Fwd: GMW:_more_on_Government_go_ahead_for_GM_maize

[Guest guest]

GMW:_more_on_Government_go_ahead_for_GM_maize

" GM_WATCH "

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:17:31 GMT

 

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

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

---

" Why is the Government going ahead? It is not because of the science, it is

because of the Bush administration applying pressure, and because of companies

like Monsanto who want to make a big profit bonanza out of cornering the world

food supply. It is nothing to do with feeding the world. "

- Michael Meacher, former Environmenmt Minister

 

It's unclear how the Guardian's pro-GM science correspondent Ian Sample's

article actually justifies the headline in item 2.

 

1.Government to give go ahead for GM maize

2.Why GM-free UK is popular but unfeasible

---

1.Government to give go ahead for GM maize

By John Deane, Chief Political Correspondent, PA News

19 February 2004

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=492836

 

The Government is to give permission for the first commercial cultivation of a

genetically modified crop, according to cabinet committee papers leaked today.

 

BBC2's Newsnight programme quoted leaked minutes of a 10 February meeting of the

Cabinet Office ministerial sub-committee on biotechnology, which indicated that

the decision to give approval to the sowing of GM maize on a commercial scale is

imminent.

 

The committee, according to the leaked minutes, agreed there should be a

precautionary approach to GM crops, based on science, and sensitive to public

opinion.

 

Nevertheless it acknowledged that " the public was unlikely to be receptive " . It

suggested that " careful presentation " of the EU's focus on evidence-based

decision-making could help, and that opposition might eventually be worn down by

solid, authoritative scientific argument.

 

Former environment minister Michael Meacher accused the Government of caving in

to pressure from the US government and huge biotechnology firms.

 

Mr Meacher told Newsnight last night: " I don't think that the Government has any

moral, scientific or political authority whatsoever to take this decision.

 

" If you look at the science, in the GM maize trials the conventional maize was

sprayed with a chemical which has now been banned throughout the whole of the

EU. So the comparison which was made in those trials is now invalid.

 

" The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which the Government

relies on, says there should be new trials. The Government has refused.

 

" There is public opinion, which is four to one against.

 

" The issue of co-existence protocols, by which you protect non-GM farmers from

contamination, there is no agreement on that.

 

" Why is the Government going ahead? It is not because of the science, it is

because of the Bush administration applying pressure, and because of companies

like Monsanto who want to make a big profit bonanza out of cornering the world

food supply. It is nothing to do with feeding the world. "

 

Mr Meacher added: " After Iraq, after tuition fees, after foundation hospitals, I

do think that in this Big Conversation the Prime Minister has rightly launched,

he should be listening to what the nation is saying. "

 

Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesman Andrew George said in a statement:

" This decision shows that the Government are treating people's concerns about GM

with contempt, and skewing Parliamentary discussion in favour of biotech. If the

public realised what was being decided in their name, there would be uproar.

 

" Instead of coming to Parliament with a statement, they should be allowing MPs

to debate a policy motion before making a decision with potentially harmful

environmental effects.

 

" Their plan to link the growing of crops in the UK with the future of developing

world is a particularly cynical ploy. "

 

Last month, the current environment minister Elliot Morley said decisions on

maize, beet and spring sown oil seed rape would be announced within weeks, after

Whitehall had consulted the UK's devolved administrations.

 

His comments came after the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

(ACRE), a Government advisory body, concluded that farmers who grow genetically

modified herbicide tolerant maize crops under strict rules would not see adverse

effects on wildlife.

 

The ACRE panel, which spent three months looking at the results of a three-year

nationwide field scale trials of crops, warned that if GM beet and spring sown

oil seed rape were to be grown, that would have adverse effects on arable weed

populations and in turn on insects and birds.

 

Mr Morley indicated that there was a comparatively strong case for cultivating

maize, under strictly controlled conditions. But Mr Morley made clear that, as

things stand, there is little prospect of GM beet and spring sown oil seed rape

getting the go-ahead.

 

And an independent report published today found the government's consultation

exercise on GM crops may have seriously over-estimated the scale of public

opposition.

 

The official report on the GM Nation exercise, conducted last summer, concluded

that more than four out of five people were against GM crops and that just 2 per

cent would be prepared to eat GM foods.

 

However, a team of academics from Cardiff University, the University of East

Anglia and the Institute of Food Research, said the project had been over-hasty,

under-resourced and " flawed in a number of important respects " .

 

It said that its own findings suggested that many people had yet to make up

their minds about GM crops.

 

A Mori poll for the UEA found that while 36 per cent opposed GM food, 13 per

cent supported it and 39 per cent were neither for or against.

 

Although 85 per cent agreed that not enough was known about the long-term

effects on health of GM food, 45 per cent thought GM crops could hold future

benefits for consumers and 56 per cent thought they could help developing

nations.

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1151201,00.html

Analysis

 

Ian Sample

Thursday February 19, 2004

The Guardian

 

The waiting, it seems, is over. Having waded through reams of advice from

scientists, economists and the public, the government has evidently decided to

approve the growing of genetically modified crops in Britain.

 

The details of a cabinet meeting leaked to the Guardian reveal that the

government plans to push ahead with the commercial cultivation of GM crops and

outlines a strategy. The minutes, which claim that a GM-free Britain is not

feasible legally or in practice, acknowledge that public appetite for GM produce

is likely to be minimal, but describe plans for financial compensation for

organic farmers and voluntary GM-free zones.

 

The decision on whether Britain should allow or ban growing of the controversial

crops has been eagerly awaited by the pro- and anti-GM camps since mid-January,

when the government's advisory committee on releases to the environment (Acre)

delivered its verdict on the field scale trials, an unprecedented five-year

experiment to assess the environmental impact of growing GM crops in Britain.

 

The Acre chairman, Chris Pollock, suggested GM maize could be planted as early

as this spring, but warned that two other GM crops, oil seed rape and sugar

beet, caused damage to the environment.

 

The Acre report was the final opinion the government needed before it was

obliged to make a decision.

 

Last year the government's chief scientist, Sir David King, presided over a

comprehensive scientific review of GM crops. His final report, which emphasised

the uncertainties and potential dangers associated with growing certain GM

crops, was passed to ministers and became the bedrock of their decision-making.

It was joined by a damning report from the Cabinet Office on the financial

consequences of introducing GM crops to Britain. It warned that there was little

economic benefit and that going ahead regardless of public opinion could lead to

civil unrest.

 

The government also attempted to involve the public in its decision-making, but

last summer's launch of the national GM debate in Birmingham met with a whimper.

The debate, which was supposed to draw out the opinions of ordinary members of

the public, was dominated by those already fervently opposed to or supportive of

GM.

 

The apparent decision to give the green light to GM ends a de facto moratorium

on the commercial growing of such crops that dates back to 1998. At the time,

intense opposition forced the GM industry to hold off on commercial cultivation

of a variety of maize called Chardon, the only GM crop to have received European

marketing approval. All other applications to grow GM crops stalled while the

government awaited the results of its five-year field scale trials. These tested

the impact on the environment of the herbicides used with GM and conventional

crops.

 

The leaked document recommends that GM maize, owned by BayerCropSciences in

Cambridge, is added to the national seed list. The only remaining barrier for

growing the GM crop will then be approval for Liberty, the associated herbicide.

 

According to Paul Rylott, head of biosciences at BayerCropSciences and chairman

of the industry-backed Agricultural Biotechnology Coun cil, the government's

pesticides safety directorate is ready to give Liberty the go-ahead.

 

The leaked document states that part of the government's strategy for

introducing GM crops to Britain would involve setting up a compensation fund for

organic farmers, who are concerned that GM pollen could contaminate their crops.

The document makes it clear that the compensation fund would have to come from

the GM industry.

 

But industry representatives are loath to put up the money for such a fund. " If

the government told us to provide a compensation fund for organic farmers, we'd

say 'don't be silly', " Mr Rylott said. " There's no need to have a compensation

fund. "

 

He asserts that simple measures, such as maintaining set distances between GM

and non-GM crops, are enough to keep contamination below the legal limit of

0.9%. Any food stuff containing more than this must be labelled.

 

Organic farmers say GM and non-GM crops cannot be grown together.

 

The notes from the Cabinet Office meeting also suggest the government could play

a role in advising on voluntary GM-free zones, but does not elaborate. Already,

more than 40 districts, county councils and national parks have declared they

wish to remain GM-free zones, but without agreement of all farmers in the

region, such agreements are illegal under European Union law.

 

The government's decision comes as the World Trade Organisation is considering a

legal case brought by the US, Canada and Argentina, which maintain that the EU's

effective ban on GM crops until they are proven safe is illegal and merely a

smokescreen for a trade barrier.

 

· Ian Sample is the Guardian's science correspondent

 

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

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.