Food for Thought: To GM or not to GM?

At the Jupiter Trust series in Oxford on 'Defending Essential Values: Life, Liberty & the Human Spirit' last night, genetically engineered food was on the menu – not food to eat, but food for thought.

Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher is an international advisor to many NGOs and was one of the advisors and advocates for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – part of the UN Convention on Biodiversity which concluded in 2000. Her book Hungry Corporations (first published in 2003 & written with Helena Paul) is no half-baked activist rant – but a detailed research report with numerous footnotes, laced with acronyms (for which there is an ample glossary) and a detailed index

Steinbrecher's background is as a biologist who was working on genetic research on haemoglobin up to 15 years ago. This offered the prospect of cures for such scourges as haemophilia – which has failed to materialise. Steinbrecher explained that genetics is a very recent and complex science which takes time to understand. She said "the certainty of our knowledge betrayed us" - the quote of the evening for me – and one which also explains much of what is happening in the world of science and maybe also that of finance.

We were deprived of the Powerpoint presentation due to a technical glitch – but Steinbrecher's illustration with words and gestures well made up the shortfall – and if anything focused attention on her subject.

Steinbrecher's passion is for biodiversity which supplies ample variety. Variety, she said, provides 'a buffer' to attacks on natural systems. She illustrated this with the example of an ecological agricultural system that has been developed in Africa to protect crops against a particular infestation by surrounding them with grass that attracts and ties in the predators, whilst at the same time leguminous crops are planted within the main crop that both repels the insects and fixes nitrogen in the soil. This is described as a 'push and pull' system and according to Steinbrecher, this has shown great benefits in terms of yield as well as additional spin offs such as the cutting and selling of the grass and the discouragement of some invasive weeds. This only works at a small scale – as proximity of the grasses to the main crop is a requirement. Steinbrecher also cited a similar system with yield increases of up to 70%.

These systems do not suit big fields, big farms and the big corporations who own and manage the land and seek naturally to make a big profit on their investments. This is the world of GM food. It is a world dominated by monocultures – single species that are resistant to the chemicals that are used to wipe out the weeds around them, and which incorporate in-built genes to fight disease, resist drought, increase yield and boost nutrition. "This is the only way to feed the world's hungry" is the message to the guilt-laden westerner. Sounds great, and provided there is sufficient safety and testing then why not? Quite simply Steinbecher says it does not work, is not proven, and is largely based on a scientific outlook that is 20 years old and so is unsafe.

We were treated to an exposition of genetics using a ball point pen as a visual tool to show how genes act on cells. All cells contain the same DNA – they are switched on and off to make a foot or a hand or a bit of lung tissue depending on where they are and the stage of development [place and time]. The DNA of the cells are 'told' to do this by means of a process which involves 'transcription' to the cell and 'translation' within the cell of so- called 'promoters' which act on the cell. [Note: This is very technical and excuse this poor author if it is not correct & please amend the wiki].

The idea that is popularly understood is that a suitable gene with special benefits (colour, resistance to drought, longevity) is taken from one living system (plant, animal, or bacteria) and inserted/transcribed to another – for instance to make a sort of wheat that is more drought resistant. Again sounds good in theory, but the model is just too simplistic. Steinbrecher said that there are only a handful of genes that are single function – most have different effects depending on the system within which they operate [ place and time]. Also scientists have no precise way of inserting a gene in a particular location in the receptor – instead they use a number of techniques some of which involve a 'shotgun' approach of physically blasting genes at tissue. They have also discovered that viruses are particularly good at carrying genes since when they arrive in the receptor cell, they have the ability to override the cell's normal regulatory functions. So potentially beneficial genes arrive on the backs of viruses - all very clever stuff, but is it safe? This is the question that Steinbrecher has been researching and campaigning on with some success (as above). However, safety/reducing risks is not a matter that is popular in a commercial environment where products are brought to market as soon as possible to realise a return on the investment - our ecological future may again be a reflection of our financial predicament where risk assessment was woefully abandoned for short term gain.

But what about the successes of GM ? Steinbecher is scathing - she cites Dr. David King, the former UK government advisor on climate change and proponent of GM food, as having laid claim that the 'push and pull' system used in Africa (described earlier) is a result of GM when it is not. We have the purple tomato rich in anti-oxidants – but 'so-what?' such tomatoes are already found in Central Europe. She concedes that where resistance to predators and disease are concerned there are advantages, but these are only short lived. On a seven year cycle other factors come into play, for instance the increase in lignite (woody cells) cause the same plants that are disease-resistant to split open in drought conditions. This is just one example of the unforeseen secondary affects of the genes used to combat the disease itself.

There is then a problem here in that the world is being 'sold' unproven and potentially unsafe food. In the UK we thought the argument had been resolved in the 1990s and that GM had beaten a hasty retreat from 'this green and pleasant land' – but it is encroaching on all around on the basis that if 'an untruth is told enough people come to believe it'. A good example of this is the widespread use of GM food in animal feed which by-passes the usual 'labelling' regulations. There is growing evidence, according to Steinbrecher, that the presence of certain GM compounds may have a detrimental effect on the liver, kidneys, gut and immune system in general.

The most delightful part of Steinbrecher's talk was the description of how soil works and how plants interact with the micro-bacterial organisms in the soil to create a matrix for nourishment based on interchange e.g. sugar for water. In this way the soil is much more than a sort of sponge for containing essential minerals and water for the plants - it is full of life. Recent research also points to the fact that GM crops tend to have a reduced interaction with the micro-organisms in the soil which may well be detrimental in the long term.

The risk of the monoculture future is that we open ourselves to famine since single species, however great they may be in certain respects, are prone to attack. Steinbrecher cited the case of a small brown grasshopper that destroyed vast areas of monoculture rice. She returned to her passion for variety and encouraged people not to support food systems based on monocultures but rather to support such ventures as farmers' markets and, if possible, to grow our own food. Steinbrecher herself cited the powers of dissemination of valid information, persistence and 'making a noise', qualities she herself demonstrates. These are simple remedies – but effective in lifting apathy and questioning blind belief.

More information

http://www.econexus.info/
www.gmfreeze.org


RT Notes& Queries:

(1) Another much-debated issue is whether it is ethically proper to transcribe genes from one species to another at all – as the difference in location could generate mutations with wildly aberrant behaviour. Currently such practice has become accepted and legalised. What do others think?

(2) We have forgotten that we can be part of the process by which the earth and we feed ourselves – but we cannot take on the role as 'feeder of the world' – anymore than Solomon could feed all the creatures of the world despite his unparalleled powers. Are we then interfering in the process of creation in a way that should be left to the 'creator' – even if the 'creator', in an immanential sense, is the evolutionary process itself ?

(3) I have just been reminded that the great Charles Darwin himself, whose 200th anniversary we currently are celebrating, spent the last five years of his life studying earthworms, whose humble and largely unnoticed existence and constant activity, allows life to spring from the soil.


Richard Twinch Oxford
Valentines Day 2009

Notes of a conversation - January 12-19th

These are notes made by two people who took part in the first week of the conversation at Chisholme referred to in the invitation sent out in early January. We hope to post other records of the ongoing conversation as they become available.

We are in a time of unprecedented change. This is evidenced in both the exterior and the interior. The world is changing, we are changing, and Beshara, as news of both the exterior and interior, is changing. Can we see this? What is asked for is clarity of vision. What is happening and how can we respond?

While it was asked (in the tube advertisement ) some years ago –
'You might not be able to change the world, but can you change yourself?'
The question now could be: '...but can you see that your self and the world are one self?'

This is not a personal spiritual matter – reference to the quote from the Hopi – 'This is not a personal matter', what you thought was personal is global work'.

Bulent's paper – 'An Esoteric Exposition of Finance' was read referring to 'the three major aspects that rule over the present age': the Spiritual, the Financial and the Scientific.

This has proved an invaluable guide to our understanding of the era, particularly
– these three dimensions are necessarily interdependent
– that a total awareness involves the integration of these three dimensions
– that they are based on the bedrock of Life – 'It is through Life that Finance, Economy, Business find possible expression in human existence
– that the place of the true spiritual/universal vision is in the 'bedrock of Life'. That the Compassionate Spirit and the good news of Beshara is at this level
– that we are inevitably, in this era, born with these dimensions as our daily modes of perception.
We cannot but help see the world in financial, scientific and spiritual terms.
– that the present condition of the era is communicated to us through these modes – population, exponential growth, credit crunch, global warming etc. are exposed through these 'souls'.

Unprecedented change is evidenced in exponential growth particularly in world population, use of resources, world financial debt etc. We are at the point now where the rate of increase has itself increased hugely and leads into impossible levels. (Reference graphs of exponential growth in Chris Martenson.com – 'Crash Course')

One strongly entrenched belief has been that growth is good and that growth means prosperity. However, the real situation is that with limited resources, growth and prosperity become mutually exclusive; ultimately continual growth is not sustainable.

The paradigm of growth is being exposed as untenable. While it might have been workable in the past it is no longer relevant for a 'full planet'. Another model is needed. It is necessary for us to rethink basic assumptions. The continuing belief that the future will enlarge is a myth and is leading to a burden of debt on future generations. (see Chris Martenson.com) This also refers to the myth of personalised spiritual growth.

However, not everything in the past/present is negative. It is helpful to distinguish between the real and the imaginary e.g. Real Economics and Imaginary Economics. There is a proper order to 'economy' as the standard of value, transfer of energy/resources, value of man's work, etc. As simply movement from place to place in itself, it is neutral and can truly reflect the real qualities of Life, Energy and Generosity. Imaginary economics can sit on the top of this and operate according to self, greed, exploitation etc. and have negative effect. Greed and fear must be replaced by generosity and compassion of response.

We are of the era and as such are party to the sickness of the era, but we have been educated in wellness.

It is important to keep levels distinct and to view the exterior from the exterior and the interior from the interior. ' Don't try to give spiritual answers to scientific questions; Each has their own truth, but they are not in opposition'.

We must be careful not to 'jump the gun', to proceed to a speculative conclusion. This is an invitation to vision, not to solutions.

Invitation to vision requires 'abiding in truth' and following the unfoldment as it unfolds. The question is 'What is happening ?', 'How is it now?' and 'How can we see it more clearly? We are asking to be informed.
This communication is a request for vision. Nothing can be communicated without vision, otherwise it is imagination from a limited place. Let's ask for annihilation in vision, and ask until it is total.
Vision communicates; if vision is given let's ask for more.

The real paradigm shift is non-existence in the face of the One Self – 'practical non existence'. There is the flavour of breaking down something and opening up in a different way; the sense that with one small movement interiorly, everything moves; nothing is the same after this. (The image of metamorphosis – the caterpillar dissolving in the chrysalis and emerging reformed as the butterfly).

The whole order is beneficence. Freedom of movement within the order without appropriation. How to step into this vision but with non-appropriation, non- ownership, but with responsibility. Ownership is only by the Real Owner of all.

Everything has its order, its way of flowing. This is true economics and good housekeeping.

Not to see the changes as negative, but to see them as they are, not to judge. As in Rumi – 'the emaciated invalid is for the surgeon's skills to manifest' – points to the greater goodness underlying the apparent lack; a sense of real purpose and a cause for celebration.

The Eco Crunch – a view from Cheltenham and Oxford

By Richard Twinch, October 2008

For those who recognise the reciprocation of cause and effect we need to look little further for why we are being visited by a crisis of such ferocity at this time.

Financial commentators have pointed out that the period of turbulence experienced in the last few weeks is nothing new. In The Secret Life of Real Estate (published 2008 Shepheard Walwyn) Phil Anderson shows it is part of an economic cycle of "boom and bust" that can be traced in recent times back to 10 May 1800 when the US federal government started selling off its newly acquired land . This action for the first time, in the recently independent nation, put a locational value on one piece of real estate over another and established the mantra "location, location, location". This, according to the financial "chartists", has run the economic cycle in the west ever since on a more or less clockwork 18 year cycle – they say we now face the 4 year downturn.

Economically cycles create inflationary "bubbles" which must burst -often in spectacular fashion destroying economies and nations in their wake. Modern market economies emerged in the18th Century and with them investment bubbles. 1720 saw the South Sea Bubble in England. Holland and the Ottoman Empire experienced the extraordinary hyper inflation of tulip prices (see Bulent Rauf: The Last Sultans: Epoch of the Tulip). Bubbles inflate when an object of desire is in short supply (either naturally or artificially) and a collective panic sweeps over the masses desperate to avoid missing out. Those who are aware of the process, either by luck, intuition or cunning have already removed themselves from the cycle before the boom flips to crash in a twinkling of the eye.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, in his talk to the Cheltenham Literary Festival last night (17th October), drew our attention to the parallels between the financial world crisis and the potentially far more calamitous crisis facing the world climate, now that we have entered the "Anthropocene Era" where human activity shapes nature at every turn. As with the ecology, the economy has not examined the underlying persistent imbalances that have been lying in wait for a triggered response – in the case of the financial crisis the implosion of Lehman Brothers Investment Bank a few short weeks ago. We were, Sachs described, too complacent with the way things appeared to be going to question where all the seemingly inexhaustible flow of money was coming from and where the risks lay. Our inattention diverted us from seeing that we were hurtling towards a cliff. In the same way, Sachs continued, our inattention to the long-term needs of the planet have been overlooked, such that a similar catastrophe potentially awaits us as hidden thresholds are crossed which will have totally unpredictable consequences, not only for humankind but for all living creatures - millions of species of which are potentially perishing already as their habitats are stripped away before science has even recognised them.

The thesis of his latest book “Common Wealth: Economics For a Crowded Planet”, lays out much the same challenges that Sachs so brilliantly described in the 2007 Reith Lecture series. The challenges he describes are threefold:

(1) Ecology (2) Extreme Poverty, which results in violence and destruction (3) Unchecked population growth which exacerbates both the problems of poverty and ecology.

This may seem like "old news" to some, and Sachs admits that in some ways the book is already outdated as economic, political and ecological events have tumbled one upon the other, such that the predictions of yesterday have become the facts of today (starvation and violence in Chad and Darfur, no ice in the Arctic Ocean and the collapse of market-driven capitalism). Sachs is no gloom-mongerer - he is an optimist who, inspired by the great John F Kennedy, passionately believes in the ability of the human to be "as big as he wants" to solve these vast problems which drive many to despair. He points to the collective global action to heal the ozone layer that has proved successful in the last ten years, and also that there are signs that the necessary on-going cooperation to settle the financial problems may provide a framework for dealing with the ecological problems. He sees the path towards the cliff edge as veering away from disaster at the last moment.

One particular aspect of the recent credit crunch and its aftermath that Sachs, a self styled "PhD Beggar", described, was the inability of the wealthy nations of the world to deliver on their 2005 commitments to “Make Poverty History” at the Gleneagles Summit – a commitment that was only one ten thousandths of the world GDP. For me it was shocking to hear that Wall Street bonuses exceeded the total aid to Africa from the whole world. For those who recognise the reciprocation of cause and effect we need to look little further for why we are being visited by a crisis of such ferocity at this time.

The questions at literary festivals often generate interesting points for discussion, of which water in the ecological arena is the most pressing and difficult issue – the carbon cycle can be fixed, said Sachs, but with water "everything is local" which makes it "very difficult". Sachs, following JFK, is a believer in leadership as a means of generating hope through defining clear goals and making them seem less remote and therefore attainable. On the vexed question of individual response, Sachs encouraged learning, citizenship and personal involvement.

Pondering all this in Oxford:

Cycles are an inescapable fact of the relative world which oscillates between opposites. We can no more do away with "boom and bust", as some have declared, than the Danish King Canute in the 9th Century could prevent the tide from rising, as urged to do by flatterers. He persisted until the point was proved and then said: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey".

Natural cycles persist, both short and long term. Most are unknown and mysterious, being to do with the deep cycles of the universe. Humankind has long valued those who have been able to predict, or say they can predict, when the cycles will turn. The motions of the heavens, to those with a clear uncluttered view of the stars, are the cycles that are most evident and naturally drew the attention of the ancients who wished to be able to predict the flow of the seasons, the motions of animals and later in history the time to sow and the time to reap. Astrology has largely given way to science which in many ways is its descendent in seeking to perceive the future by examining what has happened in the past.

The Bible and the Koran describe how the prophet Joseph was inspired to delve into the realm of imagination where deeper levels of meaning were unfolded to him. Through the gift of dream interpretation, he was able to recognise the cycles of seven bountiful years and seven years of famine which overtook ancient Egypt which was accustomed to the annual bounty of the Nile which washed the land with fertility. Wisdom dictated that Joseph store the surplus harvest for seven years and when the seven years of famine swept across the land he was able to make the grain available – not only to feed the people of Egypt – but those driven by hunger to travel from distant lands – including his brothers who had years before dumped him in a well and covered up their iniquity by blooding the famous many-coloured cloak.

Another exemplar of wisdom is the Arab prophet Shu'ayb. He is mentioned in the Koran and as a Midianite is sometimes equated with Jethro. But it is the great thinker Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi who draws out the meaning of the "Wisdom of the Heart in the Word of Shu'ayb" in the Fusus al Hikam (Ringstones of Wisdom). Shu'ayb came to a people who were devaluing weights and measures. He was given to perceive how the subtle movements of the heart respond to the self-revelation of God, through which everything is given its just measure (this is discussed in detail by Cecilia Twinch in her paper given to the Ibn "Arabi Society in Oxford in April 2008). She describes how “Shu'ayb called on his people to turn to the One God of all, to give others what is rightfully theirs and not to degrade the wholesomeness of the established order on earth. Otherwise, he prophesied doom; and being unheeded, an earthquake brought about the people's demise.” Our times are very similar in that the means of exchange have become hugely devalued through mathematical ingenuity and low cunning. When generosity (as practised by Joseph above) was privately proposed to Jeffrey Sachs in Cheltenham, as the best personal response to the current situation, he agreed that this was even better than his own answer to the vexed question of individual response.

Sachs puts his faith in inspired leadership (President Obama?) and the building of world institutions, but we have seen the failure of these same institutions to protect the world economy from excessive greed and self-delusion.

Our long term crisis is maybe not to do with lack of political leadership, commitment or even passion – all of which are absolutely necessary for dealing with situations at a human level. Our problem may well be due to lack of imagination – not the kind of imagination that thinks up brilliant technological, but potentially disastrous, mega-fixes for planetary problems, but the kind of imagination that Joseph was given to be able to interiorly perceive the flux of light and dark in our interior and be able to interpret these correctly to ensure stability and harmony with the natural cycles in the apparent exterior. Perhaps it is also a call to return to the values of the heart as a basis for reasserting "just measure" in the world of finance.

If we are unable to perceive the flux of the universe in our hearts, that from a "unitive" perspective is no other than the "self" of the universe as us, then we will just flow backwards and forwards with fluctuating tides as so much flotsam and jetsam.

Fixing the water cycle may be the hardest thing in ecology, but if we are truly to be "big enough" we must "fix" ourselves which is perhaps both the most local and biggest challenge of our time.