EXTRACT: Despite trials that provoked outrage among organic and non-GM farmers in the countryside, despite the militant uprooting of experimental crops, and despite the very well-founded fears about cross-pollination, the Government still has the audacity to claim that there is "no scientific case" for a ban.

That is a preposterous argument that owes more to this Government's all too comfortable relationship with big business than with any objective analysis of the facts. (item 2)
---
---
1.SECRET AGENDA
Duncan Sandes
Western Morning News, 21 October 2006
www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=141507&command=displayContent&sourceNode=201813&home=yes&more_nodeId1=201752&contentPK=15740531

Farmers and campaigners have labelled as a "sham" the Government's consultation over whether genetically modified (GM) crops should be grown commercially in the UK for the first time.

The three-month consultation over whether GM crops can successfully "co-exist" with conventional and organic produce ended yesterday.

However, the latest consultation exercise comes after the Government insisted that there was "no scientific case" for a total ban on growing GM crops.

That view lead to former environment minister Michael Meacher, and other campaigners, suspecting that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is looking for a way to overcome opposition and introduce GM crops "through the back door".

Yesterday Lavinia Halliday, an organic sheep and beef farmer , from Linkinhorne, South East Cornwall, said: "The Government seems to have adopted a steamroller approach to this consultation, and is treating this as a fait accompli."

When the consultation was launched, Environment Minister Ian Pearson insisted the plans were "not about giving a green light to GM", and that any crop would still have to obtain full EU safety approval before it could be grown in the UK.

However, Mr Meacher this week claimed that public opposition to GM crops was being "overridden" by the Government's determination to support the controversial industry.

His views were yesterday backed by Westcountry farmers and campaigners, who insist the controversial technology could lead to a "cross-contamination" with organic crops being grown in the region.

Andrew George, the Lib-Dem MP for St Ives, who has backed a campaign to keep Cornwall GM-free, described the latest move as a "sham consultation". He said: "This is nothing more than window dressing. If the Government was so concerned with public opinion then it would have taken more notice of the scepticism surrounding previous consultations on the issue."

The public consultation was over proposals to allow GM crops to be grown for the first time in the UK, provided they are separated from other crops by at least 35 metres (115 feet). Private gardens and allotments would receive no protection.

Previous attempts to conduct GM experiments were met with huge opposition in the UK, with campaigners voicing concerns over cross-contamination with organic crops.

In the Westcountry, protesters tried to destroy an experimental maize crop trial site at Hood Barton Farm in Totnes, while organic farmer Guy Watson brought an unsuccessful High Court action against the same trial site, saying the crop was contaminating his sweetcorn crop growing nearby.

Such has been the level of opposition that GM crops have never been grown commercially in Britain.

A spokesman for Defra yesterday said that it was "confident the proposals are legally sound", but it would give Mr Meacher's comments "due consideration".

However, Maurice Spurway, Westcountry spokesman for the environmental group, Friends of the Earth, backed Mr Meacher's claims.

He said: "To say that the evidence shows GM and organic crops can co-exist seems a tenuous concept, particularly with the risk of cross-contamination. We can only hope that the Government sits up and takes notice of public opinion against this."

Robert Vint, a campaigner with Totnes-based Genetic Food Alert UK, accused the Government of showing "remarkable bias" towards introducing GM crops.

He said: "Defra is doing all it can to push GM crops and that is something that has to set the alarm bells ringing."

Mr Watson, who runs his Riverford Farm Organics from Staverton, South Devon and who brought the unsuccessful High Court action in 1998, was also critical of the consultation.

He said: "It seems to me that the Government's strategy is to hold these consultations until the public grow bored of protesting, and then it can do as it wants and introduce GM crops to the countryside."

Ian Johnson, the National Farmers' Union spokesman for the South West, said GM crops were a "big issue".

However, he added: "The underlying fact is that farmers need to be commercial and they will not grow anything that the public will not want or buy, so I cannot see GM crops being grown in the UK."

In 2003, many of the Westcountry's district, borough and county councils shunned genetically modified plants and foods by declaring themselves GM-free zones.

They insisted that GM crops should not be grown for commercial purposes until scientific evidence had shown conclusively that there are no harmful impacts on human or animal health.

Now, many of the local authorities, including South Hams District Council and both Devon and Somerset County Councils, have written to the Government to reiterate their opposition to GM crops.

In its letter, the South Hams council said the proposals offered "inadequate protection" to the environment, farmers, and the local economy, as well as pointing out there was "currently no demand for GM products" in the UK.

In response, a Defra spokesman said: "If there is no market for them, GM crops will not be grown."

GM crops would be approved for commercial use only after going through a very transparent assessment and rigorous decision-making process that would be managed at EU level.

"Our co-existence proposals address the possibility that approved GM crops might be grown here in due course. Our proposals will minimise any unwanted GM presence in non-GM crops as far as possible."

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
---
---
2.RESIST THIS RUSH FOR GM CROPS
Western Morning News, 21 October 2006

The government's supposed consultation over the future of genetically modified crops in Britain smacks of a sham exercise. Tony Blair's view on the matter is well known and - as we have seen before - if Mr Blair is resolved on something he is not too bothered what the public thinks.That is not the spin that is being put on this process, of course. Ostensibly, all opinions will be taken into account, due weight will be given to arguments both for and against, then a balanced and considered decision will be made.

Excuse us for sounding cynical, but we do not believe it.

The former Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, is closer to the mark when he says that public opinion is being overridden. Despite trials that provoked outrage among organic and non-GM farmers in the countryside, despite the militant uprooting of experimental crops, and despite the very well-founded fears about cross-pollination, the Government still has the audacity to claim that there is "no scientific case" for a ban.

That is a preposterous argument that owes more to this Government's all too comfortable relationship with big business than with any objective analysis of the facts.

For every argument that GM does not pose a threat to human health, there are opponents in the farming and scientific community who can point to the contrary.

For every insistence that GM crops cannot compromise nearby organic fields, there is evidence to make a mockery of it.

The stark fact of the matter is the Government has decided on a technology which could have long-term effects on agriculture over which there is little control. In its haste, it could be opening a Pandora's Box which lets loose a trail of damage stretching far into the future. If it then transpires that ministers got it disastrously wrong - as they are being warned they have - it may be too late to reverse the damage.

It is confusing as to what are the Government's motives in this matter. It may be that vested interest has influenced opinion; it may even be Mr Blair and senior colleagues at Defra are persuaded of the long-term benefits of GM to the food market and the consumer.

Whatever the Government's reasoning, we believe its conclusions are both wrong-headed and dangerous.

If that means it must be challenged in law, then good.

If it means public demonstrations against the crude imposition of GM, then so much the better. We would expect that those protests would be particularly widespread in the Westcountry, which has such a high concentration of organic farms.

Farmers cannot afford to be used as the guinea pigs for a Government experiment in genetic technology.

The health of the public must not be compromised by an expansion of the market in tainted food. There is enough of that already to contend with and overcome without the situation being worsened. Nor must opponents of GM be brow-beaten or intimidated by accusations of their being "anti-science".

We are very much in favour of science when it is to the benefit of human health and progress.

If the Government is not in the mood to listen to that, then it must be made to listen.

One word sums up our message on GM crops: no!