The British parliament is squabbling over their own version of the GMO “co-existence” scam (C-E). Over there they’re calling it “sustainable intensification”. Allegedly the goal is to grow “more with less”. It’s really a GMO greenwashing gambit. As detractors are pointing out, it’s really an alternate vector for intensification of profiteering, while “sustainable” is just a meaningless word tacked on. Compare Walmart’s bogus sustainability gambit.
The parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee challenged the policy, proposed a set of reforms as an alternative policy, and called for a moratorium on GMO approvals.
The report said the initial focus should be on the risks of C-E. We need to be much more assertive than this. The first focus must be always on forcing GMOs to prove they have any right to exist at all. This is according to two common sense principles.
1. Where it comes to anything aggressive or disruptive, which corporate agriculture in general and GMOs in particular indisputably are, its supporters must prove the need for it to exist. What’s the alleged need? Like all previous corporate agriculture, GMOs have never solved or been intended to solve a single real problem. (On the contrary, they’re allegedly intended to double down on the problems of toxicity and pest resistance created by industrial agriculture itself.) They’re only a “solution” to the problem of how corporatism and its profits can continue to exist.
2. Where it comes to anything of dubious safety, as GMOs indisputably are, the Precautionary Principle applies. We must proceed with caution until the thing is proven safe. But “our” criminal governments have enshrined the radical policy of ideologically declaring GMOs to be safe and “equivalent” to real crops. This is how they justified abrogating the precautionary principle and performing ZERO safety testing prior to commercialization.
(GMO supporters are merely biological vectors. The GMO itself is a virus on the Earth. The carriers of this virus, the cadres of its politics, of metaphysical ideology like “intellectual property”, the professional liars in media and academia and among corporatist technocrats, are indelible disease vectors.)
“Co-existence” also violates the Polluter-Pays Principle by forcing, as a matter of government policy, all the risks and costs of GMO contamination onto the victims. It’s the USDA’s official policy that GMO propertarians have the right to trespass on the property of others, for example organic farmers. It’s 100% the organic farmers’ responsibility to try (fruitlessly) to prevent this trespass, and to bear the costs of it when it occurs.
That’s also how it’s possible for the trespasser to claim his victim actually assaulted him (like the urban legend of the burglar who injures himself and sues the homeowner – but this is real), as in the Percy Schmeisser case where, instead of Monsanto being found guilty of a tort, Schmeisser was found guilty of stealing Monsanto’s “intellectual property”. Government policy lays the groundwork for this by explicitly turning normal legal concepts upside down. This is a good example of what I’ve written previously about property as a mutable might-makes-right concept and policy.
That’s how we must understand the C-E scam. It’s an Orwellian term for allowing the total assault of GMOs on everything we’d previously considered our rights.