Thursday, 18 December 2008

Is that vest in Kidman's Chanel perfume advert made of GM cotton? UK jeans and T-shirt lovers are not told.

Post number 31

Opinions posted in this blog, other blogs (disbanded now), group e-mails to varied selected lists and elsewhere are ours (Mohammad’s) only and do not in any way represent views of CCCC stake holders, company secretary, investors, future parainvestors, partners and associates.

Practically, Britain is legally in a state of ‘Force Majeure’ as in war where national laws no longer make sense or apply to serve intended purposes for which they were legislated. It has been for this purpose that we pegged food security and through it national security to be factually bold about our drives.

Humbling the likes of Adidas, Coco Chanel, Nicole Kidman, cotton vest and wearer, and other global multi nationals have been deliberately intentional to create ‘shock and awe’ to achieve goals in weeks and months that Global giants and celebrities have taken 2 decades to build, brain wash Britain and sell to them whatever they like, when they like and how they like. In the process, killing British sheep farming, British wool and much more.

Any one entertaining thoughts of issuing libels against us, would be issuing them against our determination and hard work to compliment our security forces' efforts of ensuring national security.

BT cotton is a Genetically modified cotton when genes from the bacteria ‘Bacillus Thuringeinsis’ is injected into cotton to make it resistant to the cotton disease bollworm (may be others too) and increase yields and reduce the use of pesticides. Percentage of BT cotton produced in the world in 2006 was reported at 35% ( Major producers are The US, China, and India. Other countries such as Mexico and South Africa produce BT cotton widely, too. The same source (Cornell University) reported in 2006 that 5 million Chinese farmers grew BT Cotton.

Our own sources that we will not reveal, report that 80% of cotton produced in India is of BT variety. You may do your own search to concur or disagree with our figure. Claims and counter claims are made on various aspects. One, noteworthy of reporting is the issue of farmer suicides in India. The International Food Policy Research Institute, concludes in their discussion paper number 808 that first, there is no evidence in available data of a “resurgence” of farmer suicide in India in the last 5 years. Second, they find that BT cotton technology has been very effective overall in India.

Third, their analysis clearly shows that BT cotton is neither necessary nor a sufficient condition for the occurrence of farmer suicides. In contrast, the discussion paper reports that many other factors have likely played a prominent role. Nevertheless, in specific regions and years, where BT cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted. The discussion paper covered Central and Southern India.

On the other hand, our sources reported recently that Dr Vandana Shiva states that 2 million hectares are under BT cotton cultivation in the southern state of Andrapradesh. She believes that there is a direct link between BT cotton and farmer suicides. Our sources go on to say that BT cotton was launched in the US in 1996 and then taken to India and China. Andrapradesh has the largest BT cotton producing area in the southern state. The state’s partner is Monsanto India – Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company or MAHYCO.

This issue is no doubt debated endlessly as we continue with doing our sociably responsible deeds for the society. There are and still will be tomorrow, claims and counter claims. Getting involved further is beyond the scope of these proceedings if our intentions are (but not limited to) promoting wool. We question the merits of using BT cotton T-shirts, jeans, combats and other apparel wear in the UK. But are there any that are sold and worn by consumers here? Consumerism is a powerful force to reckon with especially these days.

We sat out in the last few days to do some fact finding. In a targeted approach by phone, our today’s efforts took us to dead ends:

It is practically impossible to reach giants such as TESCO, ASDA, Sainsbury and Morrison (all UK supermarkets selling food and clothes). Therefore we have nothing to report on whether the cotton clothes (jeans/denims, T-shirts and combats among them) the giants and smaller retailers sell bear labels informing consumers if they are buying BT (genetically modified) clothes. Should such labelling be mandatory?

We then telephoned Office of the Fair Trading on +44 0845 722 4499 to determine whether they had legislation/codes of practice or equivalents on labelling GM cotton clothes. They said they don’t and referred us to:

Trading Standards who referred us to Consumer Direct on +44 (0) 1372 371 700. Their Mr Jerry Collins told us that his organisation didn’t have any guidelines but he will get some one from the Office of Fair Trading to contact us. As you will note, these are the people we approached first. We are already given to understand that the latter cannot help us. We will report our findings in a future post

We then telephoned Greenpeace UK on +44 0207 865 8100 ( and spoke to Stephanie who advised us that the UK office do not deal with GM issues whether food or clothes and suggested we contact the European office and The Soil Association. We left our blog address with Stephanie and concluded the phone call

We did not contact the European unit of Greenpeace owing to their poor records of responses on another issue, namely the alleged damage to the environment by Perchloroethelene (Perc) and its alleged cancer causing in humans. Our letter on this issue to all Greenpeace major offices of San Francesco, Washington DC and Holland
(the European unit) and indeed the UK office forms a much earlier blog post and remains unanswered. The letter hinted in a round about way that all of Greenpeace’s campaigns against Perc over a decade or more were utter rubbish and engineered to scare the public to donate more. Mr John Sauven, the current executive director is still welcome to offer comments in this blog. If we still have nothing to report in the weeks and months to come, then dry cleaners world wide will have nothing to worry about while continuing to clean with Perc

Feeling positive, we then phoned the Soil Association in Bristol on +44 (0) 117 314 5000 and were told that we could speak to Emma Hockridge tomorrow. We felt positive because the Soil Association’s Lord Peter Melchet was our leader in the late 90s to 2000 when he was the executive director of Greenpeace. We were a paid up member and celebrated Lord Melchet and colleagues destroying a field of GM crop and winning a much publicised case. We were surprised no one spoke to us instantly

In anticipation, we phoned the Scotland office of the Soil Association and spoke to Erica. She referred us to and advised us to follow links to GM issues. We did and there aren’t any. Before we let Erica go, we drew her attention to an irony: Could it be that big environmental guns such as Lord Melchet, George Mombio, Jonathan Porrit, Greenpeace, and the Soil Association members including Erica running around doing green things while clad in jeans, denims, combats, and T-shirts that could very well be made of BT cotton? Erica was fascinated and noted the blog address for further insight. Here, we have made an assumption that all notaries and organisations mentioned do not support any GM produce and product use in the UK

Our last call was to Mr Robert Lyons of “Spiked” on +44 0207 40 40 470 ( Their Mr Thomas Deichmann wrote “Just how ‘charitable’ is Greenpeace?”

We conclude with further contact details for the Soil Association: Telephone numbers +44 0 117 914 2400, same code 314 5000 and 314 5001;

We have been 'bold' based on facts at our disposal. A hint to another, when he takes charge with much more power and resources at his disposal.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home