Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Thu, 20 Feb 2003 05:22:54 -0800 News Update from The Campaign UK debate over GE foods News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods ---- If you would like to comment on this News Update, you can do so at the forum section of our web site at: http://www.thecampaign.org/forums In our last News Update, the author of the two articles, Karen Charman, suggested that their ought to be a public debate about genetically engineered foods. Such a public debate is currently taking place in the United Kingdom in a very official way. Plus, the time period for the debate has just been extended by another three months and the budget has been doubled. Apparently a report on whether or not genetically engineered foods should be grown in the United Kingdom will now be delivered in September instead of June. Posted below are three articles and the text of a speech British Environment Minister Michael Meacher gave at the recent " Gene Futures " conference. The first article from The Guardian newspaper is titled " More time for public say on GM crops. " The second article is titled " Meacher attacks GM crops. " Environment Minister Michael Meacher has raised many issues about the problems associated with genetically engineered foods. The third article discusses concerns about organic crops being contaminated by genetically modified crops. It is titled " Britain weighs liability regime for gene crops. " The fourth item is the February 11th speech that Environment Minister Michael Meacher gave at the conference " Gene Futures: Debating the Use of GM Crops and Foods in the UK. " The British government has even set up a web site for the public debate over genetically engineered crops: http://www.gmpublicdebate.org.uk/ Craig Winters Executive Director The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods The Campaign PO Box 55699 Seattle, WA 98155 Tel: 425-771-4049 Fax: 603-825-5841 E-mail: label Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States. " *************************************************************** More time for public say on GM crops Paul Brown, environment correspondent Thursday February 20, 2003 The Guardian The government has extended by three months the period for a public debate on genetically modified crops and whether they should be grown in Britain. The budget for the consultation process is also being doubled, to £500,000, and the Department of Environment will pay for staff time at the central office of information. Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, at first refused to allow more time or money, despite a letter before Christmas from Malcolm Grant, the chairman of the commission the government set up to organise the debate. Professor Grant said he had not been given enough time or resources to complete the task by the end of June. The agriculture ministers of Scotland and Wales, Ross Finnie and Mike German, joined Prof Grant's protests and, last month, all three lobbied again for an extension. The ministers face elections in May and wanted the debate postponed so that it would not interfere with the polls. Environment groups have claimed that the government wanted to stifle debate by completing the discussion before three years of results from the farm-scale trials of GM crops were known in July. A study will be released that month showing whether GM crops attract more weeds and wildlife than conventional alternatives. Yesterday, in a letter to Prof Grant, Mrs Beckett accepted that " it would now be impracticable for the steering board to deliver its report by the end of June " , and extended the consultation time until the end of September, with funding increased to £500,000. Sue Mayer, of the pressure group Genewatch, said: " Mrs Beckett's u-turn is good news ... We will at last be able to have an informed debate. " *************************************************************** Meacher attacks GM crops BBC News Tuesday, 18 February, 2003, 16:03 GMT Environment Minister Michael Meacher has denied that he is about to quit the government after he launched an outspoken attack on genetically modified (GM) crops. Mr Meacher argued that biotechnology was not " necessary " to feed the world and highlighted his concerns at possible health risks to consumers. His comments were effectively disowned by his government department - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - who said Mr Meacher's comments were " his views " . Prime Minister Tony Blair is a known enthusiast of GM but DEFRA admitted there were " creative tensions " in the government over the issue. Ministers are to announce later in the year whether they will allow GM crops to be grown commercially. Resignation denial Following newspaper speculation that he might be about to quit, Mr Meacher, in a statement issued via his spokesman, denied that he could resign over the issue. He said: " This is an absurd invention. There is not a scintilla of evidence suggesting that I should resign. The claim is not just wrong, worse, it is silly. " Mr Meacher's attack on GM crops came during an interview with the Ecologist magazine. He said: " The real problem is whether 10, 20, 30 years down the track, serious and worrying things happen that none of us ever predicted. " It's these sorts of totally unpredicted problems that make me very, very cautious. " The human race has existed on this planet for about a quarter of a million years. " Subject for debate He added: " We have been feeding ourselves perfectly adequately since overcoming problems of hunger in our early existence. GM is not necessary. " Mr Meacher, who is MP for Oldham West and Royton, also questioned the motives of companies behind GM but said the government could not afford to conduct its own trials. Earlier this month Mr Meacher admitted that a public debate on the issues surrounding genetically modified crops had got off to a slow start. He said the government wanted to " give people an opportunity to have genuine discussions " about GM, because the debate had been " extremely polarised " . *************************************************************** Britain weighs liability regime for gene crops LONDON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Britain may implement new measures to protect organic farmers in the event of their crops being contaminated by genetically modified (GM) varieties, Environment Minister Michael Meacher said on Tuesday. Britain will decide later this year on commercial use of gene-spliced crops after a three-year field trial designed to look at the environmental impact of such plants, but Meacher said all farmers' economic interests had to be considered. Environmentalists say GM crops will contaminate traditional varieties and change the countryside, while some scientists argue that they could solve world hunger. " Our approach to GM must be compatible with the government's ambitions for the expansion of organic farming to increase the UK's market share of organic produce sold in the UK from 30 percent to 70 percent, " he told delegates at a conference in London. Britain already has legislation in place covering environmental damage via cross contamination, and the European Commission has also issued proposals for a GM crop environmental liability regime. " We are looking urgently to see whether in advance of the European environmental liability directive...whether we in the meantime do need a domestic liability position, " he said. Meacher said no conclusions had been reached on the technology. " The government has not taken a view on the commercialisation of GM crops. If the farm-scale evaluation results suggest that the crops in question will have a negative environmental impact, then we will oppose their commercialisation in the EU, " he said. The final results of the GM trials will be published mid-year. 02/11/03 10:42 ET *************************************************************** Gene Futures: Debating the Use of GM Crops and Foods in the UK. http://www.genewatch.org/Debate/GeneFutures/GeneFutures_Speeches.htm Draft speech for Michael Meacher Tuesday 11 February 2003 9:30am Thank you for inviting me to speak at this conference today. Looking at the audience today, GeneWatch UK have obviously succeeded in bringing together a wide variety of interests in relation to GM crops and food. I am pleased to be able to use this opportunity to explain the Government’s current policy position on GM issues to help set the context for the public debate, which we are sponsoring. I assure you, the Government is keen to contribute to the debate, and to take the steps needed to enable a constructive and informative debate - something that doesn’t happen very often - on GM issues to take place. The original suggestion for a public debate came from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission in their ‘Crops on Trial’ report. In response, and to help inform future policy-making, the Government decided to hold a public dialogue on wider GM issues, which was announced last year. This dialogue consists of three strands: a Public Debate, a Science Review, and a costs and benefits study being undertaken by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. Given that views about GM and GM technology are generally so polarised, I do, very much, welcome the public debate as an opportunity to find out what people really think about GM. Initial desk research and a series of nine foundation discussion workshops have already been conducted. These workshops were designed to allow the public to frame the issues of the debate and, I think, have already provided some interesting insights into public attitudes. People want more information on GM but they are also keen to explore why GM is necessary, why it is potentially useful, or why it should be avoided. However, the public generally lack trust in the Government – I think we have to recognise that - and fear the debate may be no more than a PR exercise. Therefore, I am pleased, today, to be able to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to this debate. We have already increased the funding in order to ensure a credible and effective programme. We’ve also undertaken to give a written response to the report of the public debate, and to indicate what we have learned – we’ve said that we will listen and learn - from the debate when making future policy announcements. Professor Malcolm Grant, who is also Chair of the AEBC, is chairing the independent Steering Board, which was appointed to manage the public debate at arms’ length from Government. Unfortunately, the public debate has not made as much progress as we would have hoped at this stage. I do recognise, however, that the Board has received differing views from the Government and the Devolved Administrations on how the debate should proceed, but I do assure you, we are working hard to resolve these differences as quickly as possible and in the meantime, the Steering Board are continuing to develop the elements of the main phase of the debate, and I look forward to a full and comprehensive programme over the coming months. The aim of the Science Review is to identify where there is consensus on the science underlying GM issues, where there are gaps in the knowledge, and where the uncertainties lie. The Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser is leading the review, with support from Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser and independent advice from the Food Standards Agency. There is also an Advisory Panel for the Science Review, to bring independent expertise to the review from a wide range of experts involved. Contributions to the Science Review can be made through their website and at a series of open public meetings, so it is an open and public exercise. Two public meetings have been held so far looking at whether GM foods are safe to eat, and gene flow. They covered issues such as antibiotic resistance, the regulatory process and levels of genetic interaction. Another open meeting is being held today at the Royal Society in London and that will be looking at GM crops, modern agriculture and the environment. These meetings have been well attended and, I think it is fair to say, productive. I hope many of you here will contribute to this further over the coming months. The Strategy Unit’s study aims to provide a comprehensive and balanced analysis of the costs and benefits of growing GM crops in the UK. These include any actual or potential impact – negative or positive – that could arise under different scenarios for the future of GM crops in the UK. So far, the Strategy Unit has published an initial scoping note and a series of background working papers on its website. These papers focus on the costs and benefits of GM crops in relation to human health and the environment, on industry and science, on the product chain and in regard to developing countries. The Strategy Unit’s final report will provide a valuable addition to the overall dialogue and to future decisions about the commercialisation of GM crops. While the public dialogue is intended to look at a broad range of GM issues, our Farm Scale Evaluations are looking very specifically at the impact on farmland wildlife of the herbicide use associated with these GM crops. The Government, as I’m sure you know, set up these trials in recognition of the deep public concern about GM crops, effectively halting what, I think, was then seen as the rush to commercialisation, so that more informed decisions could be made. We also reached a voluntary agreement with the biotechnology industry that GM crops would not be grown commercially in the UK during the Farm Scale Evaluation programme. The final results from the Farm Scale Evaluations of the three spring sown crops will be published in a peer-reviewed journal this summer, with the remaining results published early next year. The Government will be discussing the implications of these results with regulatory and advisory bodies as well as with wider stakeholders. We have previously made clear that we are committed to public involvement in discussions on the implications of the results and we are currently considering how best to do that. Government regulations stipulate that we will not permit any commercial growing of GM crops in the UK unless we are confident that they present no significant risk to human health or the environment. We must continually bear in mind that Genetic Modification is a new technology, and that therefore our approach must be based on the precautionary principle. We must ensure that our decisions are guided by sound science and based on independent advice. Precisely because the Government needed independent strategic advice on GM, we set up the AEBC in 2000. They subsequently conducted a detailed analysis into the context surrounding the Farm Scale Evaluations, including a thorough consideration of the broader issues raised by the intense public interest and their report – I think a very good one - “Crops on Trial”, was published in 2001. I must emphasise that, despite suggestions to the contrary, the Government has not taken a view on the commercialisation of GM crops. If the Farm Scale Evaluations results suggest that the crops in question have a negative environmental impact, then we will oppose their commercialisation in the EU. However, if GM crops were to be grown commercially in the UK then a number of issues would need to be addressed. We believe that consumers should be able to make informed choices about what they eat. Consumer choice can be delivered through traceability and labelling of GM products. EU member states have agreed to the introduction of traceability and labelling rules for the adventitious presence of GM, in otherwise non-GM foods and grain, and the European Parliament is now considering them. That’s where that process has reached. We have worked hard, and will continue to do so, to ensure that these rules are practical, enforceable and proportionate. We also need to consider how best to protect the interests of all farmers, including organic farmers. Our approach to GM must be compatible with the Government’s ambitions for the expansion of organic farming – to increase the UK’s market share of organic produce sold in the UK from 30% to 70%. In order to protect farmers’ interests, we need to consider the terms upon which GM and non-GM production might co-exist. This might include establishing separation distances to limit cross-pollination between GM and non-GM varieties and indeed, of course, the experience we have gained from the Farm Scale Evaluations will help to inform policy-making in this area. Also, a sub-group of the AEBC is currently exploring issues of liability, relating to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Specifically, they are considering whether the existing liability regime is sufficient, whether it needs revision, and whether there are other, better ways of addressing potential issues raised. We already have legislation covering environmental damage arising from the release of GMOs. The European Commission has also issued proposals for an environmental liability regime covering the release of GMOs, which, if adopted, would provide liability rules for GM crops covering damage to biodiversity and serious harm to human health. We will be considering whether any extra measures might be needed domestically, in recognition of the fact that GM crops may affect the economic interests of non-GM farmers and we look forward to receiving the findings from the AEBC sub-group to inform our thinking on this issue. On the food side, several applications for the import of GM grain for processing for food and feed are currently under consideration by EU member states, who have to submit their views on two of these by the 25th of March. EU legislation sets out clear procedures and timescales for taking these decisions, based on the available scientific evidence and with a view to protecting human health and the environment. Members of the public also have the opportunity to comment within the scope of the directive and these comments are taken into consideration. In conclusion, the Government will need to take a view on the possible commercialisation of particular GM crops. The voluntary agreement with the industry not to grow GM crops commercially is due to expire when the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations have been assessed. However, I should add, at present no GM crop has all the necessary approvals to permit commercial growing. So, I think this conference clearly represents a timely opportunity to consider some of these issues and I am sure it will be – I very much hope and believe it will be - a useful contribution to the overall public debate. I look forward to hearing about your discussions, both here today and at future meetings. --------- Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc. To , e-mail to: Gettingwell- Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.