Expert_witnesses_-_Tim_Lang_and_Michael_Hart

[Guest guest]

> GMW:_Expert_witnesses_-_Tim_Lang_and_Michael_Hart

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:59:25 +0100

 

>

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> -------

> The Policy Ethics And Life Sciences Research

> Institute (PEALS) of the University of Newcastle,

> UK, ran a citizen's jury exercise which involved

> evidence from a balanced panel of expert witnesses

> whom the jury were able to examine.

> http://www.gmjury.org/witness.html

>

> The whole process was overseen by a balanced panel

> of stakeholders.

> http://www.gmjury.org/oversight.html

>

> Here's the evidence of two of the experts with

> concerns about GM.

>

> The first is Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy and

> a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of

> Epidemiology & Community Health. He is also a Fellow

> of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the

> Royal Colleges of Physicians.

>

> The second is Michael Hart, a family farmer on a

> tenanted farm in Cornwall and Chairman of the Small

> and Family Farm Alliance (SFFA).

>

> You can download the summary (20KB) of what occurred

> or the full report (487KB) as PDFs, here:

> http://www.gmjury.org

>

> The verdicts from two separate such jury exercises

> can be found here:

> http://www.gmjury.org/verdict.html

>

> The two verdicts broadly agree, in that both Juries

> called for:

>

> *A halt to the sale of GM foods currently available,

> and to the proposed commercial growing of GM crops.

> This conclusion was based on the lack of evidence of

> benefit and the precautionary principle.

>

> *Long-term research into the real risks of damage to

> the environment and the potential for harm.

>

> *An end to blanket assertions that the GM crops are

> necessary to feed the starving in the Third World,

> given the complex social and economic factors that

> lie behind such hunger.

>

> Among a number of wider concerns raised by the

> juries were:

>

> *A concern that the gradual privatisation of

> scientific research is threatening the independent

> regulatory assessment of GM technologies, together

> with a call for future research to be more

> accountable to the population.

>

> Read on: http://www.gmjury.org/verdict.html

> ------

> Evidence from Tim Lang

> http://www.gmjury.org/evid_tim.html

>

> I look at GM from a policy perspective. The key

> things for me about GM are:

>

> Why it is being introduced

>

> I mean really why? What good is it? My conclusion so

> far is that GM seems to offer little (but that

> doesn't mean it won't some time in the future.) But

> the big issue is do we really need it right now? So

> fast?

>

> The power of the interests promoting it

>

> These include agro-chemical and seed companies, some

> processors, some supporters of 'Big Science'

> approach to technology. But there are also powerful

> forces opposed or hesitant about GM. These include

> retailers, some manufacturers and growers, and the

> vast majority of consumers.

>

> Factors affecting its roll-out

>

> There is a battle going on within the food supply

> chain. GM is going to be a test case for where power

> lies. I am interested to see who jumps in which

> direction. We are supposed to live in a market

> economy where lots of producers compete for the

> attention of lots of consumers. In fact, that is not

> the case for the food economy or GM. Here we have

> relatively few companies with strong market control

> over many consumers. (In the EU, there are 3.2

> million farmers, a few hundred thousand

> manufacturers, about 100 key retail buying desks,

> all serving 250 million consumers!)

>

> Its potential health impact

>

> The Science Review Panel published in July 2003 was

> vague on this point. It said there were no health

> ill-effects, but actually there has been not much

> research. Allergies are a possible worry, but for

> me, that is not the issue. The big food killers in

> the world are malnutrition on the one hand (and

> there the jury has to be out; GM so far is mostly

> irrelevant to raising productivity. And so-called

> diseases of affluence (heart disease, diabetes, some

> cancers, etc). Here GM is largely irrelevant, too.

> We know what is needed to protect health: eat lots

> of fruit & veg, less meat, more fish and more

> diversity. GM is neutral here, by and large not an

> issue.

>

> Its environmental impact

>

> Here the evidence is patchy, it seems to me. Some

> problems, some blanks.

>

> Right now, in late July 2003, I admit to being quite

> amused by what is happening about GM. A most

> interesting split has just emerged over GM. I don't

> mean a split between those who are for it and those

> who are against. I refer to the split between

> government and the big retailers.

>

> The Science Panel has produced a long and

> comprehensive report last week. This is a pretty

> good snapshot of current knowledge. But it isn't

> about what we ought to know. The section on health I

> find particularly thin.

>

> At the same time, the No 10 Downing Street Strategy

> Unit has produced a report that says resistance to

> GM is high and that whether GM gets the thumbs-up or

> not, it is not going to win public acceptance.

>

> This came to a head, for me, 10 days ago when the

> top bosses of Tesco, Sainsbury and Asda went to No.

> 10 Downing Street for a discussion about GM. The

> Prime Minister wants them to be more enthusiastic

> about GM. They were reluctant and said so. 'Listen

> to the science which gives GM the all-clear' was the

> Prime Minister's line. 'We listen to our customers'

> was the reply.

>

> Everyone knows that, by and large, the Government

> has been minded to promote GM and other uses of

> biotechnology. With a few exceptions, the vast

> majority of Ministerial statements have been quite

> clear. Only Michael Meacher, the former Minister at

> the Dept of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

> publicly expressed worries. The Prime Minister has

> been persistent in his support. The Minister for

> Science, Lord Sainsbury, not only supports it as a

> Minister but out of his own pocket, via his Gatsby

> Foundation. (In this he is being wonderfully

> consistent.)

>

> 'Big' science, led by the Royal Society, is a

> resolute supporter of GM. The Royal Society (and

> others) argue this is a fight as significant as that

> between the Darwinians and the Church over whether

> the human species evolved over millions of years

> (descending from the apes) or creation happened as

> stated in the Bible (the Adam and Eve story). This

> approach to science likes to paint the GM story as a

> battle between Rationality and Superstition.

>

> I think the fight is more complex than that. And I

> suspect the more gung-ho scientists are making a

> mistake. This isn't a fight between scientists and

> non-scientists. Science versus the Luddites. This is

> a struggle over the direction of science. What sort

> of science? In whose interest? What for? Who is

> paying and framing what we want scientists to do.

>

> More importantly, it is also a fight over who is

> more important in the supply chain. Governments or

> consumers?

>

> When I say, as I did at the top of this article,

> that I think the row about GM is about power, I

> don't mean power as in Political as in Party

> Politics with a big 'P'. As an aside, we can note

> however that Big Retailing used to favour the

> Conservatives resolutely. In the 1992 election,

> supermarket bosses signed a famous letter to The

> Times giving unequivocal support to the re-election

> of John Major.

>

> Five years later, no food sector was more New Labour

> than the retailers, with David Sainsbury resigning

> to become a Labour Minister, and Tesco sponsoring

> the Millennium Dome (surely wasted money, if ever

> there was). With the one exception of the fall-out

> when the Prime Minister referred to farmers being

> held in an " armlock " by the supermarkets, retailers

> have been held in awe by the present government.

> Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, last month even

> argued that he wanted to end self-regulation by the

> Law Society and heralded the day when there might be

> a law firm " Tesco Law " .

>

> So, this is not, repeat not, a government that hates

> supermarkets. In fact it has been strongly in favour

> of them. And that is why the split over GM between

> the Prime Minister and the big retailers is so

> significant. What is important about this very

> public fall-out over GM is who and what governs

> regulation. There are now two distinct regulatory

> structures.

>

> The first is governmental, the formal world of laws

> and regulations, ranging from world regulations and

> standards laid down by or in the name of the State.

> These are now a function of what in my policy world,

> we call 'multilevel governance'. This rather pompous

> term is important. When we go to vote, we elect

> governments (European, national, local). Gradually,

> so the argument goes, rather than having one main

> government, the national government, which is the

> ultimate power, we now inhabit a world with many

> levels of government. Modern politics is about the

> tussles between these 'levels' of government. Hence

> the term 'multilevel governance'.

>

> In food, at the global level, there is a body most

> people have never heard of. It is called Codex

> Alimentarius Commission. This has been pre-eminent

> since the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and

> Trade (GATT), the set of world trade rules. From

> 1994, food became part of this world set of

> agreements between national governments. Also, for

> us in Britain, since Mrs Thatcher signed the 1986

> Single European Act, it is the European Union which

> is the 'level' where food laws get hammered out

> between the 15 member states (about to be 25!).

> National and regional governments are still

> important vehicles for formal regulations, which are

> delivered at the local level by food law enforcement

> officers.

>

> Alongside this formal system there is another system

> of regulations and standards. These are set by

> companies. And it is these, which in my view, are

> now as, if not more, important than the regulations

> set by Governments at national and international

> level. When Tesco or Sainsbury or Asda or Safeway

> (the big four that control 70% of the UK food

> market) set contracts and specifications for their

> suppliers, these are more important than law almost.

> Often they set standards HIGHER than the law. These

> have quietly become the real power.

>

> So that is what is so important about the row

> between the Big Four Retailer bosses and No 10

> Downing Street.

>

> Not for the last time, I suspect, we have seen a

> moment when a real fissure opens up between

> Governments who claim to control regulations and

> retailers who really gate-keep between primary

> producer and end-consumers. Where will this end?

> -------

> Evidence from Michael Hart

> http://www.gmjury.org/evid_michael.html

>

> I want to talk to you as a farmer who has spent time

> with other farmers who already grow GM crops in the

> USA, Canada and India. I spent 16 days in the USA

> last August seeing GM crops growing and talking to

> the farmers growing them. So I have some first hand

> experience of GM crops.

>

> I must also say here that I am not anti technology.

>

> Farmers have been told that this technology holds

> great promises

>

> That it will help feed the world

>

> That it will reduce pesticide use

>

> That it will reduce cost of growing crops

>

> That it will provide environmental benefits

>

> That it can co-exist with conventional conventional

> and organic crops

>

> That it is safe to eat and grow

>

> Having spent time talking with farmers in the USA

> and talking to Canadian farmers on a trip to the UK

> as one farmer talking to other farmers most if not

> all of the above claims are not working. The only

> benefit I have heard US and Canadian farmers claim,

> is that " it makes farming very big farms easy " .

>

> If I take each of the claims in turn starting with:

>

> Feeding the world

>

> The yields of the existing GM crops are no better

> than conventional non-GM crop yields. Maybe future

> development of GM crops could increase yields or

> enable crops to grow in drought stricken areas of

> the world but not the present crops.

> In my experience it is not that there is not enough

> food to feed the world but the lack of storage and

> distribution of the food that is produced that is

> the problem in many parts of the world.

>

> Reduction in pesticide use

> This is very clearly not the case in the USA and

> Canada for several different reasons.

>

> 1. Weeds have become resistant to glyphosate the

> herbicide that crops has been genetically modified

> to be un-affected by. In the USA I saw several such

> weeds, water hemp and mares tail to name two of them

> and these weeds were becoming a major problem.

>

> 2. Volunteer weeds, these are plants which were sown

> as a crop but which then also grow in the next crop

> even sometimes for several years after they were

> originally planted so you have oilseed rape plants

> growing in wheat or wheat in potatoes. If you have

> two crops which are herbicide tolerant to the same

> herbicide as in the USA with soybean and maize you

> can not control the volunteer weeds in the next crop

>

> The answer to both problems is adding another

> different herbicide to the glyphosate in order to

> kill these resistant plants and weeds. In farming

> this is called a tank mix that is adding two or more

> other chemicals into the tank of the sprayer.

>

> So other herbicides like, 2 4 D, MCPA or Atrazine

> are used to control weeds all three of these

> herbicides are ones that farmers had hoped to stop

> using or to have reduced the usage. But in both the

> US and Canada their use is increasing.

>

> In the USA and Canada farmers are also using more

> glyphosate, they were told that one spray of

> glyphosate at the right time would control weeds but

> this has proved not to be the case many farmers told

> me that they are spraying 2 or 3 times to control

> weeds.

>

> I have here a page from farmindustrynews.com 8th

> October 2002 in an article about weed control a

> spokesperson for Syngenta David Elsers says:

>

> " If you use roundup on soybean and corn year after

> year its not a question of if but when you'll run

> into a resistance problem. We strongly discourage

> using glyphosate on the same field two years in a

> row " .

>

> So even the sellers of GM crops are accepting that

> there are problems.

>

> I don't have time now to cover all the problems

> farmers are encountering with weed control. But it

> is very clear to me that far from reducing pesticide

> use it has in fact increased it.

>

> Maybe it is something, which will come up in

> questions later. I have one final thing to say on

> weeds from my visit to India and other work I have

> been involved in the developing world, weeds can

> play a very important role as food for humans and

> animals during the growing season are therefore an

> important part of agriculture and food.

>

> It will reduce the cost of growing crops

>

> GM seeds cost farmers more to buy than ordinary

> seeds but before you can even buy them you have to

> buy the right to buy them by signing and paying for

> a technology agreement which in Canada cost $15 per

> acre and in the USA so much a bag of seed. Add to

> this the extra pesticide used by most farmers and

> with crop yields the same as conventional at best.

>

> It is very doubtful if there is any reduction in

> growing costs. Especially over the long term as the

> problem with herbicide resistant weeds and

> volunteers becomes greater. I will say more on the

> technology agreements later time willing.

>

> It will provide environmental benefits

>

> As much of this claim is based on the reduced use of

> herbicides which as I have already explained is not

> the case it is difficult to see any other benefits

> for current GM crops.

>

> IN the USA I spoke with farming advisers who were

> telling farmers to use a residual autumn herbicide

> spray to kill weeds and volunteer plants over the

> winter - winter stubble and the plants in it are an

> important source of food for wildlife such as birds

> spraying to kill all live plants will not help that

> wildlife.

>

> GM crops, conventional and organic crops can

> co-exist side by side

>

> This is one of the most discussed problems about GM

> crops particularly here in the UK. From the

> experiences of farmers in the USA and Canada

> co-existence can not and will not work.

>

> Research has been done and is being done which is

> showing that contamination is happening due to

> pollen being blown in the wind carried by insects

> such as bees. That gene bridging is much more wide

> spread than was originally thought due to volunteers

> in crops from.

>

> In Canada recent work has shown that the

> contamination extends even to the seed which is

> being used by the plant breeders to breed new

> varieties in spite of very strict rules of

> separation distances between crops, the cleaning of

> seeding and harvest machinery. In recent tests on 27

> seed plots tested for GM contamination 95% were

> contaminated and of that 95 % 52% was above the

> legal maximum level for Canada for seed crops.

>

> In western Canada it is now impossible to grow

> organic oilseed rape crops due to this

> contamination. In the USA with soybeans and maize it

> is very much the same story.

>

> I do not believe that we have any chance of

> co-existence. If in Canada oilseed rape can reach

> the point in 6-7 years since GM crops started being

> grown that 95% of the seed stocks are contaminated

> it will happen here too and much faster in an

> agriculturally crowded Britain

>

> With this problem of co-existence comes problems in

> relationship to the technology agreements I

> mentioned earlier and in farmers rights as in the

> right to choose to grow non GM or organic crops and

> in who is liable if contamination occurs.

>

> I will expand on this question of liability in a

> minute but first

>

> Food safety

>

> There has been no long-term study done on the

> effects of eating GM crops as food for either humans

> or animals. All of the claims for food safety are

> based on the assumption that as these crops are

> substantially equivalent or in plain English nearly

> the same as the non-GM crops.

>

> So if the non-GM crops are safe so must the GM ones

> be too, because all they have is some extra genes.

> Many point to the USA and say they have been eating

> it for 6 years and nobodies died, how do we know if

> the research has not been done.

>

> Liability and technology agreements

>

> One of the major issues surrounding GM crops for

> farmers is that of our rights as farmers to save

> seed and who is liable for any environmental damage,

> food safety problems or contamination of non gm or

> organic crops.

>

> At the moment in all of the countries growing GM

> crops the liability for any problems occurring from

> GM crops lies with the farmer. The companies who

> have developed this technology accept no liability

> beyond the seed germinating. So as it stands the

> farmer is the one held liable if anything goes

> wrong.

>

> Quote from technology agreement:

>

> " In no event shall Monsanto or any seller be liable

> for any incidental, consequential, special or

> punitive damages " .

>

> Now if these crops are safe to eat, benefit the

> environment and according to those who are

> developing it a generally good thing, why will they

> not except liability for it beyond the seed

> germinating.

>

> Farmers in the UK have been told by insurance

> companies including the leading farm insurers that

> we will not get insurance cover for GM crops and for

> any liability arising out of our growing a GM crop.

>

> In both the USA and Canada the biotech companies

> have been very aggressive in using the law against

> farmers who have used their patented genes in

> growing crops however it got here and who have not

> signed a technology agreement with them. Leaving

> farmers facing large fines and ruin for what is

> being seen by the courts as stealing of the GM genes

> however it came to be in the crop.

> Again I hope we have time to expand on this during

> questions.

>

> So to finish as a farmer I have serious doubts as to

> the claims made for current GM crops. So I see no

> benefits for UK farmers, consumers or the

> environment if we use such technology in the UK. In

> fact I see major dangers for farmers over the

> question of liability and their rights to save seed

> from one year to use in the next.

>

> I have heard many times over the last few weeks that

> yes there are some problems with the current crops

> but the next generation of GM crops will be better.

> In my life time I have heard this many times just

> round the corner it will be better or yes there may

> be problems but science will come up with the

> answers but that's what happened with the Nuclear

> industry in the 1960's we were told science will

> give us the answers to the problems and yet 40 years

> later we still don't have all the answers.

>

> I don't want it to be the same for GM crops. Food is

> too important to our survival to get it wrong.

>