The Death of Science
UK Farming Establishment
Knowingly Supports Unscientific GM Trials
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/death-of-science.htm
Blair Increasingly Isolated As
BBC Blows The GM Whistle
"As Britain awaits the results
of four years of field trials to study the real-life impact of
genetically modified crops, it's decision time. To commercialise
GM crops or not? .... Aventis in America has quietly accepted
that GM farmers aren't satisfied with Liberty
alone, putting on sale a product called Liberty
ATZ. This is a mix of a little bit of Liberty
and a lot of atrazine, the residual chemical that's banned in
most of Europe. [Professor] Michael Owen [of Iowa State
University] says this combination has now displaced the original
environmentally friendly option for Liberty
corn growers.... The American experience could prove awkward for
the Prime Minister. In his recent science matters speech at the
Royal Society, Tony Blair urged the British public to drop its
sceptical approach to developments such as GM crop technology....
So far the American experience seems to have been largely
ignored..."
Weeds fight back
BBC Newsnight, 25 June 2002
"To
achieve this [strategy for UK agriculture] requires action and
unity of purpose. It requires the NFU to add to its unrivalled
authority as the most powerful and relevant political force
working for farmers..... Science and technology are part of the
solution; they are emphatically not the problem..... an essential
need is.... Access to new technology, including GMOs; ACTION: NFU
to continue full support for SCIMAC and the
thorough evaluation of farm-scale trials."
A Strategy for UK Agriculture
National Farmers Union of England
and Wales, July 2001
"Thanks. I have passed this
[scientific research] on to our two SCIMAC representatives for
their information."
Email from officer at NFU headquarters
in response to GM crop research information forwarded by NLPWessex, 21 February 2001
(see report below)
30
June 2002
As reported in the
London Times 26 June (see article below) the BBC has blown the
whistle on what is, in effect, the fraud underlying the British GM farm-scale trials which the UK government hopes
will lead to the commercial growing of GM crops in 2003. In
the case of GM maize the highly respected BBC Newsnight programme has revealed that the research
model used in the trials does not reflect the way the crop is
likely to be grown in the UK in practice.
In particular the
Newsnight programme highlighted the prevalance of the use of the
chemical atrazine in conjunction with glufosinate ammonium on Aventis's GM herbicide
resistant corn in the US. Similar corn (maize) is currently
included in the controversial government-backed GM crop trials in
the UK. However, the trials do not explore the environmental
impact of this chemical combination frequently used with such
crops.
Information on such
practices was widely distributed over the internet as
early as 21 February 2001 by nlpwessex which
relayed abstracts from 25 scientific papers published by the Weed
Science Society of America (WSSA). The same
information was also forwarded 28 February 2001 to the
Biosciences section of the Science Policy unit at the Royal
Society, the most prestigious body within the UK's scientific
establishment (nlpwessex had met with
the Senior Manager of Science Policy at the Royal Society to
discuss biotechnology issues only the previous week).
The WSSA papers
concerned demonstrate that in practice the herbicide regimes
associated with GM crops grown in America, including glufosinate
resistant maize, do not correspond to those being modelled in the
UK's farm-scale trials. As a result the UK trials are
fundamentally unscientific because they do not attempt to explore
the way the technology is likely to be used in practice.
The
publication of the WSSA papers dates back as far as 1998. They
include work carried out as early as 1995 by the main
biotechnology company involved in the UK farm-scale trials,
Aventis (formerly AgrEvo). This information has
therefore been known to the biotechnology industry itself for
many years - certainly since well before the start of the UK
farm-scale trials in which it has had a hand in designing.
Agreement between government and the biotechnology industry to
carryout the trials was only reached in November 1999.
The
fraudulent nature of the current situation is summed up by UK
campaign group Friends of the Earth in their press release of 25 June: "The
public have been told that the GM crop trials will show how GM
crops will be grown in farming practice. But this has now been
shown to be nothing more than a con trick".
Amongst other herbicide regimes the scientific papers
circulated by nlpwessex specifically
highlight the use of the herbicide atrazine in conjunction with
glufosinate ammonium in relation to GM corn (see extracts
provided below). This scenario is not being modelled in the
UK farm-scale trials. However, BBC Newsnight has now drawn
this omission to the attention of a much wider audience based on
its investigation into the commercial growing of GM crops in the
US.
The distribution
of such information by nlpwessex on
its global GM news email list 21 February 2001 included copies
forwarded to sections of the farming press and also the National
Farmers Union of England and Wales. The latter is
the most influential body within the farming establishment in the
UK.
A senior
officer from the NFU's head office responded to nlpwessex
by email the same day saying: "Thanks. I have
passed this on to our two SCIMAC representatives for their
information."
SCIMAC is the biotechnology
industry-led body responsible for much of the implementation of
the UK farm-scale trials. It includes both the NFU itself and the
British Agrochemicals Association, of which Aventis (the
principal biotechnology company whose GM crops are being tested
in the trials) is a member. It is SCIMAC,
rather than the government appointed scientific steering
committee supervising the trials, which is responsible for proposing the herbicide
regimes to be tested on the GM crops, including training and advice relating to the amount and timing of the
applications to be made by the farmers contracted to carry out
the field work.
Following
dissemination of the WSSA research findings by nlpwessex
in February 2001, an article on a similar theme was
eventually published earlier this year in 'Welsh
Farmer', the official publication of the Farmers' Union of Wales (FUW). The FUW has been at the forefront of calls to keep Wales a
GM-free zone with President Bob Parry most recently
issuing a challenge to the UK Prime Minister in May on GM food labelling in the EU: "Mr
Blair has built up this so-called special relationship with Mr
Bush so he should be well placed to stand up to him on this
issue. He must now decide whether to defend British people's
interests or back the big US corporations who are determined that
their GM industry should dominate Europe's food supply. The FUW
has consistently advocated that food should be perceived as pure
and unadulterated."
The FUW,
however, should not be confused with the NFU of England and Wales
where the attitude of its leadership towards GM crops is very
different - to the extent that NFU President Ben Gill rejected a call for a vote on the GM issue at the Union's
1999 annual meeting and has been labelled 'Biotechnology Ben' by
the English satirical magazine 'Private Eye'. At the time the
1999 poll rejection was interpreted by Farmers Weekly as
an apparent acknowledgement that were the NFU to have a vote
members might opt for a ban (Under the title "Union
officials let Monsanto pay for trip to US seminar" the same Farmers
Weekly report 28 May 1999 noted that two
members of the NFU's cereals committee had accepted free trips to
the USA, courtesy of
biotechnology giant Monsanto. It also reported that the chairman of
the NFU's biotechnology group had visited Monsanto as a guest of
the US government).
The same
article accepted for publication by the FUW earlier this year was
offered simultaneously to the NFU through one of its own members,
but it chose to decline.
This
refusal to publish is at odds with the report of its own Biotechnololgy Working Group which sets out
NFU policy in relation to the dissemination of information
relating to GM crops. The report states: "The
NFU is committed to providing accurate up-to-date information on
biotechnology and farm use. In addition practical instruction may
also be required. The NFU also believes that information on
biotechnology should be freely available to the public, and is
encouraged by the variety and number of sources of information
that are now available. These range from supermarket leaflets to
detailed explanatory booklets. These should allow the public to
develop their attitudes to biotechnology based on science rather
than supposition."
It is clear that for
more than a year the NFU has been aware of the evidence which
indicates that the UK farm-scale trials are themselves based on
supposition rather than science. For reasons best known to itself
the NFU has chosen not to disclose this information to its
members or to alert the government and the general public.
It would appear that
both the NFU and the Royal Society are continuing to support the trials despite
the fact that the scientific data indicating that they are
fundamentally flawed has been in the public domain for a
considerable time. The latest Newsnight report simply confirms
that what had already been indicated by the science since at
least 1998 is indeed also taking place in widespread practice.
In an
interview with the London Times 20 May 2002 British Prime
Minister, Tony Blair, attacked GM crop protesters stating: "It
is time to speak up for science.... it is completely unacceptable
for people to try to disrupt and destroy the legitimate research
on which these issues will ultimately be judged."
How
legitimate is so-called 'scientific' research when it is
conducted on the basis of a premise which is known to be
false? How legitimate, in fact, is the nature of the Prime Minister's own knowledge when he comes to
lecture the nation on the 'science' of GM crops? Clearly not
very.
Leaving
his 'high-tech' naivete to one side and assuming no acquiescence
on his part, this may not be entirely his own fault, however.
Mr Blair
and his ministers receive advice on farming and scientific matters from
both the NFU and the Royal Society. With advice
coming from such unreliable quarters it is perhaps little wonder
that the Prime Minister and his government find themselves
increasingly isolated on the GM issue as far as the public is
concerned.
Indeed, to great approval from his eminent hosts, the Prime
Minister used a much feted speech delivered last month at the Royal Society
itself to defend the farm-scale trials. He earnestly
proclaimed: "Let the debate be won between open
minds, not a retreat into the culture of unreason". The
irony of this pious supposition is almost too much to bear. It is
quite clear where the most dangerous culture of unreason resides
and it is not with the general public. It resides with those in
the farming and scientific establishments who should know better.
Meanwhile, as with the case of
the Prime Minister himself, it will be interesting to see the
degree to which the British farming press is willing to draw to
the attention of the constituency it claims to serve the
situation now exposed by the BBC. There remains the possibility,
however, that it may be more concerned about protecting the large
advertising income stream it receives from the agro-chemical and
biotechnology industries.
If so it will, like many others
in whom much public trust is invested, be continuing to lend its
endorsement to the relentless GM 'con trick' being foisted on
farmers and the public alike, through the maintenance of a
knowing silence.
NATURAL
LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
The
GM con-trick
'The
Emperor's Transgenic Clothes'
Why Million of Acres of Poor Performing GM Crops are Being Grown
in the US
- CLICK HERE FOR
FULL REPORT
How Monsanto Conned the UK Media As Early As
1998
"The
biotech industry is developing two very different sales pitches
for its products - one for farmers and one for the rest of
us."
New
Scientist, 31 Oct 1998
'Welsh Farmer' - Flaws in GM crop trials -
Feb 2002
Will GM crops
deliver benefits to farmers? - some realities behind the myths
Dismantling
the myth of genetics as the principal constraint on responsible
global agricultural production
FAO
report reveals GM not needed to feed the world
BBC
Newsnight Report - 25 June 2002
"JEREMY PAXMAN: You may have
worries about genetically modified foods. But the good thing is
that at least they avoid the need to tip loads of poison on the
land, right? Wrong. While Britain conducts so-called field
trials, in America they're growing vast tonnages of genetically
modified crops. And, as our Science Editor has discovered,
they've found that they still need to use industrial quantities
of a herbicide which is so toxic it's banned in some countries.
Furthermore, the weeds are now fighting back. Susan Watts
reported."
Weeds Fight Back
BBC Newsnight, 25 June 2002
"The great myth of weed
management and the star that growers want is to come in early in
the season, make one application of something, the silver bullet,
as it were, and have to do nothing else. What is interesting is
that because of the biology and adaptability of weeds, it's never
going to work. We are seeing two and possibly three applications
necessary..... The majority of the farmers see the advantage of
having the atrazine included in the pre-packaged mix. I don't
know the exact percentage, but I'd say it is easily more than
75%, probably closer to 90%.... "
Professor Mike Owen, Iowa State
University
BBC Newsnight, 25 June 2002
"In this area we have the
growth chambers, where we're trying to propagate some of the
weeds that are resistant to [GM crop type] herbicides.....What we
have found from grower complaints is that there are rare
individuals that don't appear to respond to the herbicide, that
don't appear to be sensitive..... and already we are seeing very
good evidence that indeed resistance to glyphosate can
occur."
Professor Mike Owen, Iowa State University
BBC Newsnight, 25 June 2002
Watch the BBC report - click here
Read
report transcript - click here
Liberty
Corn Promotional Literature
"Glufosinate, sold under the
trade name Liberty, is a nonselective postemergence herbicide for
controlling broadleaf weeds and grasses. This herbicide family
includes Liberty, Finale® and Rely®, which are currently
marketed by AgrEvo USA Company..... Besides reducing the use of chemical
applications, including DEKALB
GR (glufosinate-resistant) hybrids in a planned cropping rotation
can help growers break the repetitive cycle that can lead to
herbicide-resistant weeds.... DEKALB was the first company to
develop glufosinate-resistant seed cornand introduced the first
commercial hybrid in 1996."
Corn Resistant to Liberty™
Herbicide
Decalb Corn Business Bulletin
(undated pdf file, but downloaded from the web by nlpwessex 7
January 1999 - document reference no is DP97509-LIB-3/97
suggesting it is a 1997 publication)
"Liberty has a wide window of
application and can be applied up to the 8 leaf stage of corn
growth using broadcast applications. Liberty can also be used
alone or in
tank-mix combinations to control
specific weed spectrums in your fields.... Liberty can be used
alone or in
combination with residual corn herbicides,
depending on the weed pressure and cultural practices used in
your operation.... Liberty can be applied in split applications
where new weed germination or growth is present. A second application of Liberty
at 1.5 to 2.0 L/ha can be applied up to the 8 leaf stage of
corn.... Liberty can
be tank mixed with 1.24 kg/ha of Aatrex Nine-O
or 2.24 L/ha of
Atrazine 500F to provide both
contact and residual weed control. Liberty can be mixed with 0.625 L/ha of
Banvel or Clarity. This
combination will provide enhanced control of annual and perennial
broadleaf weeds. Liberty can
be mixed with 3.7 L/ha of Marksman
to provide residual control of both annual grass and broadleaf
weeds. Growers
who prefer to apply a pre-emergent herbicide can follow up with
Liberty once the crop and target
weeds have emerged."
'AgrEvo Canada -
Liberty link with other chemicals'
(undated, but downloaded from the web by nlpwessex 3
October 1998; click here to view
downloaded copy)
'US data reveals UK GM trials
unscientific' - 21 Feb 2001
"Field
testing of glufosinate tolerant maize hybrids took place in
1995-1997 at the Agricultural Research Institute in
Martonvásár..... The results of field experiments showed that a
weed management strategy with glufosinate must include multiple applications, residual
herbicides [such
as atrazine, nlpwessex] or
mechanical control."
Three-years experiences about
the weed control efficacy and selectivity of glufosinate in
transgenic maize.
Z. Berzsenyi*, J. Kopacsi, T. Arendas, P. Bonis, and D.Q. Lap,
Agricultural Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, Martonvasar,
AgrEvo Co Ltd. Budapest, Hungary
Weed
Science Society of America, Volume 38, 1998
"In Maryland, glufosinate
was first studied as a non-selective herbicide for use in no-till
systems..... Under Maryland conditions, postemergence control of
annual grasses with glufosinate has not always be consistent....The
use of a preemergence grass herbicide followed by one early
postemergence application of glufosinate has provided more
consistent season-long weed control of annual grassy weeds. In
glufosinate-resistant corn, a program that has also provided good
season-long weed control has been the use of a single, early
postemergence application of glufosinate in
combination with atrazine."
Weed control systems utilizing glufosinate
and glufosinate-resistant crops.
R. L. Ritter* and H. Menbere, University of Maryland, College
Park.
Weed
Science Society of America, Volume 38, 1998
"Experiments were
conducted at Columbia and Novelty, MO and Urbana, IL in 1997 on
silt loam soils to evaluate various herbicide programs in
glyphosate- and glufosinate-tolerant field corn in a split plot
design..... Postemergence glyphosate or glufosinate tankmixed
with atrazine or acetochlor + atrazine
provided greater control of common lambsquarter (Chenopodium
album), ivyleaf morningglory and pitted morningglory than
acetochlor pre fb glyphosate or glufosinate."
Weed management in glyphosate- and
glufosinate-tolerant corn.
William G. Johnson*, P.R. Bradley, and S. E. Hart. University of
Missouri, Columbia, and University of Illinois, Urbana.
Weed
Science Society of America, Volume 38, 1998
"Glufosinate and
glyphosate are now being used for weed control in corn. The
greatest limitation of
these herbicides is their lack of residual herbicidal activity in
soil. Herbicide combinations
consisted of: i) preemergenceapplications of atrazine,
acetochlor , metolachlor, or pendimethalin followed by a
postemergenceapplication of either glufosinate or glyphosate; and
ii) post emergence tank mixtures of glufosinate and glyphosate
with atrazine,
acetochlor, metolachlor, or pendimethalin. When the residual
herbicides were applied in sequential combinations or in tank
mixtures the control of most annualweed species was improved as
compared to glufosinate and glyphosate applied alone. The results
of this research indicate that cultivation or residual
herbicide combinations are
essential for consistent season-long
weed control with glufosinate or glyphosate."
Weed control strategies in glufosinate
resistant and glyphosate resistant corn.
B. E. Tharp*and J. J. Kells, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing
Weed
Science Society of America, Volume 38, 1998
Access the full
original nlpwessex report sent to the NFU -
click
here
Bio-terrorism and the
Gill rDNA trajectory
| http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-10-338662,00.html |
 |
London
Times, June 26, 2002
New evidence may forestall GM trialsBy Valerie
Elliott, Countryside Editor
ONE of the
Government's leading advisers on genetic
modification called last night on ministers to
delay the decision on allowing GM crops to be
planted in Britain.
Dr Brian Johnston,
bio-technology adviser at English Nature, is
concerned that the four-year-old GM crop trials,
which are due to be assessed next year, could be
undermined by new scientific evidence.
The scientific
tests on farms throughout the country are
monitoring the impact of different pesticides and
herbicides used on GM feed varieties.
In Britain some
farmers are using the weedkiller glufosinate
ammonium (GA), produced by Aventis. New evidence,
reported last night on BBC's Newsnight,
has found that in the United States GA, known
there as Liberty, has proved unreliable on GM
maize crops. Farmers need to use GA at least
three times for it to be effective. Instead they
use a more powerful concentrate, known as Liberty
ATZ, which needs to be sprayed only once and
contains the hazardous pesticide Atrazine.
The pesticide is
on the European Union's priority list for effects
it has on animals. It has caused long-term
problems by washing easily into ground water and
rivers.
Experts and
anti-GM campaigners fear that even if GA passes
the environmental tests, British farmers too will
want to use the stronger product. Atrazine is
still permitted for use in agriculture in Britain
but is banned for use on roads and railways.
It has been banned
in Germany and The Netherlands, and France has
promised a ban. Its use is being reviewed by the
European Commission.
Dr Johnston said
last night: "It might be wise to extend that
delay in commercialisation to enable the right
decisions to be made." He called on the
Government and scientific experts to look at the
new evidence as well as the results of the crop
trials before making any decisions.
Pete Riley, food
and farming campaigner at Friends of the Earth,
said that the crop trials were now undermined.
"We are now
threatened with a new regime combining the worst
of GM and the worst of the old system," he
said.
|
|
The
GM Debate
GMOs
- Does the British Prime Minister Know What He is Talking About?
GMO Debate on BBC
Radio 4 Food Programme - 2002
Health
Statistics - Lies, Damn Lies, and GM foods?
America's Looming Food
Crisis
Lifesciences breakthrough for Sustainable
Health and Agriculture - 'Frontiers
in Bioscience'
"On the contrary [the arrival
of GM crops] seems to have led to an improvement in environmental
conditions..."
Professor Patrick
Bateson, vice president of the Royal
Society
BBC Online, 12 June 2002
"It is a dangerous mistake,
vividly illustrated by the events of the past week concerning
genetically modified foods, to assume that all statements
claiming to be scientific can be taken at face value. Good
science is work that has stood up to detailed scrutiny by
independent workers in the field and contributes to new knowledge
and understanding. Those who start telling the media about
alleged scientific results that have not first been thoroughly
scrutinised and exposed to the scientific community serve only to
mislead, with potentially very damaging consequences."
Professor Brian Heap, Professor Patrick Bateson, Sir
Eric Ash, Professor Roy Anderson, Sir Alan Cook, Sir Roger
Elliott, Professor William Hill, Professor Louise Johnson, Sir
John Kingman, Professor Peter Lachmann, Dr Paul Nurse, Professor
Linda Partridge, Dr Max Perutz, Professor Sir Martin Rees, Sir
Richard Southwood, Sir John Meurig Thomas, Professor Sir Ghillean
Prance, Earl of Selborne and Professor Robert White.
Letter to the Daily Telegraph, 23 February 1999,
from 19 Fellows of the Royal Society
Who Are Aventis/AgrEvo
click here for more details
"Ironically it is oilseed
rape developed by a subsidiary (AgrEvo) of a newly formed
Franco-German transnational company, Aventis, which comprises the
bulk of the brassica GM trials currently taking place in the UK.
Aventis has been formed from the merger of two German and French
chemical-pharmaceutical companies, Hoechst and Rhone-Poulenc.
Aventis now becomes one of the world's largest 'life sciences'
corporations ...... Aventis has only within the
last few days begun its corporate launch publicity campaign to UK
farmers with multi-page colour advertisements in the agricultural
press. The merger gives Hoechst's shareholders a 53% interest in
the company. Hoechst's previous track
record of responsible deployment of technology is far from
exemplary. According to the 'Ecologist' an American subsidiary of
Hoechst admitted that between 1976 and 1994 it had kept secret
200 studies showing adverse health impacts from its chemicals.
How many studies in the genetic engineering sector are going to
be kept out of sight from the public and governmental decision
makers?"
Political
Compliance V Sound Science - Biotech Debacle Set to Unfold
Further?
NLPWessex, 2 February 2000
Where
Does The Government Get Its Advice From?
"The
popular former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mo
Mowlam, was recently appointed Cabinet Office Minister in charge
of the British Government's biotechnology policy 'presentation'
unit. But to what extent is she is aware of the literature on GM
crop risks coming out of the JIC? Certainly if
her speech at the Bioindustry Association dinner in January is
anything to go by there is little in her current approach which
encourages political reticence on the subject..... Significantly
she acknowledged that benefits from GM crops and foodstuffs were
'more difficult' to establish - but what 'best example' of
genetic engineering success did Mo Mowlam chose to draw attention
to at the Bioindustry dinner in order to demonstrate her
knowledge of the genetic engineering debate? Yes indeed, GM
insulin for diabetics - the most widely used GM product in
medicine. Unfortunately, unbeknown to most of the general
public this genetically engineered product has caused severe
health problems for many diabetic sufferers including at least
50 suspected deaths to date - as it happens a figure
similar to the number of deaths so far from BSE related human
illness .... Where is Mo Mowlam getting her biotechnology
briefings from? As will be seen from the acknowledgements at the
end of the JIC paper below both MAFF and the Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions are aware of this
work. Does this situation therefore represent political
ignorance or political compliance? The reason people in the
biotechnology industry do not speak up more loudly on these
subjects as Mo Mowlam has called for, is because they are
precisely the people who know what really lies under the
carpet. The last thing they want is the carpet being
lifted. Often under the guise of 'commercial
confidentiality' secrecy has been fundamental to the introduction
of this technology precisely because its core elements are not
capable of standing up to intense scientific and public
scrutiny?"
Political
Compliance V Sound Science - Biotech Debacle Set to Unfold
Further?
NLPWessex, 2 February 2000
NATURAL LAW PARTY
WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
Back to Home Page
