Wednesday, October 3, 2012


between militants and the research groups of farmers in cultivation trials of GM wheat

[Written before a planned attack against the Rothamsted culture assay, May 27]


Take the flour back

We are glad you decided to join us and we hope that we can still resolve the situation before it is too late. Rothamsted is a multinational company profit and has a tradition of 168 years supply of agricultural research for the public good. The group of chemical ecology has experience recognon Zada ??worldwide for organic farming and many peer-reviewed publications in this field. We are looking for non-toxic alternatives for biological crop protection against aphids (aphids) in favor of the real environment. We imagine that the reduction of pesticide use is something we can all agree. We are appalled that will destroy our crops before knowing if it works or not.

Our new wheat plants contain genes copied from nature and are planted in a field trial evaluated highly controlled carefully inspected and risk assessed by independent scientists and government. The risk of cross-pollination was negligible. All experts agree that wheat is self-pollinated or wind pollinated by insects. Wheat fertilized flowers before they open. The pollen is heavy life, only a few hours and falls to the ground around the plant. In addition, there is a very small scale trial eight plots 6m x 6m. The smell of new plants and making that occurs naturally in the aroma of more than 400 species of plants, including apples, hops and mint.

Our approach is fully consistent with the agro-ecological agriculture and biological control because the smell that attracts enemies of pests' natural GM wheat in the fields instead of killing them with broad-spectrum pesticides . It could work well with the margins of fields of biological control and conservation.

This is a public inquiry for the public and the results would be freely accessible. We regret that our research on the chemical ecology of insect wheat is targeted for destruction by you when it is actually part of an alternative vision of sustainable agriculture. We asked them to cancel their plans to destroy our public research, and instead of coming to protest peacefully.

Please could you explain why it justifies proceeding to destroy crops when rejected our offer of a public debate on neutral ground? We prefer to meet you face to face, instead of this debate by correspondence.


John Pickett and equipment

Dear John Pickett and equipment

is evident from its own application for this test recognizes the outdoor planting a crop that can interbreed with common gramilla not present a risk of contamination. The example of the 2006 trial of Bayer rice in the United States shows that the low-risk crop pollination in a small test site supposedly secure can escape and contaminate the food chain scale. British farmers must be protected against it.

concerns about the health implications of GM food chain are too easily dismissed and we believe it should be carefully evaluated before any field trial approved. In this case, have been rejected so arrogant. We must address the real problems caused by GM crops, do not try to create more.

You say that the experience is "part of an alternative vision for a sustainable agriculture." In this case, the first question should be, is this intervention / supplies? Like everyone else around the world, now buy GM wheat - or seems likely, and effective long-term non-GM methods and methods pecticide not treat existing aphid, the answer is no

Rothamsted Why is determined to carry this judgment? Because it is the best way to achieve sustainable agriculture? Or is related to the fact that the patent is determined to biotechnology, and the vision of high-tech products based on the development of the food system, farmers and citizens still firmly in the hands of the multinational industry.

We also have a vision of sustainable agriculture. It is shared by Via Campsina, the global union of small farmers, which has about 20 million members, and the IAASTD (A major study funded by the United Nations, prepared by 400 scientists and agricultural experts and endorsed by 58 governments) and as citizens of the world who do not want their GM foods and control of subsidiaries.

Our vision is an agriculture based on agro-ecology that involves the use of appropriate technology available even to the poorest farmers. In a food system that is not contaminated by GMOs or pesticides.

From Brazil to India for small farmers risked their freedom to defend their crops against genetic contamination. Time for a public debate before the harvest was left on the ground. Concerns of scientists, government agencies and the general public were ignored when - and if we find ourselves with our protest



Take Back

Cher flour Take Back

Find best price for : --Fernandes----Jyoti----India----Rothamsted----research--


Blog Archive