"Why is the Government going ahead? It is not because of the science, it is because of the Bush administration applying pressure, and because of companies like Monsanto who want to make a big profit bonanza out of cornering the world food supply. It is nothing to do with feeding the world." - Michael Meacher, former Environmenmt Minister

It's unclear how the Guardian's pro-GM science correspondent Ian Sample's article actually justifies the headline in item 2.

1.Government to give go ahead for GM maize
2.Why GM-free UK is popular but unfeasible
---

1.Government to give go ahead for GM maize
By John Deane, Chief Political Correspondent, PA News
19 February 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=492836

The Government is to give permission for the first commercial cultivation of a genetically modified crop, according to cabinet committee papers leaked today.

BBC2's Newsnight programme quoted leaked minutes of a 10 February meeting of the Cabinet Office ministerial sub-committee on biotechnology, which indicated that the decision to give approval to the sowing of GM maize on a commercial scale is imminent.

The committee, according to the leaked minutes, agreed there should be a precautionary approach to GM crops, based on science, and sensitive to public opinion.

Nevertheless it acknowledged that "the public was unlikely to be receptive". It suggested that "careful presentation" of the EU's focus on evidence-based decision-making could help, and that opposition might eventually be worn down by solid, authoritative scientific argument.

Former environment minister Michael Meacher accused the Government of caving in to pressure from the US government and huge biotechnology firms.

Mr Meacher told Newsnight last night: "I don't think that the Government has any moral, scientific or political authority whatsoever to take this decision.

"If you look at the science, in the GM maize trials the conventional maize was sprayed with a chemical which has now been banned throughout the whole of the EU. So the comparison which was made in those trials is now invalid.

"The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which the Government relies on, says there should be new trials. The Government has refused.

"There is public opinion, which is four to one against.

"The issue of co-existence protocols, by which you protect non-GM farmers from contamination, there is no agreement on that.

"Why is the Government going ahead? It is not because of the science, it is because of the Bush administration applying pressure, and because of companies like Monsanto who want to make a big profit bonanza out of cornering the world food supply. It is nothing to do with feeding the world."

Mr Meacher added: "After Iraq, after tuition fees, after foundation hospitals, I do think that in this Big Conversation the Prime Minister has rightly launched, he should be listening to what the nation is saying."

Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesman Andrew George said in a statement: "This decision shows that the Government are treating people's concerns about GM with contempt, and skewing Parliamentary discussion in favour of biotech. If the public realised what was being decided in their name, there would be uproar.

"Instead of coming to Parliament with a statement, they should be allowing MPs to debate a policy motion before making a decision with potentially harmful environmental effects.

"Their plan to link the growing of crops in the UK with the future of developing world is a particularly cynical ploy."

Last month, the current environment minister Elliot Morley said decisions on maize, beet and spring sown oil seed rape would be announced within weeks, after Whitehall had consulted the UK's devolved administrations.

His comments came after the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), a Government advisory body, concluded that farmers who grow genetically modified herbicide tolerant maize crops under strict rules would not see adverse effects on wildlife.  The ACRE panel, which spent three months looking at the results of a three-year nationwide field scale trials of crops, warned that if GM beet and spring sown oil seed rape were to be grown, that would have adverse effects on arable weed populations and in turn on insects and birds.

Mr Morley indicated that there was a comparatively strong case for cultivating maize, under strictly controlled conditions. But Mr Morley made clear that, as things stand, there is little prospect of GM beet and spring sown oil seed rape getting the go-ahead.

And an independent report published today found the government's consultation exercise on GM crops may have seriously over-estimated the scale of public opposition.

The official report on the GM Nation exercise, conducted last summer, concluded that more than four out of five people were against GM crops and that just 2 per cent would be prepared to eat GM foods.

However, a team of academics from Cardiff University, the University of East Anglia and the Institute of Food Research, said the project had been over-hasty, under-resourced and "flawed in a number of important respects".

It said that its own findings suggested that many people had yet to make up their minds about GM crops.

A Mori poll for the UEA found that while 36 per cent opposed GM food, 13 per cent supported it and 39 per cent were neither for or against.

Although 85 per cent agreed that not enough was known about the long-term effects on health of GM food, 45 per cent thought GM crops could hold future benefits for consumers and 56 per cent thought they could help developing nations.
---

Why GM-free UK is popular but unfeasible
Analysis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1151201,00.html
Ian Sample
Thursday February 19, 2004
The Guardian

The waiting, it seems, is over. Having waded through reams of advice from scientists, economists and the public, the government has evidently decided to approve the growing of genetically modified crops in Britain.

The details of a cabinet meeting leaked to the Guardian reveal that the government plans to push ahead with the commercial cultivation of GM crops and outlines a strategy. The minutes, which claim that a GM-free Britain is not feasible legally or in practice, acknowledge that public appetite for GM produce is likely to be minimal, but describe plans for financial compensation for organic farmers and voluntary GM-free zones.

The decision on whether Britain should allow or ban growing of the controversial crops has been eagerly awaited by the pro- and anti-GM camps since mid-January, when the government's advisory committee on releases to the environment (Acre) delivered its verdict on the field scale trials, an unprecedented five-year experiment to assess the environmental impact of growing GM crops in Britain.

The Acre chairman, Chris Pollock, suggested GM maize could be planted as early as this spring, but warned that two other GM crops, oil seed rape and sugar beet, caused damage to the environment.

The Acre report was the final opinion the government needed before it was obliged to make a decision.

Last year the government's chief scientist, Sir David King, presided over a comprehensive scientific review of GM crops. His final report, which emphasised the uncertainties and potential dangers associated with growing certain GM crops, was passed to ministers and became the bedrock of their decision-making. It was joined by a damning report from the Cabinet Office on the financial consequences of introducing GM crops to Britain. It warned that there was little economic benefit and that going ahead regardless of public opinion could lead to civil unrest.

The government also attempted to involve the public in its decision-making, but last summer's launch of the national GM debate in Birmingham met with a whimper. The debate, which was supposed to draw out the opinions of ordinary members of the public, was dominated by those already fervently opposed to or supportive of GM.

The apparent decision to give the green light to GM ends a de facto moratorium on the commercial growing of such crops that dates back to 1998. At the time, intense opposition forced the GM industry to hold off on commercial cultivation of a variety of maize called Chardon, the only GM crop to have received European marketing approval. All other applications to grow GM crops stalled while the government awaited the results of its five-year field scale trials. These tested the impact on the environment of the herbicides used with GM and conventional crops.

The leaked document recommends that GM maize, owned by BayerCropSciences in Cambridge, is added to the national seed list. The only remaining barrier for growing the GM crop will then be approval for Liberty, the associated herbicide.

According to Paul Rylott, head of biosciences at BayerCropSciences and chairman of the industry-backed Agricultural Biotechnology Coun cil, the government's pesticides safety directorate is ready to give Liberty the go-ahead.  

The leaked document states that part of the government's strategy for introducing GM crops to Britain would involve setting up a compensation fund for organic farmers, who are concerned that GM pollen could contaminate their crops. The document makes it clear that the compensation fund would have to come from the GM industry.

But industry representatives are loath to put up the money for such a fund. "If the government told us to provide a compensation fund for organic farmers, we'd say 'don't be silly'," Mr Rylott said. "There's no need to have a compensation fund."

He asserts that simple measures, such as maintaining set distances between GM and non-GM crops, are enough to keep contamination below the legal limit of 0.9%. Any food stuff containing more than this must be labelled.

Organic farmers say GM and non-GM crops cannot be grown together.

The notes from the Cabinet Office meeting also suggest the government could play a role in advising on voluntary GM-free zones, but does not elaborate. Already, more than 40 districts, county councils and national parks have declared they wish to remain GM-free zones, but without agreement of all farmers in the region, such agreements are illegal under European Union law.

The government's decision comes as the World Trade Organisation is considering a legal case brought by the US, Canada and Argentina, which maintain that the EU's effective ban on GM crops until they are proven safe is illegal and merely a smokescreen for a trade barrier.

* Ian Sample is the Guardian's science correspondent