An edited version of the following letter was published in the 1st of May 1998 edition of the Hampshire Chronicle
(To contact the Hampshire Chronicle click
here)
(A version was also published as the main letter 1st May 1998 in Farming News, and Farmers Weekly 8th May 1998, two leading British farming journals)
Dear Sir,
Genetically Engineered Crops at Martyr Worthy
Friends of the Earth are right to sound a warning about the potential for genetic pollution from genetically modified (GM) test crops currently being grown at Martyr Worthy (Chronicle April 17th). This is a potential problem for farmers as well as for the environment.
Because of growing consumer concern about the health implications of eating genetically engineered food major retailers such as Sainsbury, Tesco and Iceland are actively seeking food supplies which are not contaminated with genetically engineered ingredients.
Farmers who grow traditional crops on the same unit as modified varieties are unlikely to be accepted for such contracts because of the risk of crop mixing. Equally farmers growing traditional crops in the vicinity of GM crops on neighbouring farms are unlikely to be accepted because of the possibility of contamination through cross pollination which research shows can occur over a distance of 2.5km in the case of oil seed rape.
This introduces a number of complications regarding the management of GM crops, not least of which is the prospect of farmers suing their neighbours for loss of crop contracts because of actual or potential genetic pollution. A case is already passing through the German court system on this basis.
The issue also raises the question of whether or not farmers will eventually need to take out special product liability insurance to cover themselves in the event that GM crops prove to be toxic to consumers. Evidence which suggests that raised oestrogen levels are occurring in GM soya crops grown in the United States has already resulted in a call for a world wide ban from a United Nations working group on bio-safety.
The main difficulty with providing insurance to farmers for this type of risk is that problems may only come to light many years after the introduction of a genetically engineered product, such as in the case of genetically engineered insulin which many diabetics claim can place them at risk of serious complications. In the UK genetically engineered insulin was gradually introduced as a "safe" substitute for traditional insulin from 1982 onwards, but it is only now that the full extent of characteristics which may be damaging to sensitive diabetics is coming to light.
For anyone who is interested in problems associated with genetically engineered crops and food more details can be found on the Wessex Natural Law Party Internet site at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/natural_law_wessex .
John Sinel
NLP Candidate, Southampton Test, General Election 1997
Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? - some
realities behind biotechnology myths
Why consumers are concerned about GM foods
Medical problems with
genetically engineered insulin
Chartered Surveyor Monthly on GMO farming problems
Dorset farmers react in support of NLP GM warnings
Natural Law Party campaign to ban genetically modified foods in
Wessex
