ALMOST ten years ago, a jury acquitted Lord Melchett, a British aristocrat who headed Greenpeace, of the wilful destruction of a field of genetically modified (GM) crops in Norfolk. Though police caught Lord Melchett and 27 other activists in the field, the jury was unwilling to convict. Talk of “Frankenfood” and “genetic pollution” sowed popular fear of GM crops.

Ten years on and anti-GM activists are still at it: in June, unknown vandals destroyed a field of genetically modified potatoes near Tadcaster, North Yorkshire. If they are ever caught, they may find themselves in for rougher treatment than their forerunners: though many Britons remain mistrustful of GM crops, the knee-jerk opposition that freed the lord has quieted for a number of reasons.

First, widespread public concern about the safety of these crops has greatly evaporated. Seven academies of science, and a number of independent enquiries and reviews have found no evidence of risks to human health. Second, farmers around the world recognise that GM crops offer many potential benefits, not least the prospect of greater profits. Most important, however, is that GM crops may offer considerable environmental benefits.

Let's go through this step by step:

Claim 1: "Seven academies of science, and a number of independent enquiries and reviews have found no evidence of risks to human health."

There are overwhelming reports that GM crops DO cause health problems. Here is one example:

GM cotton has provided ample reports of unpredicted side-effects. In April 2006, more than 70 Indian shepherds reported that 25% of their herds died within 5-7 days of continuous grazing on Bt cotton plants.[2] Hundreds of Indian agricultural laborers reported allergic reactions from Bt cotton. Some cotton harvesters have been hospitalized and many laborers in cotton gin factories take antihistamines each day before work.[3]

Claim 2: "[F]armers around the world recognise that GM crops offer many potential benefits, not least the prospect of greater profits."

Only if they buy the GM crops from large food industries, who in turn make even more profits. In other words, we're making our farmers dependent upon a centralized industry run by a few wealthy individuals around the world. Is that appealing? Not really.

Claim 3: "GM crops may offer considerable environmental benefits."

We don't need GM crops to reduce the amount of pesticide used in farming; we need an organic farming that doesn't have to feed 6,7+ billion people. GM crops will eventually grow resistant to pesticide as well and need more of it.

Claim 4: "They have also increased yields to produce more food from the same amount of land, so less wilderness has to be put under the plough."

Not really:

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.

In short, the GM crop industry is trying to take control over our food. If it succeeds in doing that, that power alone will be more powerful than all the oil and money in the world.

Read more:

Data reference: Dissecting the lies about GM crops
How Corporate Giants Are Taking Over: Control The Food And You Control The People Who Eat It