1.Government face GM legal threat
2.Blinded by the light of technology - Sue Mayer
3.Elliot Morley, UK Minister, in Kuala Lumpur - partially transcribed comments
4.Planting a GM future - a crop of pro-GM Guardian letters
---
1.Government face GM legal threat
Sat 21 February, 2004 02:27
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=462054§ion=news
LONDON (Reuters) - The government's plans to commercially grow genetically modified (GM) maize could face a legal challenge from environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth (FOE) who said testing had failed to rule out risks to human health and the environment.
"The only feeding study to look at the impact of feeding animals the whole plant was severely criticised for poor science...(and) other studies using the GM protein failed to show that the crop was safe," FOE said in a statement on Saturday.
"No feeding studies were carried out on cattle, the intended recipients of the GM maize," the statement added.
The government was engulfed in a fresh row about the technology this week amid claims it was poised to allow farmers to grow Bayer's gene-spliced maize variety T25/Chardon LL in spite of public opposition.
The maize is a fodder crop, intended for use for cattle feed only.
FOE also said it was urging the government to consult with regional authorities before making any announcement since they have to the power to block any move to have the crops grown commercially.
Before any particular crop can be grown, it needs to be added to the UK National Seed List -- and this requires the consent of regional parliaments in both Wales and Scotland.
"This maize has not been shown to be safe and it should not be grown commercially," FOE spokeswoman Clare Oxborrow said.
A three-year trial of three herbicide-resistant GM crops found that pesticides used on two of them -- sugar beet and rapeseed -- posed a greater threat to the environment than those used on conventional crops.
Only T25/Chardon LL maize fared better.
But environmentalists said results for this type of GM maize were skewed, mainly because the herbicide used on the neighbouring conventional crop has since been banned.
Proponents of technology argue that GM crops could benefit the environment through reduced pesticide use, while farmers gain by growing better-yielding varieties.
---
2.Blinded by the light of technology
The Guardian, 20 Feb 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1152693,00.html
Science plays a disproportionately large role in the government's thinking on GM crops, argues Sue Mayer
by Sue Mayer
Many people are probably wondering why the government bothered to hold a public debate on GM crops and foods last year. Reading the leaked minutes of last week's Cabinet Office committee meeting makes it seem as though the public debate findings are being used to inform the government about what opposition it has to overcome, and how it might wear that down, rather than being a guide to policy.
Scientific authority is brought in to justify going forward with plans to grow GM crops, despite public anxieties. But, if the science is so convincing, why should the public's views matter? And isn't the government right to take the scientific path?
For many years, politicians have used the authority of science to support their actions. Basing this authority on the "facts" and "independence" that science is supposed to bring to issues, political, social and economic judgments are apparently absent, giving us a purely rational decision-making basis.
However, as most people have become all too aware, science rarely deals in facts. It often has only a very restricted perspective, and is inevitably affected by political and social judgements. This is all too true in the case of GM crops.
It the UK, it is difficult to find senior plant molecular biologists who have not had some connection with the biotechnology industry. Ecologists have become thin on the ground, because the focus of science is at the molecular level and ecology does not perform well under the "wealth generating" criterion of our science policy.
Only a public furore led to the farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) of GM crops, and that knowledge would never have been gained without critical questioning by the public. In reality, we have an impoverished scientific base from which to judge the performance of GM crops.
While the government worries about how our science base would be affected by a decision not to proceed with GM crops, it has not evaluated the adequacy of science's depth and breadth or the implications of an intellectual and social bias towards a molecular view of the world.
The government, still blinded by the white light of technology, neglects these issues. It wants to be the friend of industry and maintain good relations with the US.
However, the public asks wider questions - and that is why it is so crucial that people's views should be heard and acted upon.
People see a lack of convincing evidence about the long-term impacts of GM crops, and have little confidence in the government or industry. They want to see clear benefits to offset any risks, and not just in economic terms to food producers. According to the public debate and the food standards authority's citizens' jury, people do not want commercialisation now.
The major reason given by the government for proceeding with growing GM herbicide-tolerant maize is that FSEs have shown it is better for farmland wildlife than conventionally grown maize.
The GM maize is tolerant to the weedkiller glufosinate, and the government's advisors have said that, as long as farmers grow the maize using only this herbicide, as was the case in the FSEs, matters will improve.
However, farmers are not well known for keeping to the rules as they strive for better yields. In the USA, where the same GM maize is already grown, yields were poor when glufosinate alone was used for weed control, so other herbicides are now also used.
There are no pesticide rules under which the government will be able to specify that only glufosinate should be used: farmers will, quite legally, be able to use other herbicides licensed for use on maize as well.
It is unlikely that FSEs will remain so tightly controlled. And, of course, there remain other questions about the adequacy of the safety assessment."
Science can only take us so far before a series of social, economic and political questions come to the fore. The strategy unit's report on the economics of GM crops found no real benefit for UK agriculture.
There is a movement growing here, seeking a new way of producing food which gives environmental and social benefits and is less intensive and more connected to people. The GM route does not meet those criteria.
However, the government is also seeking to use hunger in the developing world to justify its decision. The public debate showed people think that the developing world has special interests, so the government hopes that moral blackmail will work if science fails.
However, there is no evidence that, by growing GM maize from one of the five multinationals controlling the technology, the hungry will be fed.
If we go ahead with growing GM maize here, it will be the thin end of a very thick wedge, and a huge political gamble.
When something goes wrong, either now or in the future, the political repercussions will be huge - something the prime minister's strategy unit identified, but that the government has not understood.
Next time they meet, the Cabinet subcommittee on biotechnology would be well advised to do undertake some roleplay on how they would handle the first GM "shock". Maybe, then, they will understand.
* Dr Sue Mayer is the Director of GeneWatch UK.
---
3.Elliot Morley, UK Minister, in Kuala Lumpur
I have transcribed some of what Jim uploaded onto biotechimc.org - also on www.ukabc.org
Patrick Mulvany
Senior Policy Adviser
For more on what Elliot Morley said: from www.ukabc.org
Elliot Morley, UK Minister, in Kuala Lumpur today (20 Feb), responding to questions about the 'leaked' Cabinet Committee decision on presentation of the case for GM crops
During a press conference at the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UK Minster for Environment, Elliot Morley said that there were no plans to promote GM crops in developing countries as part of the roll-out of the decision on GM crop commercialisation in the UK.
"It is up to individual countries to make a decision whether or not they want to grow GM crops. That’s a matter for them and we don't believe that those kind of decisions should be forced on them”¦ to try and present that the UK government is some kind of international advocate for GM crops is complete nonsense," he said.
This contrasts with the leaked intentions published yesterday in the UK Media which said: "A presentational strategy for the public and through briefing sympathetic MPs in advance of a statement to Parliament is discussed. This includes using examples of where GM crops are used in developing countries and in aid projects."
ELLIOT MORLEY ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES and GM CROPS
"It is not for us or anybody else to advocate or force GM technology upon other countries. It’s a matter for them. We have no presentation strategy in terms of being advocates for GM technology internationally. That’s not a matter for the UK government."
"It is up to individual countries to make a decision whether or not they want to grow GM crops. That's a matter for them and we don’t believe that those kind of decisions should be forced on them."
"In terms of Developing Countries we have the Cartagena Protocol [on Biosafety] which addresses the issue of biotechnology in relation to Developing Countries. Whether or not developing countries want to use GM is a matter for them in relation to the assessments that they want to take. Countries like ourselves are also very happy to share [information]."
Question from Jim Thomas ETC group
"The leak of the meeting of the Cabinet committee which you attended did say that the presentational strategy of the government intends to present argument in terms of world hunger you talk about this long process, you are probably aware that BOAG agencies and all the development groups in the UK have made a very strong statement saying that they would not accept the UK government presenting the GM crops case in terms of world hunger and we have heard from a number of delegates here, particularly from the African Group, that they see GM crops actually as a threat to their own food security. Do you intend to listen to those comments?"
Elliot Morley
"Of course we intend to listen to those comments. I come back to the point that it is not for us or anybody else to advocate or force GM technology upon other countries. It's a matter for them. We have no presentation strategy in terms of being advocates for GM technology internationally. That's not a matter for the UK government."
"In terms of the advice we have received on this is taken from DFID [the UK Government's notoriously pro-GM department for international development].
DFID’s view is that GM technology may have some benefits for developing countries. But the case should be examined carefully and I come back to the point that this is a decision for the individual countries."
"But to try and present that the UK government is some kind of international advocate for GM crops is complete nonsense."
WITH REFERENCE TO UK COMMERCIALISATION
"There will be no blanket approval of GM crops [in the UK]"
"There is an issue of chemical management that we will want to take further."
"Our official position is that we are neither for or against GM technology. Our position is that we are applying the scientific tests on a case by case basis and we consider each individual application on its merits.”¦ That depends on the regimes that are being put in place in the EU and the UK, which are not yet finalised, incidentally. We have not yet finalised our coexistence rules. We haven’t addressed the issue of whether there may be a liability issue."
"There is still uncompleted work in the UK. We are not yet in a position for GM commercialisation."
---
4.Planting a GM future
Saturday February 21, 2004
Letters, The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1153008,00.html
As a geneticist-bioethicist with no links to the GM food industry, I am heartened that the commercial planting of GM maize is to be permitted (Letters, February 20). The alteration of genetic sequences has been carried out for millennia by agriculturalists using selective breeding. GM technology simply offers a more efficient means to alter genetic sequences, thus providing an enhanced means for improving food.
Moreover, neither evidence nor logic supports the supposed health risks of GM food disingenuously alleged by opponents of the technology. Indeed, millions of consumers in the US and elsewhere have been eating GM food on a large scale for several years, with no negative health effects. Of course, some individuals are allergic to particular GM foods - but food allergies are not restricted to GM foods, nor do allergies occur at a higher level with GM foods than with "natural" foods. Indeed, it is ironic that GM technology offers the means to remove known natural allergens from crop plants.
Biotechnology is one of the few growth sectors within our beleaguered industrial economy. Had the government listened to the anti-GM propaganda and prohibited the commercial planting of GM crops, the country would not only have taken a step backwards in terms of scientific progress, but such prohibition it would also have jeopardised the UK's future as a hi-tech industrial economy. We ought to ignore the shrill voices of the anti- science Luddites and embrace GM technology.
Kevin Smith
Dundee
If the government does decide to allow the commercial growing of GM maize it will be a decision based on scientific evidence that it is safe to do so. What is being considered is not a blanket introduction of GM crops, but a careful assessment of GM crops on a case-by-case basis. The GM maize in question is safe in the opinion of highly respected scientists who are specialists in their chosen fields. Their opinion is based on sound science, and efforts to belittle the science or the motives of the scientists do not serve society well.
Judith Irwin
Scientific Alliance
...
for more on the Scientific Alliance: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=136&page=S