Science V 'PR Offensive'
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmdebateletter.htm
UK GM Debate Gets Underway
“Prime Minister Tony Blair is to lead a three-pronged
PR offensive to increase public awareness of the advantages of GM foods...."
Farmers Club Journal, Harvest 2002
"Novartis has already had doubts (New Scientist, 18
December 1999, p 5) and now Monsanto's patents (W002/28184/5) admit even more frankly that
transgenic pest control 'may not be desirable in the long term' because it produces
resistant strains and 'numerous problems remain... under actual field
conditions'...".
GM plants no panacea
New Scientist August 17, 2002 Vol. 175; Pg. 22
“A framework for judging [GM] risks involves setting
the environmental and health benefits on one side of the balance sheet and the risks on
the other. The problem that regulators face is that too little is yet known about either
of these… A significant danger is that scientists, together with farmers who produce
the food, will lose the trust of citizens by being less than wholly honest about potential
problems…. It is this lack of responsibility that could irreparably damage science as
a whole.”
The potential effects of Genetically-Modified (GM) crops on
the countryside and rural economy
Countryside Agency Report, August 2002
"The COI [Central Office of Information], which runs
Whitehall's public relations, also fears the [national GM debate] is in danger of ending
up as a meaningless exercise that could further undermine confidence in GM foods. It has
urged Ministers to come clean on how the debate will actually influence GM policy amid
growing suspicion it is merely a propaganda tool."
Advisers brand Blair's GM debate a sham
Observer, 10
November 2002
"The policy issue is not
'how can we best address the problems of world agriculture with genetic engineering?'. The
policy issue is 'what are the problems we face in world agriculture; what are all the
options available to us to deal with them; and which of those options offer the best risk-benefit ratios?'. Few, if any, of the governments in the world have yet been
through that basic thought process in a considered manner."
nlpwessex, 17 November 2002
17 November 2002
The United Kingdom is embarking on a national debate concerning GM foods and crops. Below is a copy of a letter on this subject from the editor of the nlpwessex GM news bulletin service to the President of The Farmers Club, London - the most prestigious farming club in the UK.
This letter followed an article published in the Harvest 2002 edition (Issue No 179, p5) of the club's journal. The article entitled 'GM crops on a winning track' was written by club member and Humberside sheep breeder, Henry Fell.
GM organisms are created in the laboratory. The first genetically modified plants and animals (i.e. incorporating recombinant DNA) were not produced until the 1980s . No GM crops were made commercially available until the 1990s, with GM animals still yet to follow. Despite this Mr Fell advised fellow farmers in an earlier article published in Farmers Weekly 11 June 1999 that "I have been involved in the genetic modification of sheep for 40 years or more".
More recently Mr Fell has been working collaboratively with the American Soybean Association who are seeking to win a greater market share of European animal feed markets with their genetically modified soya beans (a share which might otherwise be taken in part by British arable farmers producing home grown animal feeds - grains, pulses etc).
Those concerned about the potentially serious impact on British agriculture and food that the proposed adoption of GM crops in the UK could precipitate, may wish to make use of some or all of the material referred to in the letter below when encouraging policy makers and others to engage in a scientific discussion of this vital subject in the coming months.
Some may like to write to their MPs and other interested parties at this point.
Similar information has been sent within the last month to various frontbench spokesmen in both Houses of Parliament as well as to decision makers in other bodies with a professional interest in food and agriculture. Responses to date have been enouraging (one senior politician responded with "I like you, have concerns regarding the reports and rumours that the Government has already decided the outcome of any national 'debate' that may take place on this issue..... Please continue to write to me on this subject as you clearly have well considered views on this matter.").
The first phase of the debate finally began earlier this month with a series of 'foundation discussion workshops' attended by selected members of the public. A more visible 'public debate' is due to start early in the new year, although the process already appears to be beset by considerable chaos and uncertainty. Whatever eventually emerges, however, now is probably a useful time to be writing letters and contacting people.
At the same time comments and information can be submitted directly to the government machinery tasked with managing the debate via: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/debate/index.htm . That address also provides some details of the debate process.
NATURAL LAW PARTY
WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
Chris Older
President and Chairman
The Farmers Club
3 Whitehall Court London,
SW1A 2EL
18 Oct 2002
Dear Mr Older,
National GM debate
The UK is undertaking a national debate about the commercialisation of GM crops. You may, however, have seen a report in the Financial Times 8 July that quotes an anonymous government minister stating that “They’re calling it a consultation, but don’t be in any doubt, the decision is already taken.” A similar report appeared in the Daily Telegraph.
It is exceptional to have a national debate about a new agricultural technology prior to its introduction. It would be unfortunate, not to say disingenuous, if the debate turned out to be irrelevant because the decision to go ahead with commercialisation had in effect already been taken.
The principal reason for having a national debate is that farmers may like to have access to the technology despite the considerable consumer resistance. This situation is largely predicated on the assumption (ignoring market considerations) that such technology will improve farmers economic competitiveness, based on the existing experience of American farmers.
A recent report by the US Department of Agriculture, however, fundamentally challenges this received wisdom. The report has not been directly featured in the farming press, and farmers and policy makers alike are largely unaware of it. I enclose a copy of a letter published in Farmers Weekly on this matter.
I also enclose:
1. A wider exposition on this subject.
2. Details of other aspects of biotechnology which are acceptable to the general public and which are acknowledged by respected academic and industry experts to offer greater future dividends than GM crops.
3. An article published in AgraFood Biotech on unresolved food safety issues relating to GM crops (although this is the most contentious area of the debate this article is included because of its publication in a journal which serves parts of the biotechnology industry).
4. Details of a UN FAO report confirming the ability of existing technologies to adequately feed the world to at least 2030.
5. A commentary on the recent GM maize contamination furore in Mexico (this is included as this situation was misrepresented in a misinformed article on GM crops which appeared in the Harvest 2002 edition of the Farmers Club Journal, p 5).
The Countryside Agency has also produced a report entitled “The potential effects of Genetically-Modified (GM) crops on the countryside and rural economy” (dated August 2002 and written by one of the scientists who sits on the government’s GM Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment - ACRE).
Although this wording is not repeated in the summary document most likely to be read by the public (‘Research notes, Issue CRN 38’) the report observes that:
“A framework for judging [GM] risks involves setting the environmental and health benefits on one side of the balance sheet and the risks on the other. The problem that regulators face is that too little is yet known about either of these… A significant danger is that scientists, together with farmers who produce the food, will lose the trust of citizens by being less than wholly honest about potential problems…. It is this lack of responsibility that could irreparably damage science as a whole.” (p5-6).
Although the agency report seeks to identify potential benefits alongside risks, it does not make reference to the latest findings from the USDA on the disappointing economic performance of GM crops that has occurred in practice in America. These findings only became widely disseminated in the public domain towards the end of August and therefore too late to be taken into account by the Countryside Agency report.
Nonetheless in examining projections over the next decade the Countryside Agency report does, however, consider that food consumers are unlikely to gain from GM crops “as there will be neither major reductions in food price, nor increases in production quality or diversity.”
The next potential major GM crop type on the global horizon is GM wheat. On the basis of Canada’s experience to date with previous GM crops (which were introduced without public or farmer debate) both the Canadian National Farmers Union and the Canadian Wheat Board are campaigning against its introduction. This fact alone suggests that British farmers should approach this subject with extreme caution.
Given the importance of proper discussion of these matters I hope you will encourage in-depth participation in the GM debate even if it turns out to be only a ‘going through the motions’ exercise with no direct influence on the government’s policy making decision process in this area.
In my view, it is clear that marker assisted selection (MAS) using advances in genomics as applied to conventional plant breeding offers the optimum risk-benefit solution for the future of agricultural plant breeding (prominent advocates of this technology include senior personnel at Monsanto; head of research and development at Calgene, the company that developed the first GM food crop, the flavr savr tomato; and the former head of the oilseeds department at Europe's leading plant biotechnology laboratory, the John Innes Centre).
Pursuing this route has the advantage of being able to simultaneously satisfy the majority of farmers’ and consumers’ aspirations in a mutually acceptable way, whilst maintaining a key role for the biotechnology industry and the academic infrastructure that supports it.
If the national discussion is able to increase awareness of this scenario (about which most people are ignorant) then it will have been a worthwhile exercise irrespective of whether or not the government is truly interested in the outcome of the debate.
The alternative is that, by pursuing the transgenic element of modern biotechnology (which incorporates recombinant DNA into organisms) there is a risk that much of the goodwill of the public towards British agriculture will be damaged. This would be in return for perceived agronomic gains that are - contrary to the common belief held in many agricultural, academic and political circles - unsupported by the scientific data.
The Farmers Club Journal, Harvest 2002 (p5), confirms that “Prime Minister Tony Blair is to lead a three-pronged PR offensive to increase public awareness of the advantages of GM foods…”. It is difficult to see how the launch of a ‘PR offensive’ in advance of the completion of a national debate is consistent with the Prime Minister’s call for a ‘scientific’ debate.
This gives a most unfortunate impression to the general public at a time when their wholehearted support for British agriculture is desperately needed. It would be regrettable if such a process were to be encouraged without a proper discussion of all the available options and their relative risk-benefit profiles in relation to economic, social and environmental impact.
I hope you will lend your support to an informed debate on this subject. It is important that as a nation we chose the optimum solutions for the future of our agriculture, and not simply those that have the largest ‘PR’ momentum behind them.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Griffiths BSc FRICS FAAV
GMOs - Does the British Prime Minister Know What He is Talking About?
Political compliance V sound science
Health Statistics - Lies, Damn Lies, and GM foods?
America's Looming Food Crisis
What leading scientists have said
about the dangers of genetically modified foods
European Commission lacks
confidence in own GM safety tests - More Details
Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? - some realities behind
the myths
Fundamental scientific conceptual errors in the development of recombinant DNA technology
"There is no doubt that there is
potential for harm, both in terms of human safety and in the diversity of our environment,
from GM foods and crops"
Tony
Blair, UK Prime Minister, Independent on Sunday, 27 February 2000
"I accept the argument that genetic modification is not
simply speeding up the natural process. It cannot be when genes are mixed from different
species. There is some comfort in the regulatory process for medicine which, I
admit, is not in place for food and agriculture
....."
Jeff Rooker, Minister of State for Food Safety,
House of Commons, July 30 1998
"I want to make it absolutely clear that my Ministry
and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be working with the
farming community and representatives of organic farming to ensure that the expansion of
organic farming is not compromised by the introduction of genetically modified crops. ....
I want to make it clear that that is the most important sentence that I shall say this
evening. I genuinely mean that - those are not words to be put in Hansard and
forgotten about; I shall follow through….. Given the extremely tight public
expenditure restrictions to which we are subject as part of our contract with the
electorate, it would be stupid for the Government to push more money into converting to
organic farming while allowing the farmers who take that brave step to be damaged by other
actions within the process that I have described….."
Jeff
Rooker, Minister of State for Food Safety, House of Commons, July 30 1998
"Genes will inevitably escape from genetically modified
crops, contaminating organic farms, creating superweeds, and driving wild plants to
extinction, an official EU study concludes. It adds that the
three GM crops at present being trialled in Britain, maize, sugar beet and oilseed rape
pose the greatest risks of all the varieties it examined. The study, just published by the
European Environment Agency, confirms environmentalists' worst fears and will make it very difficult for the Government to approve the commercial
planting of GM crops in Britain.... The study concludes that 'gene flow can occur
over long distances', and that some varieties of GM crops interbreed with others 'at
higher frequencies and at greater distances than previously thought'. Pollen from the
crops, it concluded, travelled far further than the official 'isolation distances' laid
down to separate them from ordinary crops, to prevent interbreeding, making a mockery of
safety precautions. Cross-pollination by GM oilseed rape has been recorded about two and
ahalf miles away from the crop, compared to an isolation distance of 600m. Research in
Scotland has suggested that bees could carry the pollen atleast six miles. The report
concludes: 'Under current farm practices, local contamination between crops is inevitable.'..."
GM crops bound to 'escape', says EU
Independent, 24 March 2002
"Ben
Miflin, former director of the Institute of Arable Crops at Rothamsted, near London, who
is a proponent of the potential benefits of genetic modification of crops.... argues that,
under current monitoring conditions, any unanticipated health impact of such foods would
need to be a 'monumental disaster' to be detectable."
Nature, Volume 398:651, April 22, 1999
More on who is running the UK GM debate and who decides the outcome? - click here
The policy issue is not "how can we best address the problems of world agriculture with genetic engineering?". The policy issue is "what are the problems we face in world agriculture; what are all the options available to us to deal with them; and which of those options offer the best risk-benefit ratios?". Few, if any, of the governments in the world have yet been through that basic thought process in a considered manner.
NATURAL
LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex