Fwd: Michael Meacher: Science backs consumers' rejection of GM food

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign "

Michael Meacher: Science backs consumers' rejection of GM food

Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:43 -0500

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

Former United Kingdom (UK) Minister for the Environment, Michael

Meacher, wrote a powerful article (posted below) in the Sunday edition

of The Independent.

 

Michael Meacher's comments show a logical approach to dealing with the

numerous health, environmental and liability issues surrounding

genetically engineered foods.

 

Contrast this to the approach taken in the United States where our

government agencies had done an incredibly inadequate job of reviewing

and regulating genetically engineered foods.

 

It is absolutely shocking to realize that under current U.S. Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) rules, the biotech companies are not even

required to notify the FDA that they are bringing a new product to

market. Essentially, the FDA has told the biotech industry to regulate

itself in regards to the safety of genetically engineered foods. The fox

is watching the chicken coop.

 

Please read Michael Meacher's brilliant article below. Also, you are all

encouraged to get a copy of Jeffrey Smith's excellent new book, Seeds of

Deception:

http://www.thecampaign.org/seeds.php

 

It is time to shine a bright light on the many health and environmental

concerns over genetically engineered foods. The Royal Society of the UK

released a major report last week documenting that genetically

engineered crops can be harmful to the environment. Jeffrey Smith's

book, Seeds of Deception, does a wonderful job of documenting the health

concerns. Let's get this information out to a wider audience. Okay?

 

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. "

 

***************************************************************

 

Michael Meacher: Science backs consumers' rejection of GM food - are you

listening Tony?

 

The Independent

19 October 2003

 

Last week's scientific study into genetically modified crops was a

serious setback for those who want this science introduced to Britain.

There were five aspects to the Government's testing of GM crops. Four

have been complete, and not one has helped to advance the case. The only

one still to come, a study into whether GM crops can coexist with

organic farming and who is liable if organic farmers are driven out of

business, could be the most difficult yet.

 

The Government has boxed itself into a corner. It set up these trials in

order to check whether GM crops had any adverse effects on the network

of life (insects, worms, butterflies, etc) in the fields. If they did

not - and it was assumed that no significant harm would be found - then

the go-ahead could be given to the commercial cultivation of GM crops in

the UK.

 

This strategy is unravelling fast. The independent research work,

overseen by the Government's Scientific Steering Committee, looked at

three GM crops - oilseed rape, sugar beet and forage maize - and

compared the effects of the chemical weedkillers used with those used on

the same non-GM crops. It found that in the case of oilseed rape and

beet the effects of using broad-spectrum weedkillers (glyphosate or

glufosinate ammonium) on GM crops were significantly worse for the

environment than the conventional weedkillers used on non-GM crops. It

therefore recommended that GM oilseed rape and beet should not be grown

in Britain.

 

In the case of maize, the opposite was found. The main chemical used to

kill weeds in non-GM maize was so toxic that it had even nastier effects

than the GM maize weedkiller. That chemical is atrazine. But the EU has

now decided to ban it. So fresh trials need to be undertaken using an

alternative non-GM weedkiller. Until that is done, there is no

environmental case for allowing GM maize, let alone GM oilseed rape and

beet, to be commercially grown in Britain.

 

But these weedkiller tests are just one limited dimension for assessing

the impact of GM crops on the environment. Other dimensions would

involve looking at the effects, for example, on soil residues and

bacteria, transgene flows and bird populations. Above all, it would be

necessary to test what would happen to the environment if farmers were

trying to maximise commercial yields and not, as in these trials, to

limit adverse effects on wildlife.

 

But even that is only a small part of the research that is needed. There

are at least three other areas of uncertainty. The most important is

whether there are any long-term adverse effects of eating GM foods on

human health, specifically on the immune or reproductive systems, organ

development, metabolism and gut flora. Astonishingly, this has never

been systematically investigated, either in North America or in the EU.

On the highly dubious so-called principle of " substantial equivalence "

it has been assumed that a GM product is safe if it is broadly similar

to its non-GM counterpart. In the very rare cases where research has

been carried out on animals or humans of the effects of eating GM foods,

the results have been worryingly negative.

 

Another area where answers are needed is how non-GM crops can be

protected from cross-contamination. This issue, known as the problem of

co-existence, can be solved only either by substantially extending the

very short separation distances between GM and non-GM crops or by

setting up GM-free exclusion zones. On a very windy day GM pollen can

blow very considerable distances, sometimes miles, and bees are also

known to transport pollen up to several miles. The EU Commission

considered this problem, washed its hands of it as being insoluble, and

passed the buck to member states. It would be irresponsible for any

member state to allow commercial growing of GM crops before a framework

has been spelt out which would guarantee to protect other farmers and

provide compensation if their livelihood were damaged or destroyed by GM

contamination.

 

A third area which needs to be resolved is labelling. Even when the new

EU rules on labelling are introduced, they will only operate above a 0.9

per cent threshold.

 

Where does this all leave us? Most of the testing needed has never been

done, and where some has been - in the case of the environment - that

highly restricted element has been wholly negative. So not only does the

GM case fail the test of public acceptability, it also fails the

scientific test.

 

That should settle the matter. If the public and the science are

against, who is for? Only, it seems (unless they have changed their

minds), the Prime Minister, ministers on the relevant cabinet

sub-committee, Defra officials, and the Government's chief scientific

advisers. But we are told the Government is listening. We await evidence

that it has heard.

 

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search