GM Maize abandoned: - April 2004
GM crop approved: - March 2004
GMO Debate: - June 2003
GMOs: - Somerset against GMOs: FoE press release
Post GMO Debate: - July 2003
GM Science Review Report: - July 2003

GM Crop Report: - December 2002

GM Crop debate - Mar.18th. 2000

Main Index: - with 'search this site' facility

A number of environmental groups welcomed the decision by Bayer. They also expressed the hope that future testing of GM crops would take account of the need for proper controls before they enter the countryside.

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has published new guidance on the monitoring of GM crops. Future monitoring of GM crops will include looking for unanticipated adverse effects as a new compulsory condition of approval. Each plan will also be specific to the GM variety being tested.

PRESS RELEASE from 'Five Year Freeze'

The Five Year Freeze warmly welcomed the news that the two remaining applications to place GM seeds on the UK's "national seed list" were withdrawn by Bayer CropScience on 9th November. There are now currently no GM varieties awaiting seed listing approval down from a high point of 53 in 1997/98 none of which gained approval.

One variety is a spring oilseed rape and the other is a winter oilseed rape both are modified to be tolerant to Bayer's herbicide Liberty (glufosinate ammonium). The applications were first made in December 1997 when the company fully expected the first GM varieties to be given the go ahead soon afterwards. However, fierce public opposition to GM crops based on concerns about significant gaps in scientific knowledge of food safety and environmental impact delayed final commercial approvals. Strong criticism of the herbicide tolerant crops came from English Nature who were concerned that these crops could harm to farmland wildlife by reducing food sources and make an already serious situation worse.

The government sponsored Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE) were set up to test the impact of GM herbicide tolerant crops compared with conventional ones. Winter and spring oilseed rape were both included in the FSE. The results for spring oilseed were published in October 2003 and found GM oilseed was more harmful to farmland wildlife than the conventionally grown varieties. The results of the FSE for winter oilseed rape are expected shortly.

It is believed that the decision to withdraw the GM oilseed rape varieties is for commercial reasons because the two seeds have been overtaken in their performance by conventional hybrids in the last 7 years. Coincidentally, Bayer recently revealed to Greenpeace India that they no longer intended to produce GM seeds for India where there is also opposition to the technology.

Commenting Pete Riley, Director of the Five Year Freeze, said:

"This is great news for farmers, consumers and the environment although not entirely unexpected. This means that no GM commercial crops can be grown before 2008 but first they have to get EU approval. The Government must use the breathing space to put together a coherent strategy to put the whole of UK farming on a sustainable footing. This should produce huge opportunities for research into new farming techniques and training farmers in delivering clean rivers and water supply and a diverse countryside without resorting to GM crops. The Government also needs to use the next three years to develop an economic climate that means farmers can make sustainable farming profitable".

See more Press releases on the Five Year Freeze website.

GM Crop Approval

In addition National Listing of the seed (Chardon LL) has to be granted and the herbicide Liberty (to which it is tolerant) approved. Neither can happen until certain conditions on Co-existence, compensation to non-GM and Organic farmers and a Code of Practise have been agreed.

Opponents of the commercial growth of GM crops are concerned that the tests were not conclusive due to the use of a now banned herbicide on the crops in comparison with GM. This, they say, distorted the findings on environmental effects.

Sugar Beet and Oil Seed Rape were tested also and they will not receive consent. No commercial planting is expected before 2005.

The long awaited debate on GM crops finally started at the begining of June. There are already criticisms that it has been underfunded and that it is biased. Equally disturbing is the government's apparent unwillingness to agree to EU rulings regarding labelling of food containing GMOs. Some say that they are in fact obstructing them rather than annoy the US government. Attempts to force the issue on GM crops through the WTO is also a matter of concern.

The government report published in December 2002 raised a number of issues
'This report on research carried out from 1994-1997 and 1997-2000 was published on the Web at 10.00 p.m.on Christmas Eve. The timing (a good time to bury bad news?) and the fact that it was done ‘by a technician clearing his desk before the holiday’ (since when do ‘technicians’ have authority to publish reports?) led me to immediately search for, and read the information available......' For the full article and link to the report see
Burning Issues: GM Crop Report

Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:23
Friends of the Earth
Immediate release: 23 July 2003

SOMERSET BACKS GM-FREE POLICY

Today Somerset became the latest council in the southwest to state its opposition to GM crops and back policies to protect the county from GM pollution. Friends of the Earth, which launched its GM-free Britain campaign last year ^[1], welcomed the move.

The resolution, passed unanimously at the full council session this morning, stated that the council does not believe that GM crops should be grown commercially, has reconfirmed its GM-free policy for county farms and suppliers and will apply to prevent specific GM crops from being grown in the county once it has had the European legislation clarified ^[2], if that is what the public in Somerset want ^[3].

There is widespread opposition to GM crops in Somerset. Taunton Friends of the Earth has set up a database of over 20,000 acres which landowners have pledged to keep GM-free. 1,500 postcards have been sent to the county council, central Government and to Europe voicing local feeling, as part of a county-wide roadshow over the summer.

Tushie Garstang from Taunton Friends of the Earth said:

• "We are very pleased with this unanimous vote today. Tthere is strong local opposition to GM crops and foods in Somerset, and we are renowned for our high quality local food. This vote clearly shows that the council wants to protect this reputation and oppose GM crops. We will keep a close eye on the council to make sure they follow through on what they have promised today."

Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner in the South West, Keith Hatch said:

• "This is another positive move from a council in the Southwest, where more and more local authorities are taking action to be GM-free. This is also more evidence that people do not want their food, farming and environment contaminated with GM pollution, and another reason why the Government must refuse to allow GM crops to be commercially grown in the southwest and throughout the UK"

Pressure for a GM-free Southwest is growing with Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, and South Gloucestershire councils all taking steps to go GM-free.

The Government is expected to decide later this year whether to allow GM crops to be commercially grown in the UK. Commercialisation risks widespread GM contamination of food,crops and the environment.

Notes:

• That this council notes with dismay the lack of scientific evidence offered to the public attending the 'GM Nation' debate that took place in Taunton on 7 June 2003, organised by the national GM public debate steering group.
• This council believes the fullest independent scientific evidence should be presented to the public to enable a proper debate to take place, including the results of the field trials, which are due to be published later this summer."
• and declares that;
  In the light of so little firm evidence of the effects of GM on either the UK environment or of GM food on human health, it does not believe that GM crops should be grown commercially. In this, it is fulfilling its duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of South Somerset communities under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000.
• Reiterates its policy in relation to county farms and in relation to county suppliers as resolved at full council on the 26th of May 1999 and by the Countryside and Heritage board on the 9th of June 1999.

• requesting the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to extend the period of public consultation to enable maximum public participation in this debate, on a fully informed basis.
• and to clarify urgently the meaning of Article 19 of Directive 2001/18/EC and whether the council could exempt the geographical area of Somerset in order to protect the environment and the integrity of Somerset as a GM-free area, should that be the eventual wish of Somerset's public ( in that event the council would further seek to safeguard Somerset's farmers who wish to remain GM-free by raising an objection to each national licensing of a GM crop by using a standard letter from the county community protection officer)
• agrees to revue its policy in the light of new evidence in 3 years time

Press Office
Friends of the Earth
www.foe.co.uk

FoE GM-free Britain campaign - There is a map showing GM-free areas in Britain where people can email their local authority asking them to go GM-free. By clicking on the counties you can find out who is campaigning locally too.

The ‘Great G.M. Debate’ is over and we await the report due in September. There are still many uncertainties and what sounds like a firm ‘NO’ from the Supermarkets, who see that their customers would not want the end products. My own viewing of the promotional video and reading the material provided has in fact strengthened my feelings against the introduction of G.M. crops under present conditions.

The following questions still require answers:-

1. Cross contamination cannot be avoided (admitted by all concerned) so how can organic/conventional production be sustained?
2. Who pays in the case of loss of revenue from contaminated organic or conventional crops?
3. How stable is the DNA in modified species? Can it be broken down in the gut of animals and to what extent can the foreign genes be passed through the gut wall?
4. Have the effects of Glufosinate and Glyphosate herbicide residues on animals and humans been researched? If so are the results in the public domain, and if not why not?
5. What effects do concentrated applications of herbicides have on soil micro-organisms?

Stewart Wells, the president of the National Farmers’ Union in Canada, is on record as saying about GM crops that - “The promises of higher yields and lower costs have not materialised.”

It would appear that the whole of the canola (oil seed rape) crops in Canada are ‘contaminated’ with GM genes and cannot be sold as organic or even conventional on world markets. If this is true then a similar step from which there may be no return would not appear to be appropriate for the U.K. at the present time.

Finally:- The latest idea from the E.U.
‘Regional and local authorities will not be able to ban the use of GM crops within their areas, unless they can prove it is impossible for them to be grown without contaminating conventional and organic crops.’
This statement is part of the new guidelines on co-existence of crops issued in Brussels on Wednesday (25 July). EU farm commissioner, Franz Fischler is suggesting that GM and Organic crops must be allowed to co-exist. Fortunately several member states - notably Austria, Germany and Luxembourg are already questioning the wisdom of this policy. The government of the U.K. is, not surprisingly, silent!

T. Brighton: - July 2003

The summary can be found at  www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/epg-1-5-84.htm on which page there is also a link to the full report. However it can only be read online and cannot be saved onto computer.

Key pages of interest are 112 - 114 where ‘gene-flow’ into other species is discussed.

• Page 112: ‘Extensive hybridisation was observed when oilseed rape and Brassica rapa (wild turnip or ‘Bargeman’s Cabbage’) grew together in fields. Hybrids were fertile although seed production was low’
• Pages 113 - 114: ‘There are weedy populations of B. rapa co-existing and hybridising with oilseed rape in England. It is likely that these populations will readily aquire genes from oilseed rape particularly if they enhance the survival or fitness characteristics of B. rapa growing as a weed in oilseed rape crops.’

And, commenting on the need for more information -

‘Gene flow should be investigated on a landscape scale using larger numbers of transgenic pollen sources . . .

There are a number of concerns to be raised:

• 1) Why was ‘gene transfer’ not found in the first years of the research? (1994-1997). Was it that different varieties of G.M. rape were used? Was it that these line of research was not included? There must be a reason and it should be found as it may well affect present as well as future research.
• 2) Are the Government seriously considering trials ‘on a landscape scale using larger numbers of transgenic pollen sources’ ? Surely this will lead to widespread contamination of wild plants and have possible unforseen consequences for the environment.
• 3) If it takes 2 years to produce a report and release of genetic material is still taking place, irrevocable damage will have been done before any assessment can be made. Why not stop all trials NOW and assess them before going any further?

A quote from the Government:-

The Government is neither pro nor anti GM crops. It recognises that they have both potential risks and benefits. Its first priority is to protect human health and the environment, and it will not approve GM crops releases if there is any serious doubt about their safety. The Government is also pro consumer choice and the need to be guided by sound science.

Really???

T. Brighton: - December 2002

On Saturday the 18th. March there was an opportunity to hear Dr. Peter Carruthers speak at the Church Hall, Christ Church, Warminster,Wiltshire, on 'Refusing the King's Food?' a biblical perspective on genetically modified crops The meeting was sponsored by the Salisbury Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship.

Dr. Peter Carruthers is Chairman of the Agricultural Christian Fellowship. (The ACF has set up the Farm Crisis Network in response to the current situation in Britain's agricultural industry.) Following many years with the Centre for Agricultural Strategy at the University of Reading he is now with the Countryside Agency.

Following a reading from the book of Daniel Dr. Carruthers led us through three major 'garden' events:- the Fall, Jesus in Gethsemane, and Jesus mistaken for the gardener after the resurrection. God and man work together in the garden for which we give thanks at Harvest festival. However with GM crops we are not sure whether they come from God and whether we can give wholehearted thanks. Dr. Carruthers then outlined several reports on GM crops emphasizing the continuing public debate.

Two questions were discussed: 'What are the key issues for Christians?' and: 'Which are most important?'

Issues raised were:- who will be responsible if there are problems? ; justice ; concentration of power ; interference with creation and 'no transgenics'.

This led to 'How do we relate to creation?' and 'How do we relate to each other?'

Dr Carruthers offered a Biblical response. God is concerned for justice and the poor. (Amos 5 v11-12. Prov 14 v31. Is 5 v7. Rev 6 v5-6). Rev 13 is a picture of control exercised by men of power over the food supply. How then can we act as Christians and as a church?

We need to care for people and pray for the world. In response to society and culture we can:- renounce and separate; tolerate but challenge; affirm and uphold. In which category do we put our response to GM crops?

Daniel refused the King's food - why? Was it to show that he rejected the power behind it? We say 'No' to some things not because of what they are but what they represent. If GM crops are a symbol of exploitation and power do we need to refuse them on those grounds irrespective of their intrinsic qualities?

We were left with the question 'Is our refusal to 'bow down' a witness to God's love and call for justice for the world - our call to be different.

Valerie Brighton 29.3.00

The full text of Dr.Carruthers talk was published in the ACF members magazine.