General Election 2001 - Can Prescott stop GM pollution?

John Prescott simultaneously ignited a dull UK general election campaign last week, and consigned the pro-GM Labour manifesto to a footnote in the press on the day of its launch, by landing a left hook on the chin of an egg-throwing farm worker aggrieved by Labour's lack of interest in the problems of rural communities.

The incident won JP a letter of support from Sean Connery (Scottish actor of 'James Bond' film fame), but not everyone was so impressed. What can John do to win back the hearts and minds of the wider electorate and demonstrate that he really cares about the future of the British countryside?

As Deputy Prime Minister JP is the second most powerful man in the country. As Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions parliament has vested in him the power to grant or revoke consent for the release of GMOs into the English environment. Not even the Prime Minister has this power.

Although many other farms are also at risk from GM contamination, the nation especially wants JP to cancel the field trials around the country which threaten the biological integrity of crops and land on organic holdings. Wind or insect transfer of transgenic DNA via pollen onto these holdings risks the loss of their organic certification - a situation in which JP has yet to intervene, and one which the Conservative Party stated in a press release yesterday it wants to see remedied as a matter of urgency.

Below are some of the powers granted to JP, as Secretary of State, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, in relation to GMOs - including the power to revoke release consents.

The question arises - can he exercise these powers in relation to the protection of organic and other holdings, and if so what is he waiting for?

Interestingly under the Act the ground for doing so ("damage to the environment") includes "harm to the living organisms supported by the environment" and in the case of man even "offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property."

The loss of organic certification on holdings as a result of contamination with transgenic DNA would seem to fall neatly into the latter category, quite apart from any harm to living organisms. Non-organic holdings may also be affected by the loss of the 'GM-free' status of their land or produce.

In order to exercise his powers it appears that it is not even necessary for the Secretary of State to demonstrate harm. He only has to be of the opinion that there is a risk of such harm. Harm from GMOs includes any "interference with ecological systems of which they form a part".

In such circumstances JP appears to have the power to revoke any consent for the environmental release of a GMO even if it already has approval for marketing.

Or has Europe since stolen our sovereignty over this too? If so was there ever a better argument for leaving the European Union or renegotiating the terms of our membership?

Should we, indeed, be converting the extremely dull debate in the general election about the UK's future in Europe into a debate about something which is truly irreversible - genetic pollution. Let's get our priorities in proper order. Even the Roman Empire collapsed eventually but GM pollution is for ever. It's time to stop fiddling while the real future of our countryside burns.

Below are some excerpts of the EPA 1990 which we invite JP to take a look at and act on before polling day.

John Prescott, 6 June 2001,
announcing the cancellation of all GMO environmental release consents the day before polling in accordance with the wishes of the nation

107.-(1) The following provisions have effect for the interpretation of this Part.

    (2) The "environment" consists of land, air and water or any of those media.

    (3) "Damage to the environment" is caused by the presence in the environment of genetically modified organisms which have (or of a single such organism which has) escaped or been released from a person's control and are (or is) capable of causing harm to the living organisms supported by the environment.

    (4) An organism shall be regarded as present in the environment notwithstanding that it is present in or on any human or other organism, or any other thing, which is itself present in the environment.

    (5) Genetically modified organisms present in the environment are capable of causing harm if -

and a single organism is capable of causing harm either if it is itself capable of causing harm or if it is able to produce descendants which will be so capable.

(6) "Harm" means harm to the health of humans or other living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property........

110.- (1) The Secretary of State may serve a notice under this section (a "prohibition notice") on any person he has reason to believe -

if he is of the opinion that doing any such act in relation to those organisms or continuing to keep them, as the case may be, would involve a risk of causing damage to the environment.

(2) A prohibition notice may prohibit a person from doing an act mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above in relation to any genetically modified organisms or from continuing to keep them; and the prohibition may apply in all cases or circumstances or in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the notice.

(3) A prohibition notice shall-

and a notice may be served on a person notwithstanding that he may have a consent authorising any act which is, or is to be, prohibited by the notice.

(4) Where a person is prohibited by a prohibition notice from continuing to keep any genetically modified organisms, he shall dispose of them as quickly and safely as practicable or, if the notice so provides, as may be specified in the notice........

"The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property........"
http://cc.aubg.bg/nws/~ben/Pos386/TEC.html#_toc004

Article 174 (ex Article 130r)

"...Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay."
http://cc.aubg.bg/nws/~ben/Pos386/TEC.html#_toc022

"When I go round the country and talk to people there are real and serious issues in this campaign. It is those real and serious issues that in the end should determine the future of the country"

Email Secretary of State for Enivronment, Transport and the Regions, John Prescott, asking him to stop the trials before polling day:

The Rt Hon John Prescott
Secretary of State of State for Environment Transport and the Regions
c/o The Biotechnology Unit, Floor 3/H10, DETR, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria St, London SW1E 6DE
biotech@detr.gsi.gov.uk

Fundamental scientific conceptual errors in the development of recombinant DNA technology
Bio-terrorism and the Gill rDNA trajectory

Return to NLP Wessex GM page
Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? - some realities behind biotechnology myths

Back to Home Page