws of capitalism that dictate that raw materials must be acquired as cheaply as possible to keep the machines and profits running, no matter what the cost to humans or the environment. To campaign specifically against fracking would be to miss the point. We advocate campaigning against the system that demands such practices and replacing it with one where common sense and concern for all parties involved is required."

The same magazine issue goes on to explain:

"GMOs will not solve the world’s food problems but it is another tool in the toolbox. The problem, as Ransom pointed out above is in the control of the technology. If it is controlled for profit, then we can expect labeling, testing, and regulation will be manipulated to maximize the profit at the expense of safety in production and marketing. It will be a continual fight to find out the truth of what is in the food that we eat and the lies will continue until a system of common ownership and control of the world’s resources enables us to have a transparent open system that works in the interests of all humanity."

The SOYB blog in the past has taken issue with the GM lobbyists that it is silver bullet solution to world hunger: 

"For all of the talk of GM crops being the solution to global famine, the fact is that there has never been so much food produced in the world than there is today. Those proselytising for GM food should not be allowed to pull the debate away from distribution by inventing a non- problem with respect to production. The problem is not one of production, but distribution. The food is not produced to meet the needs of the people who demand it but to make profits for those who control the supply. As every economics student learns, demand is not desire, indicating what people need, but effective demand backed by the ability to pay. The market neither knows nor cares about needs not backed by money. Food is available but to demand it and to consume it you have to be able to buy it. The problem of famine is a problem of poverty, and poverty is caused by the iniquitous and exploitative relations of global trade. The claims made for GM food are phoney. GM crops is being advanced as the solution to a non-problem. People starve not on account of a failure of production, but as a result of poverty and diminished purchasing power. Famine is a failure of distribution. In recent years the problem has not been one of production but of overproduction in relation to the available market, i.e. purchasing power.

  GM food? We already have more than enough food, and have had more than enough food for so long as to beg the question why it doesn’t reach the mouths of the people who need it the most. When someone insists that we need GM food, we need to present these facts on world overproduction of food and ask why? They need to look at these facts and explain why there is a famine problem at all. The food is being produced and can be produced. Why is it not distributed according to need? Why is it rationed by price and ability to pay? Why do profits come before people? Who is in control of the food supply? Who will be in control of GM technology? If the problem is one of distribution, how will the production of GM food end famine?"

 There are many within the Socialist Party who believe there may well be immediate and detrimental impact on livelihoods of some sections of rural workers concerning GM but we know also that there is a business rivalry and competition taking place between various nation-states using GM and non-GM as the political battlefield. The latest outbreak on this is Russia's ban on GM. Our policy is clear that we stand aside from intra-capitalist disputes, e.g. the EU rewriting of GM rules but will happily reveal the profound lack of democracy and transparency in the process which is the exclusion of genuine democracy in the name of "free" trade.

WE  hope this post goes some way to clarify the blog’s attitude towards GMO and, of course, a similar attitude can be extended to fracking, nuclear power, and other aspects of industry where the science may not be all that clear or great claims are being made for new technology yet are merely the product of PR and marketing departments of the wealthy corporations buying influence and political power.