Fwd: GMW:_Leaked_papers_reveal_GM_crops_to_get_go-ahead

[Guest guest]

GMW:_Leaked_papers_reveal_GM_crops_to_get_go-ahead

" GM_WATCH "

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:01:04 GMT

 

 

GM Watch daily: http://www.gmwatch.org

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WORK - details: http://www.gmwatch.org/donate.asp

---

It says everything that this decision was taken by a committee chaired by the

UK's Foreign Secretary. As former Environment Minister Michael Meacher said on

Newsnight last night, this decision has nothing to do with supporting science

and everything to do with kow-towing to the Bush administration and GM giants

like Monsanto. Their attempt to sell their decision on the basis of helping the

Third World is particularly nauseating.

 

1.GM crops to get go-ahead

2.Edited extracts of the minutes of a cabinet sub-committee

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1151370,00.html

GM crops to get go-ahead

Leaked papers reveal decision

Paul Brown, environment correspondent

Thursday February 19, 2004

The Guardian

 

The government is to go ahead with genetically modified crops despite what it

acknowledges is considerable public resistance, cabinet committee papers passed

to the Guardian reveal.

 

The minutes of the discussion - which was held eight days ago and involved

senior cabinet ministers including the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and the

environment secretary, Margaret Beckett - disclose the government's final

decision to give the green light to the first crop of GM maize in Britain. An

announcement is expected to be made to the House of Commons next week.

 

The papers make clear the government's recognition that public opinion in this

country is generally resistant to GM crops. " The public was unlikely to be

receptive, " the discussion notes.

 

However, the government is equally clear in its view that any ban on the crops

would be " the easy way out " and would be " an irrational way for the government

to proceed " in the light of its desire to back and encourage UK science.

 

The leaked documents also reveal that the government has not yet given up hope

of swinging the public round in favour of the crops. " Opposition might

eventually be worn down by solid, authoritative scientific argument. "

 

As part of this drive, the meeting decided that before Parliament was informed

of the decision to press ahead with GM maize, supportive MPs would be encouraged

to speak out. The papers say: " There was a merit in preparing the ground with

key MPs, particularly those with an interest in science or food security in

developing countries. "

 

The government's chief scientist, David King, the chairman of the Food

Standard's Agency, John Krebs, both in favour of GM, were at the committee

meeting and agreed to make statements supporting the government on the day of

the announcement. Other pro-GM scientists will be recruited to further forward

the message.

 

In her initial statement to her colleagues Mrs Beckett said there was no

scientific case for an outright ban on the cultivation of GM crops.

 

The first phase of the public debate signalled that above all, the public wanted

more information and a strong regulatory regime. Only the subsequent " narrow but

deep " element of the debate suggested that the more people knew about GM the

more worried they became.

 

She said people did acknowledge there could be benefits from GM technology in

the future for developing countries but " by ignoring calls for a complete ban

the government will inevitably be accused of failing to listen to the views of

the public " .

 

Last year, the government attempted to test public attitudes with its national

GM debate. It concluded that more than four out of five people were against GM

crops and that just 2% would eat GM foods.

 

But a Mori poll for the University of East Anglia released yesterday said the

debate vastly overestimated the level of public opposition to GM. The poll found

that while 36% opposed GM food, 13% supported it and 39% had no strong feelings

either way.

 

In a concession to the Welsh view that it wanted no GM crops in Wales Mrs

Beckett suggested that the government could offer advice on the establishment of

voluntary GM free zones.

 

The government's suggestion that it may offer a compromise of allowing GM-free

zones will also be of interest to the more than 40 regions, including Cornwall,

Devon, Somerset and the Lake District national parks authority, which have made

moves to declare themselves GM free.

 

The first crop to be grown will be the Bayer maize which did well in three-year

crop trials, being less damaging to the environment than conventional maize

doused with powerful herbicides.

 

Mrs Becket conceded the government still had not cleared up how to avoid

contamination of non-GM crops.

 

Sue Meyer, director of Genewatch UK, said: " Overall the government seem

determined to go ahead in some form with growing GM crops in the UK, despite a

lack of public support, economic advantage or investment in further research.

They are clearly anxious that the decision will not be received positively and

are having to plan ways of presenting the policy in a favourable light because

it does not speak well for itself. "

 

Last night, Defra spokesman William Mach denied the government had made up its

mind on GM crops. " There's going to be no announcement next week. Ministers are

still discussing the policy statement and haven't reached a final decision yet, "

he said.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1151183,00.html

Balancing the benefits with the public's scepticism

 

Edited extracts of the minutes of a cabinet sub-committee discussion on GM crops

in Britain involving the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and the environment

secretary, Margaret Beckett, on February 11

 

Thursday February 19, 2004

The Guardian

 

[Margaret Beckett] said there was no scientific case for an outright ban on

cultivation of GM crops, even though many would argue for such a ban. Indeed, it

was unclear whether the public actually wanted a complete ban, as commentators

suggested.

 

The first phase of the public debate signalled that, above all, the public

wanted more information and a strong regulatory regime. Only the subsequent

" narrow but deep " element of the debate suggested that the more people knew

about GM, the more worried they became, but it was unclear whether participants

in this part of the debate had received balanced information.

 

Moreover, people did acknowledge that there could be benefits in GM technology

in the future, particularly for developing countries. However, by ignoring calls

for a complete ban, the government would inevitably be accused of failing to

listen to the views of the public.

 

[Ms Beckett] considered that only an approach of case-by-case assessments, based

on scientific evidence, was defensible.

 

But the government should consider how it could address public concerns. While a

GM-free country was neither legally nor practicably feasible, there was nothing

to stop the government offering advice on the establishment of voluntary GM-free

zones. Government should also set the context, by making clear that it expects

little market demand, and thus little cultivation, in the short term.

 

In discussion, the following points were made:

 

(a) The proposed approach was science-based, precautionary and sensitive to

public opinion. While a ban was the easy way out, it was an irrational way for

the government to proceed, particularly given the symbolic importance of the

decision for the government's science policy and the UK science base.

 

(b) Nevertheless, the public was unlikely to be receptive. Securing its

confidence in the new EU-wide regulatory regime was key. Careful presentation in

the policy statement of the new EU focus on evidence-based decision-making,

under the guidance of the European Food Standards Agency, could help.

 

© Responding to the public's demand for more information was also essential.

Opposition might eventually be worn down by solid, authoritative scientific

argument.

 

(d) Ahead of the planned policy statement to parliament, there was merit in

preparing the ground with key MPs, particularly those with an interest in

science or food security in developing countries.

 

(e) [Ms Beckett] observed that it was important for the government to clarify as

far as possible its intentions for the terms on which GM and non-GM crops might

co-exist.

 

The government could be clear on some points. The concern about " contamination "

of organic crops should be put into perspective: there was currently very little

production of organic equivalents of the GM crops likely to be grown in the

short term. It was important to communicate that science demanded that

co-existence measures should be crop-specific.

 

A closely monitored introductory period was essential, following which the

government should review the effectiveness of the arrangements. Government

should also consult on whether there should be a compensation scheme, and should

provide guidance to farmers wishing to establish GM free zones.

 

(f) The choice between voluntary or statutory arrangements was finely balanced.

A voluntary approach would be appropri ate for limited cultivation and would

avoid a potentially disproportionate burden on industry. However, industry

self-regulation would meet with public scepticism, and statutory arrangements

would certainly be necessary should cultivation become extensive.

 

(g) On balance, there was merit in consulting on options for a compensation

fund. However, the government would need to make clear that any scheme would be

funded by the GM industry, rather than either government or producers of non-GM

crops.

 

-----------------------

SUBSCRIPTIONS

-----------------------

 

http://www.gmwatch.org/sub.asp

 

 

see end of this message

 

communicate

ngin

 

donate

http://www.gmwatch.org/donate.asp

 

archive

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp

 

websites

http://www.gmwatch.org

http://www.ngin.org.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.