Guest Post by Kit Knightly<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n The Queen\u2019s Speech was interesting this year.<\/p>\n For all the people outside the UK who don\u2019t understand what the \u201cQueens Speech\u201d actually is, it\u2019s a farcical state occasion in which the Queen (or, in this case, Prince Charles since her majesty is ill\/secretly dead\/having \u201cmobility issues\u201d) makes a speech about what \u201cher government\u201d intends to do for the next 12 months.<\/p>\n Of course, the Queen doesn\u2019t actually write the speech, or have any input on its content, or have any control at all over what \u201cher\u201d government intends to do. She\u2019s just a mouthpiece in a big gold hat.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the UK equivalent of the State of the Union, only done in Halloween costumes made out of shiny stolen rocks.<\/p>\n The whole thing is nothing but a grand, gilt statement of intent from the British Deep State, wrapped in mink and draped in medals they never earned. It\u2019s a joke, but it is worth listening to.<\/p>\n Or, if you have a sensitive stomach, you can just read the full text the next day on the UK government\u2019s website<\/a> (that\u2019s what I do).<\/p>\n A lot of the content is entirely predictable.<\/p>\n More money to Ukraine, with a promise the UK will \u201clead the way in championing security around the world\u201d<\/em>. More online censorship via the \u201cOnline Safety Bill\u201d. A compulsory register for homeschooled children via the \u201cSchools Reform Bill\u201d.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also mention of \u201csecuring the constitution\u201d by introducing the UK\u2019s own \u201cBill of Rights\u201d. We broke down that particular Trojan Horse back in February<\/a>.<\/p>\n But the part I found most interesting is the stated plan to \u201cencourage agricultural and scientific innovation at home\u201d via the proposed Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.<\/p>\n The proposed bill (which, for some reason is not available through the parliament website<\/a>) follows on from DEFRA\u2019s announced \u201cloosened regulation\u201d of genetic research back in January<\/a>.<\/p>\n To quote the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB), the legislation would \u201ctake certain precision breeding techniques out of the scope of restrictive GMO rules\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n Essentially, this would see new \u201cgene-edited<\/em>\u201d foods as distinct<\/a> from old-fashioned \u201cgenetically modified<\/em>\u201d foods, and therefore not subject to the same rules and oversight.<\/p>\n The claimed distinction<\/a> is that gene editing<\/em>, as opposed to genetic modification<\/em>, doesn\u2019t introduce DNA from other species. Therefore, in effect, is merely speeding up what could potentially naturally happen over time.<\/p>\n Now, you might think this is just semantics, and that such a law will just provide a loophole for ALL \u201cgenetically modified\u201d foods to simply rebrand themselves as \u201cgenetically edited<\/em>\u201d foods, and thereby avoid regulation. But that is disgustingly cynical and shame on you for even thinking it.<\/p>\n All in all, this is pretty on-message stuff, and not especially surprising. What\u2019s noteworthy is \u2013 by pure happenstance, I\u2019m sure \u2013 it appears to coincide with a renewed push on the GM food front in other countries all over the world.<\/p>\n In December 2021, Switzerland added an amendment to its moratorium on GMO crops, permitting the use of certain \u201cgene editing\u201d techniques<\/a>.<\/p>\n Last month, Egypt announced their new strain of GM wheat<\/a>. Just two days ago, Ethiopia\u2019s National Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center announced<\/a> they had researched, and the country will now be growing, genetically modified cotton and maize.<\/p>\n Despite Russia\u2019s sweeping ban<\/a> on the cultivation and\/or importing of genetically modified crops, they have nonetheless created a 111 billion Ruble project to create up to 30 varieties of genetically edited plants and farm animals<\/a>.<\/p>\n Britain\u2019s deregulation of GM food is always described as a \u201cpost-Brexit\u201d move<\/a> \u2013 with the EU chided around the world for its \u201cprecautionary principle\u201d on GM crops \u2013 and yet as long ago as last April, the EU was calling for a \u201crethink\u201d on GM crops<\/a>.<\/p>\n In fact, just today, European Biotechnology Magazine reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n The EU Commission has launched its final consultation on the deregulation of new breeding techniques in agriculture<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, we\u2019re seeing a sudden increase in the variety of GM crops available and a simultaneous push for deregulation of the industry in Western nations.<\/p>\n Why would they be doing this now?<\/p>\n Well, there is<\/em> a food crisis.<\/p>\n Or, more accurately, they have just created<\/em> a food crisis<\/a>. And as the cliched Hegelian dialectic inevitably goes, their manufactured \u201cproblem\u201d is now in need of their contrived \u201csolution\u201d.<\/p>\n We should expect to see genetic engineering pitched as a solution to our food crisis in the very near future\u2026like yesterday. Or indeed, two months ago.<\/p>\n That\u2019s how fast they work now, with barely a pretence at concealing the plan. Spitting out the answer so fast they make it obvious they knew the question beforehand.<\/p>\n On March 15th, when the \u201cspecial operation\u201d in Ukraine was less than 3 weeks old, the Time was already headlining:<\/p>\n War forces farmers to think again about GM crops<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2026and reporting:<\/p>\n Genetic modification could make Britain\u2019s food system less susceptible to geopolitical turmoil<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A week later Verdict published an article titled<\/a> \u201cImproving food self-sufficiency with GM crops during geopolitical crises\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Last week, the Times of Israel aske<\/a>d:<\/p>\n Can gene editing help farmers satisfy the rising demand for food?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Four days ago, the Manila Times published an article titled<\/a> \u201cIn times of food scarcity: Revisiting genetically modified crops\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n Two days ago (so before the Queen\u2019s speech specifically mentioning the gene editing bill), Scotland\u2019s Press & Journal<\/em> ran an opinion piece headlined: \u201cScottish Government must lift GM crop ban to ease cost of living crisis\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n Yesterday, the \u201cinformation services\u201d company IHS Markit published an article on GM regulation in Europe<\/a>, in which they claimed:<\/p>\n The Ukraine-Russia conflict has demonstrated the fragility and vulnerability of global and European food supply chains. Around the world, governments in leading agricultural-producing countries are now catching up with the United States, both to better legislate gene-edited (GE) products, as well as differentiate them from the older Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology, and its negative connotations to some consumers, commentators, farmers, retailers, politicians and lawmakers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And just today, the Genetic Literacy Project published an article<\/a> by Ukrainian-Canadian David Zaruk, railing against the EU\u2019s \u201cprecautionary principle\u201d on GMOs and calling for an embracing of \u201cnew technology\u201d to prevent widespread hunger and increase food sovereignty.<\/p>\n It goes on and on and on.<\/p>\n Of course, it\u2019s not all about the food crisis \u2013 giving corporate giants free rein to genetically alter all the food we eat will also be good for the planet. They talk about that a lot recently.<\/p>\n On February 8th this year, the University of Bonn published a new study<\/a> claiming \u201cGenetic engineering can have a positive effect on the climate\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n On February 24th this year, the Cornell-based NGO \u201cAlliance for Science\u201d published an article<\/a> claiming \u201cGMOs could shrink Europe\u2019s climate footprint\u201d<\/em>, based on the study mentioned above.<\/p>\n In a response to the Queen\u2019s Speech, the UK\u2019s National Institute of Agriculture and Botany claimed that genetic modification will make farming \u201cmore sustainable\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n In a reminder we\u2019re not just talking about crops<\/em> but genetically engineering livestock<\/em> as well, in February Deutsche Welle suggested<\/a> that genetically altered \u201cClimate sheep and eco pigs could combat global heating\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n Three weeks ago, Stuff.NZ asked<\/a> simply:<\/p>\n Can GM save the planet?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The narrative is clearly set: Genetically engineered food will save us all from the food crisis, and global warming too. Plus anything else they can think of.<\/p>\n Not content with the semi-constant fluffing of the GM business, the MSM are also turning their guns on organic farming and giving it both barrels.<\/p>\n The Wall Street Journal<\/em> reports<\/a>:<\/p>\n Ukraine Crisis Reveals the Folly of Organic Farming: As food prices skyrocket, the world needs to admit it can\u2019t live without modern, efficient agriculture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Telegraph blames organic farming policies for \u201ctipping Sri Lanka into bloody chaos\u201d<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n The \u201cAllliance for Science\u201d article mentioned above goes out of its way to criticise the EU\u2019s pro-organic \u201cfarm to fork\u201d plans, claiming \u201c[organic farming] has lower yields and would be associated with increases in global [greenhouse gas] emissions by causing land-use changes elsewhere\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Erik Fyrwald, the CEO of the Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta (so possessing somewhat of a conflict of interests), told Swiss newspaper NZZ am Sonntag<\/em> that the West must \u201cstop organic farming to help future food crisis\u201d<\/a>, adding that organic farming is worse for the planet, because ploughing up fields releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.<\/p>\n We already saw wellness \u201ccults\u201d accused of peddling \u201canti-vax conspiracy theories\u201d<\/a> last year, this will easily extend to organic farmers and their customers.<\/p>\n NOTE: In an interesting (again, probably totally accidental) parallel, the currently simmering \u201cBird Flu outbreak\u201d has also hit organic and free-range farmers hard<\/a>, with one (sponsored) Guardian article asking if \u201cyear-round\u201d bird flu could spell \u201cthe end of free-range eggs\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n Having just seen how the Covid19 \u201cvaccine\u201d campaign unfolded, it\u2019s not hard to see how the pro-GM push will go from here. Genome-edited crops and farm animals are going to become the new \u201csettled science\u201d.<\/p>\n They will be sold to the public as cheaper<\/a>, more nutritious<\/a>, better for the environment and good for \u201cpreventing future pandemics\u201d <\/em>(yes, they literally did say that already<\/a>).<\/p>\n Naturally, anyone who resists the push for gene-edited food, and\/or mourns the planned death of organic farming, will be accused of \u201cquestioning the science\u201d. <\/em><\/p>\n Eating British GM foods will be \u201cdoing your part\u201d and \u201chelping Ukraine\u201d, while people who want more expensive organic products will be deemed \u201cunpatriotic\u201d or \u201cselfish\u201d.<\/p>\n Just as we saw Covid sceptics denounced as spreading \u201cRussian disinformation\u201d<\/a>, despite Russia\u2019s willing complicity in the Covid lie, those who argue against genome-edited food will be said to be \u201csharing Russian talking points\u201d<\/em> or \u201cdoing Putin\u2019s work for him\u201d<\/em> despite Russia being well onboard the gene-editing train.<\/p>\n It all gets very predictable from there. Organic farmers will probably be \u201canti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Russian spies\u201d by the end of the summer.<\/p>\n \u2026This probably explains why Bill Gates was buying up so much farmland last year<\/a>, too.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Screen-Shot-2022-05-12-at-10.47.35-AM.png\")
<\/p>\nWhy this? Why now?<\/h4>\n
\u2026let\u2019s not forget climate change, guys<\/h4>\n
The knives are out for organics<\/h4>\n
Conclusion<\/h4>\n