Document Directory
14 Jun 99 - GMO - Limp lettuces face crunch in GM trials
14 Jun 99 - GMO -
Prince's Wildlife Trust seeks GM ban
13 Jun 99 - GMO -
Supermarkets join forces on GM animal feed
13 Jun 99 -
GMO - GM food advisers have links to biotech companies
12 Jun 99 - GMO -
Church may allow GM crop trials on its land
12 Jun 99 - GMO - Now
experts fear GM 'brain drain'
10 Jun 99 - GMO - Producers
turn backs on GM food
10 Jun 99 - GMO -
Researcher's work 'had run its course'
10 Jun 99 - GMO - Prince backs GM
scientist
10 Jun 99 - GMO - £3m to
rid McCartney foods of GM
10 Jun 99 - GMO - GM
solution to alcohol-free beer problem
10 Jun 99 - GMO - GM
food will return, says producer peer
08 Jun 99 - GMO - GM
test sites fell by half in past year
07 Jun 99 - GMO -
Charles's food label nears organic ideal
07 Jun 99 - GMO - Farmers
set to abandon crop trials
07 Jun 99 - GMO -
Blair shifts to 'open mind' on GM foods
07 Jun 99 - GMO - First GM
farmer destroys his crops
07
Jun 99 - GMO - Blair asks public to keep an open mind on biotech foods
07 Jun 99 - GMO -
Farmer destroys GM test site after protests
07 Jun 99 - GMO - Blair
softens stance on GM foods
07
Jun 99 - GMO - GM food ban would undermine British science, says Blair
06
Jun 99 - GMO - Modified corn on sale in UK 'kills' life-saving antibiotics
06 Jun 99 - GMO -
Minister fears 'three heads' from GM foods
06 Jun 99 - GMO - We don't
believe our food is safe
06
Jun 99 - GMO - Blair fumes, but public backs Charles's stand against GM
06 Jun 99 - GMO -
Cherie's against GM too, says the Prince
06 Jun 99 - GMO - Blair:
Keep Open Mind On Gm Foods
03 Jun 99 - GMO - Getting it
wrong about food
03 Jun 99 -
GMO - WI joins call for five-year ban on GM food crops
02 Jun 99 - GMO -
Locations of UK GMO test site on web
02 Jun 99 - GMO - Hunting crops
02 Jun 99 - GMO - The
10 questions - Government answers
02 Jun
99 - GMO - Industry condemns test site map as terrorist charter
02 Jun 99 - GMO
- Advisers helped to nurture the royal concern
02 Jun 99 - GMO -
Organic farm groups split over gene crops
02 Jun 99 -
GMO - - Prince and Blair clash over GM food 'tampering'
02 Jun 99 - GMO - Prince
opens Labour rift on GM crops
01 Jun 99 - GMO - Charles
forces reverse on GM foods
01 Jun 99 - GMO - Prince doubts
GM food safety
01 Jun 99 - GMO
- GM forms of wild species 'may lead to crisis'
01 Jun 99 - GMO - Why
Prince went tabloid on GM food
01 Jun 99 - GMO -
Prince's GM attack upsets ministers
01 Jun 99 - GMO
- New crops attract rare birds, say US farmers
01 Jun 99 - GMO - Hooligans
force seed firm to quit
01 Jun 99 - GMO - First
blood to anti-GM activists
30 May 99 - GMO -
Monsanto sows seeds of its own destruction
30 May 99 - GMO - Prince to
meet GM row scientist
28 May 99 - GMO -
Euro-law to put GM food into Britain
27
May 99 - GMO - Genetically altered violet carnations on sale this year
27 May 99 - GMO -
Butterflies 'killed by pollen from GM corn'
23 May 99 - GMO -
Public floods Prince's GM crops website
21 May 99 -
GMO - Expert urges US to act over toxic GM pollen alert
21 May 99 - GMO - Doctors on
alert for GM diseases
21 May 99 - GMO -
The risks of proving that there is no risk
14 Jun 99 - GMO - Limp lettuces face crunch in GM
trials
By Nick Nuttall, Technology Correspondent
Times ... Monday 14 June 1999
THE traditional English round lettuce may change shape and texture in the latest advances
for genetic modification. British and Italian researchers have found a way to make
lettuces curlier, crunchier, faster growing and less likely to wilt.
The same genes which control how curly a lettuce leaf will grow can also be tweaked to
alter the size and shape of leaf veins and the speed at which leaves develop. The
development is said to be the biggest in lettuce growing since the Egyptians began
modifying wild varieties 6,000 years ago.
Domenico Mariotti, of the Istituto di Biochimica ed Ecofisiologia Vegetali del CNR in
Rome, whose team is working with British growers, said yesterday that the same gene
modification could be made to other leaf crops to create super curly spinach, or cabbages
that look exotic but taste like conventional varieties.
He said that he did not believe the research would attract the wrath of the anti-GM lobby.
"Genes and promoters affecting lettuce leaves derive from plant species. The work
involves over-expressing plant genes and so have no negative impact on human or animal
health," he said.
Some critics of GM food fear that pollen will spread into the
wild and contaminate organic crops or cross with relatives to make super weeds .
Dr Mariotti said: "Lettuce is a crop mainly grown in greenhouses and does not set
seeds before being consumed, so the cultivation environment is strictly controlled".
Greenhouse trials of the new gene-altered lettuces will be conducted by G's Fresh Salads in Ely, Cambridgeshire , which is working
with the Italian team under a European Union programmme called Euroleaf. Chris Foulds, for
the company, said yesterday: "I am sure any lettuce could benefit from this work in
terms of appearance, quality and shelf life".
It was hoped to have a range of commercial varieties under commercial trials in three to
four years. One aim was to improve the texture of the traditional soft, round or
butterhead English lettuce, he said. It was also hoped to produce varieties with far more
curl that taste the same but resemble an Italian lolla rosso.
Mr Foulds, whose company produces bagged salad products, said that another target was the
iceberg lettuce with its generally straight, flat leaves. "The mid-rib of iceberg
leaves bruises very easily, so the idea is to make this smaller in proportion to the rest
of the leaf," he said.
The lettuce breakthrough has been made by researchers in Italy and at the University of
Antwerp who are part of the European Plant Biotechnology Network. The scientists, whose
work is reported in the journal Plant Physiology, have identified genes called knotted
homeobox genes, from the laboratory plant arabidopsis.
These genes appear to control production of natural plant compounds called cytokinins,
which play a key role in controlling leaf shape. Another "promoter" gene from
peas is used to control the rate of "over-expression". Dr Mariotti said they had
successfuly modified Luxor and Cortina lettuces into new shapes.
14 Jun 99 - GMO - Prince's Wildlife Trust seeks
GM ban
By Jason Allardyce
Times ... Monday 14 June 1999
A major Scottish conservation body headed by the Prince of Wales has condemned
the use of genetically modified crops and called for an indefinite ban on their
cultivation and use in Britain .
The Scottish Wildlife Trust, of which the Prince is patron, also wants foreign GM food to be banned from this country. The trust
has accused companies that invested billions of dollars into developing the plants of
wanting a quick return regardless of the dangers posed to the environment.
Last week the Prince gave warning of the dangers of GM food and called for more checks on
the process. A trust spokesman said the Prince was aware of its views but had no input in
forming them.
13 Jun 99 - GMO - Supermarkets join forces on GM
animal feed
By Marie Woolf
Independent ... Sunday 13 June 1999
Britain's supermarkets are planning to take from their shelves
meat from animals fed on GM crops because of consumer concerns about possible health
risks.
The move by a consortium including Sainsbury, Safeway, Marks & Spencer, Northern
Foods, Nestle and Unilever, will come as a huge blow to the GM
industry .
Earlier this year, Sainsbury became the latest in a string of British supermarkets,
including M&S and Iceland, to remove all GM ingredients from
its own-brand range of foods .
Now the supermarket giant has teamed up with food producers to
ask the world's biggest grain producers to grow them GM-free crops for poultry, cattle and
pig feed.
A letter from Sainsbury's head of food safety to a genetic testing laboratory in the
United States, which the Independent on Sunday has obtained, shows that the company is actively pursuing a route to GM-free meat.
The move follows rising fears about the development of antibiotic
resistance from GM food which could arise from feeding GM crops to animals .
Scientists have warned that GM crops containing an antibiotic
resistance marker gene could harm our ability to fight fatal diseases such as meningitis,
typhoid and Aids-related illnesses with penicillin.
GM animal feed, containing crops grown in the United States, is used in Britain but there
are no laws requiring it to be labelled as such. "We took the decision to remove GM
ingredients from our own-brand products earlier this year because our customers wanted
that," said a Sainsbury's spokesman. "The logical next
step is to try to find GM-free animal feed. People want the meat they eat to be
fed on non-GM feed."
The Oxford Union will tomorrow debate a motion proposing that farm animals should not be
fed GM material. The organisers of the debate say Monsanto, the
genetic engineering compnay, withdrew from speaking on the GM animal issue "because
it was afraid of losing".
Jeff Rooker, the food safety minister, also declined to speak after his invitation was
vetted by the office of Jack Cunningham, who has been pushing the Government's defence of
GM food. Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist who sparked a furore over GM foods, will argue
for a ban on GM animal feed.
13 Jun 99 - GMO - GM food advisers have links to
biotech companies
by Paul Nuki Consumer Affairs Editor
Times ... Sunday 13 June 1999
More than a third of the government-appointed experts on the five
key scientific committees that advise ministers on the safety of genetically modified (GM)
food have links with organisations involved in the new technology.
On some committees - including the key "novel foods"
committee, which effectively licenses GM crops in Britain - industry domination is almost complete with more than half the
membership linked, either personally or through their employers, to biotechnology
interests.
The industry bias affects even the lay members appointed
by government officials to represent public or consumer interests on its five main
committees.
The only "consumer" representative on the novel foods committee, for instance,
is married to the managing director of Boots the chemist. The same committee's ethical
adviser, although a critic of the system, receives funding from the Gatsby Foundation, a
charity set up by Lord Sainsbury, the science minister, to fund education and plant
science.
Alan Williams, Labour MP for Camarthen East & Dinefwr and a member of the science and
technology select committee, said: "There are some members of these committees who
are paid by industry and much more balance is required. There is no reason why scientists
should be regarded as having a monopoly on moral or professional integrity."
The Sunday Times examined the past and present commercial interests of the members of each
of the five scientific committees that advise ministers on food safety. These are: the
advisory committee on novel foods and process (NCNFP); the advisory committee on releases
to the environment (Acre); the committee on medical aspects of food (Coma); the committee
on toxicity of chemicals in food (Cot); and the food advisory committee (Fac). In total, 40% - or 28 of the 70 committee members covered - were found to have
links with the biotechnology business. At least 13 are linked to one of the three biggest
players in the sector - Monsanto, Zeneca and Novartis.
On the two pivotal committees - NCNFP and Acre - more than half
the members have links to the biotechnology sector . They include Dr Philip
Dale, who heads a department at the John Innes Centre researching the genetic engineering
of oilseed rape; Professor T Sanders, a consultant for Nutrasweet, a subsidiary of
Monsanto; and Dr Ian Garner, assistant director of research at PPL Therapeutics, a
biotechnology company owned by the Roslin Institute, creator of Dolly the cloned sheep.
The food committees, although advisory, play a key part in the regulation of the food
industry in Britain. Their role is to assess the scientific risks that new technologies
pose to consumers and the environment; ministers cannot license products without their
backing.
Critical attention was first focused on the committees' links with industry when Friends
of the Earth revealed that all the 160 applications that Acre had received to carry out GM
crop trials and research had been approved.
The Sunday Times investigation also analysed the backgrounds and
interests of "consumer" representatives on government food committees. Of the 19
individuals covered, not one was employed by the Consumers' Association, Britain's largest
and most respected promoter of consumer rights.
"We are not happy about the whole structure of government food committees because of
their industry bias," said the Consumers' Association.
The Rev Michael Reiss, ethical adviser to ACNFP, said he thought the system was flawed and
"genuinely lay people" should be given seats on advisory committees. "Also,
at some point you need to involve the sceptics on these committees," he said.
"For reasons of fairness, expertise and public confidence, the whole spectrum of
public opinion must be included."
12 Jun 99 - GMO - Church may allow GM crop trials
on its land
By Victoria Combe and Aisling Irwin
Telegraph ... Saturday 12 June 1999
The Church of England's farmlands may be used for trials of genetically modified crops,
bringing the Church into direct conflict with its
future Supreme Governor, the Prince of Wales.
The Church is to hold urgent ethical debates after its commissioners said yesterday that
they had been approached by the Ministry of Agriculture requesting a site to rent for
trials including GM crop tests.
The Church's official stance, published last April, has been broadly positive towards GM
crops. However, the Rev Richard Thomas, communications officer for the diocese of Oxford,
yesterday predicted a "huge outcry" from
congregations if the commissioners endorsed experiments on their land.
In an article the Prince of Wales wrote for The Telegraph last year,he said that genetic
engineering "takes mankind into realms that belong to God and to God alone". His
views appear directly to contradict those of the Church's Board of Social Responsibility,
which argued strongly in its four-page April briefing document that GM experiments should
continue, with careful monitoring.
Mr Thomas said that the report had not filtered down to the wider Church. Its contents, he
said, would provoke a "vigorous debate". Church Commissioners confirmed
yesterday that they were holding discussions with Maff. The Ethical Investments Group,
which advises the commissioners, will debate the issue next month.
12 Jun 99 - GMO - Now experts fear GM 'brain
drain'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Independent ... Saturday 12 June 1999
Scientists have warned that the public could lose the services of Britain's best
scientific advisers on GM technology over unfair accusations that they are too close to
the biotechnology industry.
The anti-GM food lobby has claimed that senior scientific advisers to the Government have
a vested interest in promoting GM issues because of research grants their institutes
receive from biotechnology companies.
Although the members of scientific advisory committees have to declare any personal and
"non-personal" interests - which covers research funding to their institutes -
critics claim that commercial funding leads to unofficial promotion of GM food and crops.
A significant proportion of the Government's food advisers have declared both personal and
non-personal interests, which range from paid freelance consultancies to being in an
academic department which receives industry funding.
Almost every academic member of the Food Advisory Committee (FAC)
and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) has declared non-personal
interests, which could appear to conflict with the objectivity of their advice.
However, Sir Colin Campbell, chairman of the FAC, said such interests do not affect the
impartial nature of the advice these scientists give. "The accusation that members
have commercial ties is a sweeping generalisation," he said.
There is a danger that scientists, who give their advice on an unpaid basis, will step
down from government committees because of the nature of the unfair accusations levelled
against them, Sir Colin said.
"The accusations are sometimes malign in the way they are phrased. If these
scientists are trawled through the press with such accusations, they will leave," he
said.
Professor Janet Bainbridge, who chairs the ACNFP, said all links between scientists and
industry are open and transparent. Furthermore, if a subject is to be discussed at a
committee meeting, anyone with vested interests has to leave the room.
"As the chair of a committee I want the best scientific advisers I can get and, if
this criticism goes on, the scientists are going to say 'I don't need the hassle'. They
are not in it for the money after all," she said.
Over the past 20 years, since Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister, overhauled
science funding, scientists have been encouraged to seek financial support from industry
to bolster public research grants. This means that many of the best scientists almost
invariably receive commercial grants, said Professor Catherine Geissler, head of health
sciences at King's College London and a member of the FAC.
She has declared non-personal interests because members of her university department
receive industry support. "There is a great deal of pressure to bring in funding from
any source," she said.
Doug Parr, scientific director of Greenpeace, said: "Realistically, the argument
saying that you won't find a good scientist without industry connections is almost
certainly right. An obsessive focus on industry connections is unhelpful."
Discredited scientist hits back at critics
Arpad Pusztai, the scientist who caused a furore by claiming that the
public are guinea pigs in a mass experiment into genetically modified food , is
planning a fightback against attacks on his credibility.
He plans to release on the Internet this weekend the confidential reports of the six
anonymous referees who were commissioned by the Royal Society to assess his work on rats
fed GM potatoes.
The public, he said, will be able to make up their own minds on the Royal Society's
conclusions damning his work, which were based on the reports of the six referees.
Dr Pusztai, a former scientist from the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, claimed in
a television interview last year that the potatoes stunted the
rats' growth and damaged their immune systems . A panel of named experts drawn
together by the Royal Society said on the basis of the six anonymous reviews that Dr
Pusztai's work was fundamentally flawed and that no meaningful conclusions could be made.
Dr Pusztai was in effect discredited and further humiliated by Sir Robert May, the
government's chief scientist, who in a radio interview described his work on GM potatoes
as "garbage".
Dr Pusztai said yesterday he views the Royal Society investigation as a "kangaroo
court" that failed to look at all the evidence he gathered on the GM potato
experiments. "I'd very much like to know the names of these referees. I don't regard
them as my peers unless I know who they are," Dr Pusztai said. "I've published
276 scientific papers. I know exactly what I'm talking about because I've refereed
scientific papers all my life. I don't think the Royal Society has a leg to stand
on."
Dr Pusztai said he has submitted a research paper on the GM potato experiment to a
scientific journal but he has not as yet heard whether it will be published. He said that
if he cannot publish the research in Britain, he will attempt to have it published in the
United States where the climate was "less biased" against him.
10 Jun 99 - GMO - Producers turn backs on GM food
By Charles Arthur and Jonathan Glennie
Independent ... Thursday 10 June 1999
Britain's food producers are in headlong retreat from the use of
genetically modified (GM) soya in their products after a consumer
backlash against the technology, The Independent has found.
Almost all the major producers have taken steps to eliminate GM
soya and maize, or derivatives of them, from their products . The development
will push up the producers' costs by as much as 10 per cent, and may mean that foods
specifically incorporating GM elements will not appear on retailers' shelves in Britain
for at least two years.
But Lord Haskins, chairman of Northern Foods, which is one of the biggest food companies,
said yesterday that the reintroduction would not happen until consumers, and then
retailers, seem eager for it. He added that in time there would be GM products available
that offered a price or other advantage to shoppers and retailers.
Only a handful of companies are now using soya that is not specifically from non-GM
sources. This marks an almost complete reversal of the position a year ago.
Yesterday Northern Foods announced formally that it was stopping
using GM ingredients , a move revealed by The Independent last month. The decision is a blow to the Prime Minister , Tony Blair,
who has repeated backed GM technology, since Lord Haskins is considered to be among his
favourite businessmen.
Lord Haskins said he was unimpressed by the pressure that producers have experienced from
retailers. "I'm ashamed at the way the retailers have wobbled," he said.
"They should have given their customers choice [through labelling]." But he told
the BBC's Today programme that the company was bowing to buyer
pressure. "I think it's clear that consumers don't want to buy GM food," he
commented.
He added that there was no incentive to use GM materials at
present : "There's no price attraction, there's no product attraction at
the present time and in that sense one is forced to renounce genetically engineered
produce."
A similar ambivalence has been expressed by the huge food group Nestle. The company
announced in April that it was removing GM ingredients from its
products, including its baby milk . Yet its chairman, Peter Brabeck, said last
month that GM food is "the technology of the future" and added: "Building a
wall against it is not a sensible strategy."
But in the face of consumer and retailer pressure, food producers have had to examine the
source of products such as soya and maize.
In the United States, GM varieties are mixed with conventional ones after harvesting.
About 30 per cent of soya grown there is genetically modified.
European labelling requirements mean that such mixed harvests
should be labelled as GM - even if they only contain tiny amounts of the GM product. This
has caused huge problems for retailers and producers, as shoppers have shunned GM-labelled
products.
The reaction has been swift. In the past week both Walker's, the
crisp maker, and the cereal manufacturer, Kelloggs, have shifted so that they now declare
that their products come from "non-GM sources" . Walker's said last
night that it "is confident in our suppliers' control of the origin and variety of
soya", while Kelloggs said that the maize used in its cereals comes from non-GM
growers in Argentina.
A week ago a survey by Friends of the Earth found that 24 of the
biggest 30 food producers in the UK were moving completely to non-GM sources .
Kelloggs and Walker's were among those whose positions were unclear. Last night only
Associated British Foods, which owns brands such as Kingsmill bread, had not publicly
clarified its position.
Meanwhile only a couple of the foods remaining on supermarket shelves - notably a
Sharwood's Chinese recipe with stir-in soya sauce - contain soya requiring labelling as
GM. Yesterday Rank Hovis McDougall, its manufacturer, said: "Although we are
confident that the GM soya used in this product is safe, we plan to move away from it as
soon as we are able to find a suitable alternative."
Lord Haskins said that the door would not be closed on GM produce forever, and criticised
the Prince of Wales, who has recently spoken out against GM technology, as having
"power without responsibility".
10 Jun 99 - GMO - Researcher's work 'had run its
course'
Staff Reporter
Telegraph ... Thursday 10 June 1999
There was no option but to suspend and ultimately retire Dr Pusztai, his former institute
insisted yesterday.
Dr Pusztai was already eight years past retirement age and, after the potato scandal,
there was no work left for him, said Dr Andrew Chesson, who heads a research division at
the Rowett Research Institute.
He had lost the confidence both of his colleagues and of the industries sponsoring his
non-GM food research, said Dr Chesson. His research had been rejected by two groups of
scientists, including the Royal Society, and he caused world confusion with inflated
claims.
Dr Chesson added that experiments Dr Pusztai claimed to have completed to support his
theories had not been done. But Dr Pusztai says he has
documentary evidence to support his case . Meanwhile, the Royal Society
defended itself yesterday against accusations by the Lancet of "breathtaking
impertinence" in opting to review Dr Pusztai's research when it was unable
to obtain Dr Pusztai's own full account of his work.
Stephen Cox, executive secretary of the Royal Society, said the review, which concluded
that the research had produced no evidence of harmful effects of GM potatoes, was
"not about Dr Pusztai". "We have not criticised him. It is the science we
are talking about."
The Rowett and Dr Pusztai do agree that there ought to be more research on the effect on
mammals of eating genetically modified food. Dr Chesson said: "What Dr Pusztai was
trying to address was good. I share his doubts about the way in which some of these
materials are evaluated."
He said there ought to be such studies, but the Rowett is no
longer doing any nutritional studies of the type Dr Pusztai was conducting.
10 Jun 99 - GMO - Prince backs GM scientist
By Charles Clover and Aisling Irwin
Evening Standard ... Thursday 10 June 1999
The Prince of Wales has told Dr Arpad Pusztai, the Government-funded scientist suspended
last year for saying that genetically modified food was not safe, that he was cruelly treated by the scientific establishment and deserves an apology
.
Dr Pusztai, who was suspended on Aug 12 by the Rowett Research Institute, near Aberdeen,
spent an hour and 35 minutes at Highgrove last week with his wife, Dr Susan Bardocz, who
still works at the Rowett, briefing the Prince on his concerns about GM food.
Dr Pusztai had a 37-year career abruptly halted by the institute
two days after disclosing on a World In Action programme that rats fed on a kind of GM
potato had displayed shrunken internal organs and damaged immune systems.
The results of the experiments he and his team of 18 scientists were conducting have yet
to be published in a scientific journal, though he hopes to do so in the next few months. Since last summer the full weight of the political and scientific
establishment has been focused against Dr Pusztai , who has published more than
250 scientific papers and is regarded as an expert on lectins (poisons found in bulbs and
uncooked beans).
Dr Jack Cunningham, the Cabinet Office minister, has described Dr Pusztai's GM findings as
"comprehensively discredited", and Sir Robert May, the prime minister's chief
scientific adviser, accused him of "violating every canon of scientific
rectitude".
A study of his results by the Royal Society reported that his work was "flawed in
many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn
from it". Dr Pusztai has been supported by some colleagues
and by environmental groups.
10 Jun 99 - GMO - £3m to rid McCartney foods of
GM
by Ed Harris
Evening Standard ... Thursday 10 June 1999
Sir Paul McCartney has added his voice to the protest over GM foods by ordering that every trace of genetically modified ingredients be
removed from his late wife Linda's range of vegetarian meals - at a cost of £3
million.
Sir Paul is responding to claims on the BBC's Newsnight programme that small traces of GM
food products were found in the Linda McCartney Foods range. The
GM soya used was found to be less than 0.5 per cent, Sir Paul said, but even that amount
is "unacceptable" to his family.
The company is also throwing its weight behind the campaign to
ban GM foods. Packs will come with a slogan urging the
shopper to "say no" to GM foods . Prince Charles voiced his concerns
over so-called "Frankenstein foods" earlier this month.
Policy at Linda McCartney Foods is strictly anti-GM and
now all soya ingredients have been dropped . The meals
will be made with wheat - for which no GM alternative is being grown.
The ex-Beatle said today: "We have established a trust with our customers and we have
taken these steps as an honest move to preserve that trust. It is also important to us to
maintain consumer choice - like us, many people do not want to
have GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in their food . Earlier this year,
people were dangerously close to having no choice in that. We have made these moves to
give people their right of choice back."
The Linda McCartney factory in Norfolk has been shut down and
steam-cleaned to ensure that it is a GM-free zone and the new range of foods has been
tested for GM contamination, Sir Paul said. The decision has cost the company more than
£3 million.
He added: "Our aim is to be the purest food company in the world and we are doing all
that we can to ensure that. Although we unfortunately live in a GM world - which I wish we
didn't - we are totally against GMOs , which is why we
are now actively campaigning against GM food with this
slogan on the packs - Say No to GMOs .
"As far back as 1995 Linda was saying 'I'd rather have my
food grown by Mother Nature than by the chemical industry' and we are sticking
to that benchmark that she laid down."
Linda McCartney, who died of breast cancer last year, launched her vegetarian range in
1991 and by last year had sold 400 million meals. The firm has a 23 per cent share of the
market.
10 Jun 99 - GMO - GM solution to alcohol-free
beer problem
By Robert Uhlig
Telegraph ... Thursday 10 June 1999
Alcohol-free beer that tastes no different from full-strength beer could be on sale soon
after scientists found why non-alcoholic varieties taste "off".
Researchers in Belgium found that the low-temperature process used to brew low and
zero-alcohol beers was at fault and suggested that a genetically-engineered yeast could be
the answer.
Low and non-alcoholic beers are brewed at 1°C, a temperature that fails to ferment some
unpleasant tasting ingredients in wort, the mixture of ground, malted grain and water used
to make beer. At higher temperatures, the ingredients ferment to create alcohol.
Philippe Perpète, who led the research said: "The worty 'off' flavour of
alcohol-free beer comes from chemicals that would ordinarily have been transformed by the
yeast."
Scientists at the Brewing and Food Industry Laboratory of Louvain University believe that
a genetically-engineered yeast would ferment ingredients at low temperatures without
producing alcohol. However, says New Scientist, the European food
industry is wary of any genetically-engineered ingredient. M Perpète said: "No
brewer is ready to use it."
10 Jun 99 - GMO - GM food will return, says
producer peer
By Valerie Elliott, Consumer Editor ##Times ... Thursday 10 June 1999
Lord Haskins, chairman of Northern Foods, said last night that people would eventually
demand genetically modified food because it would mean lower prices.
The Labour peer said he was confident that there would be a significant difference in
price between GM and non-GM foods. "Then people will be given a choice and if the
food is safe and of acceptable quality, why shouldn't we use it? I bet I can say now which
the housewife will choose.
"Most rice in China is GM and my guess is that anyone holidaying in the US or in
Europe will be eating GM food or food containing derivatives."
He spoke out after his company decided to stop using GM ingredients and all derivatives -
except for a cheese rennet - in the face of demands from retailers, including one of its
main customers, Marks & Spencer. He accepts that the firm had little choice, given the
"hysteria" about GM products and the clear message from consumers that they did
not want them.
Lord Haskins, who chairs the Better Regulation Task Force, backs the technology and said:
"I'm ashamed at the way the retailers have wobbled." He believes that in time
his firm will again use GM products. "We would only do that, however, when the public
realised they were getting a benefit. At present they do not."
His company has undertaken painstaking work to replace GM soya with non-GM soya from
Brazil, while GM maize from the United States will be replaced by European maize.
Significantly, too, Northern Foods is dropping GM lecithin ,
used in the manufacture of most chocolate, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, and replacing it with a soya lecithin from South America.
Geoff Andrews, Northern Foods's chief scientific adviser, confirmed last night that the
only GM product it still used was chymosin, produced to provide a non-animal rennet for
use in vegetarian cheese. "There is no viable alternative to chymosin at present and
we have decided to continue to use it to allow consumer choice. It is used in all our
Goodfella's pizzas, ready-made vegetarian meals with cheese, Eden Vale cottage cheese, or
any other vegetarian cheese," Dr Andrews said.
The company had used GM maize in ready-made meals and frozen burgers. A wheat starch will
be used instead.
Firms pledge to stay natural
As well as the leading supermarket chains that have declared their own-brand products free
of genetically modified ingredients, several other companies have
come out as GM-free or are pledged to remove all GM ingredients and the use of GM
derivatives .
They include Unilever, Tate & Lyle, Associated British Foods, Rank Hovis McDougal,
Cadbury's, Nestlé, Unigate (St Ivel), Dairy Crest, Premier Brands, Glanbia Foods, United
Biscuits, Express Dairies, Kraft Jacobs Suchard, Heinz, Best Foods, Weetabix, Kellogg's
Ready-to-Eat Cereals, Trebor Bassett, Greggs and Devro.
Diageo, which includes Pillsbury and Burger King, Sun Valley Foods and Walker Snack Foods,
is removing GM ingredients but is reviewing their use of GM derivatives.
Allied Domecq, which makes Baskin Robbins ice cream, and Dunkin Donuts are reviewing the
position, and MD Foods intends to clarify its stance soon.
08 Jun 99 - GMO - GM test sites fell by half in
past year
By Charles Arthur, Technology Editor
Independent ... Tuesday 8 June 1999
The number of trial sites of genetically modified (GM) crops in Britain has halved since last year, a survey has found. But
biotechnology companies say this is because their tests are almost complete.
An investigation into the number of GM trial sites registered
with the Department of the Environment this year to grow GM crops - such as
herbicide-resistant varieties of oilseed rape, sugarbeet and winter maize -has found only 148, compared with 309 in 1998 .
Jonathan Matthews, of the Norfolk Genetic Information Network, said yesterday that many of
the sites taken out of use in the past year were in his county.
He said: "When farmers sent replies to us we were very surprised at the range of
concerns they expressed."
He thought that the farmers had been disappointed by yields of
the modified crops and their low marketability.
However, two big biotechnology companies, Monsanto and AgrEvo, who sponsored half of the
registered trial sites last year, disputed the claim yesterday. They said the reason the
number had fallen was that their programme of testing was almost complete.
"The reason that the number of trials we are doing has fallen isn't some inability on
our part to get farmers to co-operate," said Clive Rainbird, a spokesman for AgrEvo.
"We have been doing small-scale trials on these crops since 1993, and those have
provided all the necessary data for the government departments involved. The amount of
data required is dropping off - so the number of trials we are doing has fallen from 64
last year to 45 this year."
Marketability was not an issue, he said, because none of the crops was being grown
commercially. Farm trials had to be completed before the Government would license the
crops for commercial growing.
Monsanto offered the same reason for the number of its trial sites falling from 100 last
year to 38 this year.
"Many of those sites were demonstration sites, to show partners in industry what the
crops actually looked like," said Tony Combes, a spokesman. "Having seen them
one year, they don't need to see them again."
However, the figures will be used in the bitter debate over GM crops, which has already
been heightened this week by the news that a farmer in Wiltshire had to destroy a 25-acre
trial of herbicide-resistant oilseed rape on the orders of his farm's trustees. They had
faced a threat of losing the income from their adjacent organic farming fields amid fears
of GM contamination.
The farmer, Fred Barker, was strongly in favour of both the trial and GM crops, but was
obliged to spray the field with paraquat weedkiller to destroy them. The Soil Association
said the chemical had been used in a way that did not affect the farm's organic crops.
Biotechnology companies are now seeking farmers who will conduct
trials of winter-sown oilseed rape , but landowners appear to be increasingly
reluctant to allow tenant farmers to take part, fearful of trespass by protesters against
GM. It emerged yesterday that Robert Kenyon, who owns a farm near Arborfield, Berkshire,
had overruled his tenant farmer and withdrawn permission last week for the planting of a
trial site of three acres of GM forage maize developed by Monsanto. The company said the
trial had merely been "postponed".
Such disputes are likely to become more common in the months ahead.
07 Jun 99 - GMO - Charles's food label nears
organic ideal
by Peter Gruner
Times ... Monday 7 June 1999
The environmentally-friendly food company founded by Prince Charles is becoming almost
totally organic.
Duchy Originals , set up in 1990 to encourage more
sustainable farming methods, has now switched almost entirely to organic ingredients. Best
known for its biscuits made with wheat and oats grown on the organic farm at Highgrove, it
aims to promote responsible husbandry of the land and environmentally-friendly production
while generating funds for the Prince's charitable causes.
In the case of the biscuits, until now, the wheat and oats were organic but the sugar,
butter and flavourings were not. Now the organic sugar cane is
coming from Paraguay and the organic butter from Europe .
From this month most of the products in the range, biscuits, breads, preserves and a new
soft drink, Lemon Refresher, will be organic, certified by the
Soil Association .
The company removed soya lecithin last year from chocolates to
avoid risk of genetically modified ingredients creeping in and a new organic
line will follow in time for Christmas and the millennium gift market.
"We took the step of testing all our products to confirm
their GM-free statu s, and as an additional precaution we went as far as
securing a long term supply of GM-free soya for the pig feed for our free range
sausages," said a spokeswoman for the company.
The sausages are the exception to the all-organic rule, but they are still made from pigs
reared without growth promoters and grown to Duchy Originals welfare standards in East
Anglia.
The Duchy range comprises hand-picked companies, including Walkers Shortbread, Crabtree
and Evelyn, Ackermans, west London baker La Fornaia and Mr Lazenbys sausages.
The newest line, Lemon Refresher, is made by Orchid Drinks and based on a recipe from the
Highgrove chefs.
"Ideally we'd like to go totally organic with British ingredients," the
spokeswoman added. "But there's a shortage of organic raw materials."
07 Jun 99 - GMO - Farmers set to abandon crop
trials
By Ian Herbert and Charles Arthur
Independent ... Monday 7 June 1999
Farmers growing genetically modified (GM) crop trials are considering abandoning the experiments because eco-activists who attack
the farms keep ruining conventional crops by mistake.
Farmers and biotechnology companies say that in a third of cases activists tear up test
versions of new conventional crops instead of GM ones, which are outwardly identical. The
damage costs thousands of pounds.
In the past few they have torn up crops at dozens of the 300-plus sites around the country
conducting GM tests. But they have failed to stop any trial.
"Thirty per cent of the damage by GM activists in the past two years has been to
conventional crop trials," said Roger Turner, chairman of Scimac, which represents
plant breeders and growers. "There's a delicious irony about it: by delaying the
tests on new conventional crops, the protesters make it more likely that GM crops will get
market approval first."
On Friday the Royal College of Agriculture (president: the Prince of Wales) decided not to
test GM crops at its farm. Mike Limb, the farm's director, said that "we would not
want to be exposed to the antics of unruly protesters running amok."
New strains of conventional crops go through the same rigorous test regime as GM ones, and
may be tested on the same farm. Activists often work at night and GM tests sites may be as
small as a suburban back garden - so they are easy to miss.
In Kings Newton, Derbyshire, farmers and scientists now erect signs on non-GM test sites,
pleading with activists to spare them. "We know they will be coming across the fields
but we cannot erect 10 foot fences," said one farm worker.
David Hames, the farmer at Lodge Farm in Kings Newton, said he now has reservations about
the future use of his land for GM testing. "When I let the testing company have space
here I didn't know that much about GM crops but I know more and feel differently now.We
have become the targets, even though this work is experimental." Activists did
£18,000 of damage to new crops at his farm last year.
Last week, CPV Twyford, of Thriplow, Cambridgeshire, became the first company to quit
testing, saying attacks on fields of trial crops were costing it thousands of pounds.
07 Jun 99 - GMO - Blair shifts to 'open mind' on
GM foods
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Independent ... Monday 7 June 1999
Modified foods: Prime Minister softens line but warns of dangers of UK losing its present
lead in biotechnology
Tony Blair softened his line on genetically modified foods yesterday, when he denied being
an advocate for so-called "Frankenstein foods" and
insisted he merely wanted to keep "an open mind".
The Prime Minister's approach, in an interview on BBC Television's Breakfast with Frost
programme, was in marked contrast to his attack last
month on the "media hysteria" about GM foods. His rethink follows the Prince of
Wales's broadside over the Government's handling of the issue.
Several Labour MPs have warned party whips that they are receiving a stream of complaints
from the public about the Government's strong support for the industry. "It's the
number one issue," one backbencher said yesterday. "People are very worried
about this."
Mr Blair insisted that banning GM foods would risk throwing away Britain's lead over other
countries in biotechnology, at a time when Germany was spending hundreds of millions of
pounds on catching up.
"Britain is at the leading edge of this new technology, particularly in relation to
medicines. It could indeed be the leading science of the 21st century," he said.
Denying suggestions that the Government was a "great
advocate" of GM food he said: "I'm not the advocate of anything other
than keeping an open mind."
Mr Blair said it would be a mistake to ban the new technology ,
a move which might be proved wrong in 15 or 20 years time. "At the moment I think the
jury's out, which is why we've got to have these trials and have scientific evidence done
very, very carefully indeed," he said.
He appeared to acknowledge the Government was out of step with
public opinion , saying no politician wanted to be in that position. "I
know it's a very unpopular thing to say, but sometimes it's important to say to people
look, there is another argument," he said.
"We have to proceed according to basic evidence and not simply say because people
talk about Frankenstein foods , we chuck the whole
thing out of the window."
When challenged by Sir David Frost, Mr Blair did not deny a report in The Independent on
Sunday yesterday that his wife Cherie privately shares Prince Charles's concerns about the
safety of GM foods.
Michael Meacher, the Environment Minister, who has adopted a more
sceptical stance than Mr Blair over GM produce , said yesterday that Prince Charles had "an important contribution to make "
and that the Government was anxious to talk to him. Mr Meacher admitted there were
"very great uncertainties" about the new technology. "I'd be the first to
recognise that the existing level of research does need to be supplemented," he told
GMTV. "We need to continue monitoring and regulating in the most stringent way to be
absolutely sure."
He insisted that biotechnology should not be rejected, but said the public was quite right
to be concerned about it. "It would be quite wrong to dismiss all the concerns....
There is a genuine and perfectly proper concern... about this."
07 Jun 99 - GMO - First GM farmer destroys his
crops
by Geraint Smith
Evening Standard ... Monday 7 June 1999
The farmer who agreed to having the country's first large-scale
trial of genetically modified crops on his land has destroyed them with weedkiller.
Captain Fred Barker says the trustees of his family farm at Hannington in Wiltshire forced
him to end the trial because they are opposed to the
Government-run experiment and were unhappy that other crops on the farm were to
lose their organic status because of the trial .
Capt Barker sought advice from the Environment Agency about how to destroy the crops. On
Saturday, he applied the weed-killer they had suggested. He regretted having to abort the
trial, and said he believed strongly in GM technology.
The 26-acre crops of GM rapeseed were planted at Easter. Farm
trustees are there to safeguard the land and its cultivation for future generations.
Capt Barker told Radio 4's Today programme that he was "gobsmacked to be summoned to
London" last Thursday to be told that the trustees were insisting that he end the
trial. "They gave me a three to none majority that they did not want it to
continue," he said. "I had no choice. I believe strongly in GM food, I think it
is fascinating, and I am convinced it is the future of agriculture. I think in 20 years we
shall all be growing it.
"The trustees looked at the broader view of the land, the children who live on the
land and the neighbours than I did as the farmer planting the crop. I am not saying they
are wrong. I am just sad that my beautiful trial, which was looking so wonderful, is dead.
I was very proud of it, in fact."
The company which developed the GM crop seeds, AgrEvo, said it was "deeply
disappointed" that the trial had been aborted. It said the trial was designed to
answer vital questions about the effect of GM crops on the environment.
Friends of the Earth said the decision to terminate the trial would be a bitter blow to the Government , which was supporting it as
one of six GM trials. Last month, a seed company withdrew from all GM crop trials because
of attacks by environmental campaigners. CPB Twyford, based in Cambridgeshire, said
protesters had caused thousands of pounds of damage to its crops.
Other farmers in Cambridgeshire have consistently refused to get
involved in the trials for fear of reprisals by protesters.
"It's not just that they destroy the crop," said one. "It's that, in order
to get at the crop, they damage other crops, fences, hedges - you name it."
The location of GM trials, including grid references, is freely available as a public
document, although the accuracy of some of the references was called into question
recently when it was discovered that one of them was somewhere in the North Sea.
Environmentalists want a four-year moratorium on the licensing of GM crops - a demand the
Government has refused. It says deciding when licensing is safe is a matter for the
judgment of scientists not the expiry of an arbitrary period of time.
07 Jun 99 - GMO - Blair asks public to keep an
open mind on biotech foods
By Roland Watson, Chief Political Correspondent
Times ... Monday 7 June 1999
Tony Blair tried to calm public fears about genetically modified foods yesterday as he
insisted that the Government was not an advocate for the biotech
industry .
Mr Blair said he appreciated people's concerns but urged them to keep an open mind.
However, with genetic modification at the cutting edge of current scientific development,
particularly in medicine, the Prime Minister said that it would be wrong to ban "what
could be the leading science of the 21st century".
He said: "We have to proceed according to basic evidence and not simply say, well,
because people talk about Frankenstein foods we chuck the whole thing out of the
window."
After the Prince of Wales's impassioned attack on GM foods last week and his previous
private clash with the Prime Minister over the issue, Mr Blair said that he could not be
certain that genetic modification was the way ahead.
He said that he was no scientist, but that there was enough scientific evidence pointing
to the potential benefits as well as the potential pitfalls to continue experimenting.
Britain was currently leading the way in biotech development, he said, with countries such
as Germany pouring billions of pounds into their own efforts to keep up. And it would be
wrong to jeopardise that while the case either way was unproven, he said.
Mr Blair told BBC Television's Breakfast with Frost: "I'm not the advocate of
anything other than keeping an open mind. If we suddenly ban all this, throw it out, we
could find in 15 or 20 years' time that we'd got it wrong."
He declined to be drawn on reports that Mrs Blair agreed with the Prince of Wales in
opposing GM foods.
"If I start discussing what Cherie and I talk to each other about at breakfast, I'm
going to get into a lot of trouble," he said.
But he insisted that Britain had one of the toughest regulatory regimes covering the field
in the world.
He added that the Government had not licensed any GM foods since it came to power two
years ago.
Genetically modified rice 'can combat blindness'
A type of rice rich in nutrients to combat the blindness suffered by thousands in the
developing world has been genetically engineered by scientists (Nick Nuttall writes from
Rome).
The rice has been gene altered using DNA from a yeast or soil bacterium to produce a
substance which, when eaten, turns into Vitamin A. The work is set to transform the health
and quality of life of millions of people throughout Asia and other parts of the
developing world where rice is a staple.
The breakthough has been made by a team at the Institute of Cell Biology in Freiburg,
headed by Dr Peter Beyer. The scientists, whose findings will be published soon, have
isolated a gene from a common bacteria which, when put into rice, allows it to make
compounds called caretenoids.
The breakthrough is just one of a string of developments to emerge from a plant
biotechnology programme funded by the European Commission. Many of the programmes findings
will be unveiled this week at the Phytosfere 99 conference here.
Professor Peter Bramley, of the division of biochemistry at the University of London's
Bedford College and a member of a Europe-wide plant genetic engineering group, yesterday
hailed the find as an important step in the battle to fight disease and blindness in the
developing world.
"Rice contains few nutrients. Caretenoids, which are what the team have managed to
make rice produce, are precursors of Vitamin A. There is a huge problem of Vitamin A
deficiency in the poor parts of the world and this causes blindness," he said.
The current furore over gene-altered crops in Britain is over herbicide-tolerant crops
which, critics claim, only benefit farmers, producers and chemical companies while
threatening the environment.
The conference will also hear details about gene-altered plants which turn blue in the
presence of radiation pollution.
07 Jun 99 - GMO - Farmer destroys GM test site
after protests
Guardian staff and agencies
Guardian ... Monday 7 June 1999
Britain's first and largest crop trial of genetically modified
foods ended today when Captain Fred Barker destroyed GM crops on his land with weedkiller.
The move was welcomed by environmentalists . Friends
of the Earth spokeswoman Jean Saunders said: "We are very happy that Captain Fred
Barker has bowed to public pressure and destroyed crops on his land. We feel the
government has moved into trials of GM food hastily and without proper research. We feel
experiments such as these in the open air should not continue."
Captain Barker said he had reluctantly stopped the experiment on Saturday morning by
dousing weedkiller on the crop because opposition to modified foods from the public and
his trustees made his position untenable.
"It is with great regret that I have had to abort my GM trial," Capt Barker told
BBC radio. "I have no option but to follow my trustees' wishes in destroying the
crop." Stopping the experiment, he said, was like "losing a child".
An enthusiastic advocate of GM science, Capt Barker readily volunteered his 3,000-acre
family trust-run farm in Wiltshire for a government-approved trial in which 26 acres of GM
oilseed rape was planted. The scheme sparked an outcry from the start and even Prince
Charles - who rode out with Capt Barker while master of the Vale of White Horse Hunt in
the late 1980s - last week criticised the tampered crop in a front-page article in the
Daily Mail. The Prince - whose Highgrove home is a stone's throw from Capt Barker's farm -
is a fierce opponent of GM science. His article highlighted the similarities to the BSE
crisis and criticised the lack of research into the long-term effects of the GM
revolution.
The final straw for Capt Barker was an ultimatum from the Soil Association warning that
the remainder of the sprawling farm would lose its organic status unless the tampered
seeds were destroyed. Capt Barker also farms 250 acres of organic field beans.
''I believe very strongly in the technology and the bio-tech industry and also all the
work that has gone into these trials," Capt Barker said. "However, the trustees
of my family settlement have very different views and have all along not been in favour,
but recent events have made them come out against this GM trial. ''Therefore, I have no
option but to follow my trustees' wishes in destroying the crop."
The open-air test crop was planted in April after the government authorised 140 sites for
outdoor trials. The aim of the trials is to assess the effects on farmland wildlife and
organic crops of growing herbicide-tolerant GM crops and not to make food for commercial
use. The agro-chemical giant AgrEvo planted GM seeds in a central 26-acre site with a
50-metre ''no man's land'' separation border from the next field. Ninety acres of
unmodified crops acted as a control around the test site which has been inspected by five
government scientists.
Controversy arose almost immediately, when ecologists claimed AgrEvo
had breached guidelines for publicising the experiments . Companies seeking to
plant GM crops are legally obliged to publish details in local newspapers. AgrEvo
advertised the plantings only in the Gloucestershire Echo, scarcely read by locals and not
sold in the nearest village shop.
The firm later agreed to take out extra adverts in the wider circulated Swindon Advertiser
to quell the outcry. But neighbouring organic farmers and beekeepers who feared
contamination by cross-pollination have constantly called for the
''Frankenstein food'' to be scrapped. Prime minister Tony Blair this weekend
appealed for people to keep an open mind on GM foods, but stressed he was not an advocate.
He warned that banning the trials would risk throwing away Britain's world lead in a
potentially crucial new technology.
Scimac (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops) - a formal grouping of
farmers, plant breeders, the seed trade and biotechnology companies - said that other
trials would go on.
''It is extremely disappointing that the preparation and work involved in establishing
this site, and the resulting data, have been lost, the group said. "But it in no way
affects our commitment to answering the questions surrounding GM crops. 'The remainder of
this year's farm-scale plantings are still in place, and will form the basis for
continuing evaluation of the ecological effects of GM cropping.''
07 Jun 99 - GMO - Blair softens stance on GM
foods
Nicholas Watt, Political Correspondent
Guardian ... Monday 7 June 1999
Tony Blair yesterday signalled a significant softening of his
support for genetically modified foods when he declared that "the jury is
out" on whether they are safe to eat.
After months of intensive campaigning by ministers on the benefits of GM foods, the prime
minister indicated that he has heeded growing public opposition when he admitted that he
was horrified when he first heard the term.
"The first time I heard about genetic modification the term [was] so terrible,"
Mr Blair told BBC1's Breakfast with Frost. "You think, my goodness, what on earth is
going on here. You think of Dr Strangelove."
The Prince of Wales, who spoke out against the genetic modification of crops last week,
reportedly told friends that Cherie Booth spoke of her worries about the health and
environmental impact of GM crops over lunch at his Highgrove estate last September.
In the interview yesterday the prime minister refused to comment on his wife's thoughts,
joking that he would "get into a lot of trouble" if he spoke about their private
discussions.
But Mr Blair said that he understood such fears, as he attempted to recast himself in the
role of a neutral observer on the issue of GM foods.
Mr Blair said: "We're in the position, as the government, where it is almost as if
people say you're the greatest advocates of GM food. I'm not the advocate of anything
other than keeping an open mind."
His comments appeared to be a carefully orchestrated attempt by Downing Street to shift
the government's stance after the Prince of Wales's intervention. Downing Street was
deeply concerned in private about the impact on public opinion after the prince described
genetic modification as potentially dangerous.
However, Mr Blair remains committed to pressing ahead with research into genetic
modification because of its potential benefits and because he did not want Britain to lose
its lead in the field to countries which are pouring millions of pounds into research.
"At the moment I think the jury's out, which is why we've got to have these trials
and have scientific [research] done very, very carefully indeed... But I do say to people,
to ban the whole thing on the basis of what are often pretty sensational reports would be
a mistake," he said.
A senior Downing Street source insisted last night that the government's policy on GM
foods had not changed: "The prime minister is attempting to frustrate any attempt to
put him at war with the Prince of Wales. He made clear that he does not think it is
sensible to ban something that could be one of the most important scientific developments
of the next century."
But Michael Meacher, the environment minister, fuelled speculation that the government is
changing tack when he admitted that there were "very great uncertainties" about
the new technology.
Speaking on GMTV, Mr Meacher said there would have to be more research into GM foods.
"I'd be the first to recognise that the existing level of research does need to be
supplemented," he said.
07 Jun 99 - GMO - GM food ban would undermine
British science, says Blair
By Robert Shrimsley, Chief Political Correspondent
Telegraph ... Monday 7 June 1999
Britain could be overtaken by Germany in the cutting edge technology of the next century
if the Government caves in to demands for a ban on genetically modified foods, Tony Blair
said yesterday.
The Prime Minister warned that Germany was "pouring literally hundreds of millions of
pounds" into biotechnology to try to catch up with the UK, which is at the leading
edge of scientific research. Mr Blair said GM foods were only one aspect of biotechnology
and indicated that blocking the development of the science in any area could undermine
British research in other related spheres.
He said: "Genetic modification has many different areas, for example in medicine, and
Britain is at the leading edge of this new technology... it could be the leading science
of the 21st century." But Mr Blair's wife Cherie is understood to share the Prince of
Wales's concerns over the health and environmental impact of GM crops.
Asked about reports that she was not at one with him on the issue, Mr Blair did not deny
that there might be a disagreement. Mr Blair said: "I think if I start discussing
what Cherie and I talk to each other about at breakfast I'm going to get into
trouble." The suggestion that Mrs Blair was concerned about GM foods was circulated
by friends of the Prince of Wales, who last week publicised his own objections in an
article in the Daily Mail.
Although Mr Blair insisted that he was not taking sides, he said it would be bad for
British industry to give in to the public outcry over GM foods. Urging people to keep an
open mind, he said: "I just worry that we have to proceed according to basic evidence
and not say because people talk about Frankenstein foods we [should] simply chuck the
whole thing out of the window." Mr Blair warned of the risks of banning GM foods and
biotechnology research and "then finding in 15 or 20 years that we'd got it
wrong".
Interviewed on BBC television, the Prime Minister said: "We are in the position as
the Government where it is almost as if people say 'you are the great advocates of GM
foods'. I'm not the advocate of anything other than keeping an open mind. All I say to
people is just keep an open mind and let us proceed according to genuine scientific
evidence."
Earlier yesterday, Michael Meacher, the environment minister known to be sceptical about
GM foods, emphasised the need for more research, saying there were "very great
uncertainties" about the new technology. Speaking on GMTV he said: "I'd be the
first to recognise that the existing level of research does need to be supplemented. We
need to continue monitoring and regulating in the most stringent way to be absolutely
sure."
06 Jun 99 - GMO - Modified corn on sale in UK
'kills' life-saving antibiotics
By Marie Woolf
Independent ... Sunday 6 June 1999
GM corn sold in Britain could render eight powerful antibiotics,
used by doctors to fight fatal diseases including typhoid, pneumonia and infections
suffered by Aids patients, useless within half an hour.
Expert advice received by the Ministry of Agriculture (Maff) as
long ago as 1995 , warned that an antibiotic resistance gene inserted into a
type of GM maize was so powerful that it could degrade an
antibiotic in the human gut in 30 minutes .
The antibiotics are used to treat people with diseases such as bronchitis, septicemia,
gangrene and life-threatening infections suffered by people with cystic fibrosis and Aids.
The leaked advice , from members of the Government's
powerful Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, warned that the antibiotic
resistance genes can mutate.
GM maize is already grown in the US and imported into Britain in foods such as tortilla
chips.
The leaked advice has brought calls from environmentalists to ban
the import into Britain of all GM food containing antibiotic resistance genes.
The week the Liberal Democrats will take the toughest stand by any political party yet on
GM when they publish a policy paper on genetic modification. The party will call for the "swift phasing out of the use of antibiotic marker genes" .
"It is completely irresponsible for the
Government to allow antibiotics to be used indiscriminately like confetti at a
wedding," said Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman.
The Liberal Democrats will call for genetic engineering
companies, such as Monsanto and Novartis, to be legally liable for millions of pounds of
compensation if the food turns out to harm people.
However, Novartis has defended its BT-maize, which was one of the first genetically
modified products in agriculture, as "completely safe".
"The risk of antibiotic resistance in medical practice is not affected by BT-maize.
This conclusion has been reached by all expert committees who have studied this
question," said a spokesman.
But a letter written to Maff in 1995 by a scientist on the Advisory Committee on Novel
Foods and Processes warned that the maize could produce resistance to several key
antibiotics.
"I have been reliably informed that the production of this
enzyme would result in resistance not only to ampicillin, but also to the other
penicillins active against gram negative bacteria, namely ampicillin, amoxycillin,
piperacillin, mexlocillin, azlocillin, micillinam, carbenicillin and ticarcillin,"
the letter says. "This gene is in [an] active state of evolution and may undergo
mutation."
Another letter from a scientific adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture in 1996 states
that the antibiotic resistance marker gene could, in the gut of a farm animal or human, "be sufficient to degrade the normal therapeutic dose of
ampicillin in about 30 minutes".
Doctors use these penicillins to treat salmonella, meningitis, bronchitis and infections
which are life-threatening to cystic fibrosis and Aids sufferers. They also save the lives
of people suffering from endocarditis, an inflammation of the lining of the heart.
"Food containing these dangerous antibiotic resistance genes are coming into the
country. If other countries are banning it on health grounds, why
aren't we? " said Adrian Bebb, of Friends of the Earth. "This just
shows how the Government in this country is putting business interests before public
health interests."
06 Jun 99 - GMO - Minister fears 'three heads'
from GM foods
by Simon Trump
Times ... Sunday 6 June 1999
A Labour minister is choosing not to eat genetically modified
food because by consuming it "you could end up with three heads" .
Kim Howells, the minister for consumer affairs, admitted his concerns last week as he
revealed that to avoid any risk he grows all his own vegetables on an allotment at his
home in Pontypridd.
"It tastes so much better and you know where it has come from. With that other stuff
[GM food] you could end up with three heads ," he
added in jest, although he made it clear that he prefers not to eat it. His wife, Eirlys,
eats only their home-grown vegetables.
For the past year Howells has been cultivating an allotment at the bottom of his garden,
which he rents for £36 a year. Speaking as he tended his broad beans, he said: "It
keeps me sane. I come down here and empty my mind. It's my therapy." He admitted that
in the Commons his attention sometimes wanders to whether his beans are being attacked by
slugs.
A former communist, Howells is said within Westminster to be allowed the freedom to speak
his mind because Tony Blair finds him entertaining. His opinion on GM food, however, is
unlikely to amuse the prime minister, who supports the introduction of GM crops.
Blair has refused to endorse a moratorium on GM food and was said to be "seething" when the Prince of Wales last week
publicly repeated his fears over the issue. Ministers have been ordered
to toe the government line on GM foods and keep any
reservations to themselves under the collective responsibility rule.
Adrian Bebb, of Friends of the Earth, said of Howells's remarks: "I don't know about
three heads but it certainly shows the two faces of government .
Even ministers won't swallow their own line on GM foods."
New research may vindicate Howells's stand. Scientists in California are to publish
results of tests which reveal that GM soya beans are less
nutritious than their conventional counterparts . Its authors claim their
findings undermine assertions by biotech companies that GM crops are not inferior to
naturally grown foods.
A study by the Centre for Ethics and Toxins, an environmental group, will report that two
varieties of Roundup Ready soya beans marketed by Monsanto, a leading provider of GM crop
seeds, can contain up to 14% less of certain nutritional
components , These are thought to offer some protection against diseases such
as cancer, heart disease and osteoporosis.
"I think we have a blockbuster here because we have shown there are significant
differences in the GM soya bean," said Marc Lappé, co-author of the report. "I
think this is the smoking gun people have been waiting for."
Monsanto said data showing that Roundup Ready soya was substantially equivalent to other
varieties had been published three years ago and had not been challenged by other
scientists: "It was approved by the FDA on this basis. If these scientists have data
that shows the test used by government regulators is inadequate or unreliable, they should
tell them."
06 Jun 99 - GMO - We don't believe our food is
safe
Joanna Blythman
Independent ... Sunday 6 June 1999
It's no wonder that public confidence in what we eat has
plummeted to an all-time low
First it was just poultry and eggs that we had to avoid. Now it's pork and beef, and a
growing list of seemingly innocuous Belgian foods, like chocolate truffles and croissants,
which are being removed from supermarket shelves following the latest European scare.
This scandal, caused by a Flemish firm selling to farms animal feed contaminated by
dioxins, and kept secret by Belgian politicians in the know ,
is part of a tradition of European agricultural disasters. There was Spain's
record on illegal hormones in meat ; there was the case
of the 400 Spaniards who died after eating contaminated cooking oil. Let's not forget the antifreeze in Austrian wine , or Italy, the
country where boys grew breasts after eating veal .
Consumers in this country would feel comforted if Britain were ringfenced to avoid such
disasters. But the UK presided over the mother of all food
disasters - BSE . It's now 10 years since Edwina Currie found her salmonella eggs , and even longer since Professor Richard
Lacey warned about the listeria bacteria he found in
25 per cent of supermarkets' ready meals. Four years ago, the government had to issue
health warnings about UK carrots after tests revealed
they might contain organophosphates residues way over
the "acceptable daily limit". The following year, apples
got the same "danger" tag. By 1997, deaths from a new, virulent
strain of the familiar E. coli bacteria, (0157), were attributed to the condition of
animals being transported to slaughter, and to unhygenic
practices in butchers' shops .
At the same time, repeated surveys underlined the food poisoning
potential of British poultry - anything between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of
birds at point of sale were, and still are, contaminated by
pathogenic bacteria , capable of causing serious illness and even death.
So what are we to make of these food fiascos? Consumer faith in the safety of food has
dropped to an all-time low, as has public confidence in the food and farming regulators.
The jury is still out on the validity of public fears over human health risk attached to
eating GM foods. But the chance of boycotting GM foods seems slight now that Roundup Ready GM soya is turning up, illegally and unlabelled, in foods
such as Tesco's pizzas.
There are those, such as Ian Gardiner, policy director at the National Farmers' Union, who
think we should be phlegmatic. "Like any industry [this] is run by human beings who
make errors. Systems are designed to prevent these slipping through the net, but they
can't always work. You can't just seize on one incident and say the system needs changing.
We can only aspire to making as much of it as safe as we can. and correct errors as
quickly as possible."
According to Greenpeace, these food disasters show up agriculture
as a bankrupt system. "The Belgian government tried to hide what was going on, as our
government tried to hide BSE," says John Sauven of Greenpeace. "The truth is
these problems are endemic to industrial agriculture . If we try to continue
with this unsustainable system, then the crises will continue to be more frequent and more
catastrophic."
Animal welfarists offer the same diagnosis. "Factory farming treats farm animals like
production machines. They suffer immensely, and the conditions in which they're kept promote the rapid spread of bugs to such a degree that
public health and the environment are threatened," says Philip Lymbery of Compassion
in World Farming.
This critique was first voiced less than two decades after intensive farming supplanted
more traditional pre-war agriculture. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, her
indictment of pesticides in the environment. In the interim, we've had the agrochemical
industry's so-called Green Revolution, predicated on hybrid crops and pesticides - which
have failed to "feed the world's starving" - while the West has built up huge
beef mountains and milk lakes.
Now GM food is promoted as the next Green Revolution. This time round, though, the idea
that food technology equates with progress, is making the public suspicious - a feeling
sharpened by the government's support for the GM food project.
Consumers who are weary of "defensive shopping", of scrutinising labels for
production methods and provenance, are latching on to organic food as a safe haven. Sales
of organic food are doubling year on year. "There is a consumer revolution
underway," says the Soil Association's Patrick Holden.
The food business, however, is uncompromising: organic food, it says, won't feed the
world. Christopher Haskins, chairman of one of the UK's biggest food companies, once
declared that organic farming was "an ornament of rich countries' agricultural
systems".
He added: "An organic global food chain would create instant, catastrophic world
famine."
But academic research shows that far from exacerbating famine in developing countries,
organic and low-input farming methods could meet the challenges of soil erosion,
groundwater pollution and rural disintegration - a legacy of chemical farming methods.
The clean-up bill for BSE alone has cost the UK taxpayer £4.1bn.
Factory farming is subsidised by the Common Agricultural Policy, and water com- panies
have to clean up intensive farms' pollution. Food in this country has been cheap - but at
what price cheapness?
Joanna Blythman's book "The Food Our Children Eat' (£7.99), is published by Fourth
Estate.
06 Jun 99 - GMO - Blair fumes, but public backs
Charles's stand against GM
By Rachel Sylvester, Marie Woolf and Geoffrey Lean
Independent ... Sunday 6 June 1999
On Wednesday, as controversy raged over the Prince of
Wales's comments about genetically modified food, Charles's closest advisers on the
environment gathered for lunch at Highgrove. The Prince was bullish that day as he strode
through a field of wild flowers, beaming at photographers. In private, at the six-monthly
meeting of his group, he was no less delighted with the coverage. As they tucked into
organic vegetables grown on the estate, the coterie agreed that his article in the Daily
Mail had been a spectacular success, highlighting yet again an issue of particular concern
to the Prince and at the same time aligning him with public opinion.
But that was not all. The advisers - who included Commander Richard Aylard, his former
private secretary, Richard Sandbrook, founder of Friends of the Earth, and a new recruit,
Dr Simon Lyster, head of the wildlife trusts - then turned their attention to the future.
Each guest gave a five-minute presentation suggesting ways in which Charles could continue
to promote the environment. Last week's intervention may have been the Prince's most vocal
foray into politics, but it is not going to be his last. On the issues he feels strongly
about, friends say he intends to say what he thinks, however uncomfortable that might be
for the Government. The decline in rural communities, the erosion of traditional country
life and poverty among farmers - all difficult areas for Tony Blair - are likely to
feature heavily in future speeches or articles.
Both Downing Street and St James's Palace insist that reports of a "stand-up
row" between the Prime Minister and the Prince about genetically modified food were
"overblown". But the two men had discussed the subject, not just at a meeting in
St James's Palace five weeks ago but also at a Highgrove lunch in September; according to
Royal advisers, the Prince got the distinct impression that Cherie
Blair, who was also there, was far more worried about the new technology than her husband .
Charles's decision to restate his concerns just days after Mr Blair had dismissed media
"hysteria" over the subject was certainly embarrassing for the Government. There
was panic among its strategists on Tuesday morning because Jack Cunningham, who is
supposed to speak for the Government on this issue, was away from his desk, relaxing at
home. Michael Meacher, the environment minister who is more sceptical about the benefits
of GM crops, was sent on to the Today programme instead. He was privately delighted to be
given such a free rein - "it gave him a bit of space to take a more cautious
line", a close aide said. Today, on GMTV, he will say that the Government is
"anxious" to talk to the Prince about his concerns.
The timing of the Prince's article, shortly after the Government's high-profile attempt to
allay public fears, was a coincidence. He had been asked by the Daily Mail to write a
piece more than two months previously and agreed the publication date two weeks in
advance. And St James's Palace insists that the Prince was only reiterating views he has
held for years.
The trouble is that a lot of the things which interest the Prince
have also moved to the centre of the political stage ; however apolitical it
might have seemed two years ago, GM food is now definitely a Government matter. It is also
something which has divided the political parties, with the Tories urging greater caution
on the Government. Some Labour insiders suspect that the Prince might have been influenced
by his conservative, if not Conservative, circle of friends and advisers. The first draft
of the Daily Mail article was put together by Elizabeth Buchanan, his assistant private
secretary, a staunch Conservative who used to work as an adviser to Margaret Thatcher. She
is on secondment to the Prince from Bell Pottinger, the PR company owned by the Tory peer
Lord (Tim) Bell.
But the Prince's office insists that he is not getting into party politics. "A lot of
the things the Prince of Wales has said over the years have suddenly become popular. Years
ago he was the potty Prince, talking to his plants; now everyone is interested in the
environment," one adviser said. "He's not going to stop talking about things
just because they become politicised." Patrick Holden, director of the Soil
Association and an unofficial adviser to Charles, believes the Prince just has an
"uncanny knack" of spotting issues. "He sees the significance of things
before even the experts do and raises questions. That is an entirely responsible use of
his power and influence."
It is no coincidence that the Prince went public about something which has become of
increasingly wide public concern in recent months. A concerted effort is being made to
humanise Charles, to make the man and woman in the street understand him. This week's trip
to a Versace fashion show and photocalls such as the one in the Sheffield benefits office,
based on a scene from The Full Monty, are all part of an attempt to make him more down to
earth. When he goes to Scotland, his advisers want him to visit drug rehabilitation
centres dressed in a suit rather than being pictured strolling around Balmoral in a kilt.
Just as the hereditary members of the House of Lords have chosen to challenge Mr Blair on
issues on which they can be "peers and people" against the Government, so
Charles's circle wants to align their man with the concerns of his future subjects.
"The target of the Daily Mail article was Middle England," one adviser said. And
Charles hit it: by Wednesday lunchtime the Palace had received 800 e-mails from people
supporting his stance. For once, it began to appear that Charles could perhaps be the
"People's Prince" in the way that his wife was once the "People's
Princess".
This outspokenness is going to continue. The Prince had originally planned to use the
Daily Mail article to launch a new international commission to investigate the GM
industry's claim that their crops could help to feed the world's poor. The idea was to
bring together a team of experts, under the chairmanship of Sir Crispin Tickell, a
Government environment adviser, to look into one of the apparently most attractive aspects
of biotechnology. The commission was to have worked closely with the International
Institute for Environment and Development which has done pioneering work on how
traditional, organic farming methods could greatly increase production in the Third World.
It was originally going to be launched in February but this was postponed "to let the
dust settle" during the outcry that month over the findings by Dr Arpad Pusztai that
GM potatoes seemed to have damaged laboratory rats.
Two weeks ago, Prince Charles cancelled the idea, following the publication of several
other reports on the same subject - but the plan shows the extent to which he is
determined to pursue his interests.
The Prince's advisers insist that the commission was not abandoned because of pressure
from Downing Street. Certainly, Charles is not afraid to take on the Government if he
thinks this is necessary. Top of the agenda next is the countryside, again another tricky
issue for Tony Blair. And again it is of concern to the public. And if the Government
thinks this issue is of short-term concern to the royal family, it should think again.
Prince William has just been elected Secretary of the Agriculture Society at Eton.
06 Jun 99 - GMO - Cherie's against GM too, says
the Prince
By Rachel Sylvester and Geoffrey Lean
Independent ... Sunday 6 June 1999
Cherie Blair is worried about the safety of genetically modified
food, according to the Prince of Wales .
Prince Charles has told friends that the Prime Minister's wife
privately shares his concerns about the health and environmental implications of GM crops .
This contrasts starkly with Tony Blair's insistence that the food is safe and he would be
happy for his own family to eat it.
According to Royal advisers, the Prince discussed the issue with Mrs Blair when she came
to Highgrove with her husband for lunch last September. The Prince refuses to eat or serve
GM food and guests are always given organic vegetables from the estate.
He claims Mrs Blair is also privately nervous about genetically modified food and would
like to see more research done. Friends say he is delighted to have found an ally in
Downing Street.
The revelation of disagreement within Number 10 over such a contentious issue will be
embarrassing for the Prime Minister. Mr Blair is adamant that genetically modified food is
safe and has blamed "media hysteria" for the growing public concern about the
crops. He recently clashed in private with the Prince about GM food at a meeting in St
James's Palace.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "We never talk about the Prime Minister's
discussions with the Royal Family and neither would we about any Mrs Blair had had."
However, he stressed, "The Blair household is not a GM-free zone."
The Prince has already put the Government in an awkward position by publicly challenging
its claim that GM food is safe. Last Sunday, we revealed that he was seeking a meeting
with Dr Arpad Pusztai, the scientist whose experiments first ignited the debate over GM.
Following this, in an article last week Prince Charles raised serious concerns about the
lack of independent scientific research. His intervention was criticised as a breach of
the convention that members of the Royal Family do not get involved in politics.
06 Jun 99 - GMO - Blair: Keep Open Mind On Gm
Foods
Press Association
Guardian ... Sunday 6 June 1999
Prime Minister Tony Blair has appealed to people to
keep an "open mind" on genetically-modified food, and warned that banning the
controversial food would risk throwing away Britain's world lead in a potentially crucial
new technology.
He denied being an "advocate" for so-called Frankenstein
foods , saying: "I'm not the advocate of anything other than keeping an
open mind.
"This is an entirely new science, and genetic modification has many different areas,
for example in medicines," he told the BBC1 Breakfast with Frost programme.
"Britain is at the leading edge of this new technology, particularly in relation to
medicines. It could indeed be the leading science of the 21st century.
"All I say to people is just keep an open mind and let us proceed according to
genuine scientific evidence.
"At the moment I think the jury's out, which is why we've got to have these trials
and gave scientific evidence very very carefully indeed."
Mr Blair said Britain had a tighter regulatory framework for GM food than "virtually
any other country in the world and tighter than in any other area".
The Government had not licensed any GM foods since it came to power two years ago.
He re-opened his attack on the media's reporting of the issue, apparently referring to the
coverage of worrying reports of research by Dr Arpad Pusztai, which has recently been
called into question by other scientists.
"To ban the whole thing on the basis of pretty sensational reports of what certain
people are saying about it, I personally believe would be a mistake."
03 Jun 99 - GMO - Getting it wrong about food
George Monbiot
Guardian ... Thursday 3 June 1999
The most asinine biotechnology report ever written
Monsanto's advertising agency warned the company not to argue
that genetic engineering would feed the world . But the temptation proved too
great. "Worrying about starving future generations," its adverts informed us
last year, "won't feed them. Food biotechnology will." It's hard to see how even
a body with Monsanto's self-belief could have imagined that this claim would stand up.
For the corporation had already made its position quite clear. "What you are
seeing," one of its executives explained in 1997, as his company purchased scores of
seed merchants and biotech firms, "is a consolidation of the
entire food chain." The vertical integration it was engineering would grant it a
control over food consumption that would have made Stalin writhe in envy.
Monsanto's argument was swiftly and comprehensively dismissed .
Development agencies pointed out that people starve not because there is an absolute
shortage of food (the world currently produces a surplus) but because food and the means
to produce it are concentrated in the hands of the rich and powerful. Corporations seeking
to consolidate the food chain threatened to make this situation far worse. Monsanto, sadder and perhaps a little wiser, slunk away .
But seven days ago it acquired a new and unlikely champion.
The Nuffield Council for Bioethics is a highly respected independent body, whose
recommendations frequently influence government policy. Last week, its panel on the ethics
of genetic engineering published its long-awaited report. Research into GM crops, the
panel acknowledged, has tended to favour producers in Europe and the US. Patenting of the
new technologies, it pointed out, presents "potentially serious difficulties for
developing countries". But, the report maintained, if the research effort could only
be directed a little more evenly, GM crops would "produce more food, or more
employment or income for those who need it most urgently". "The moral
imperative," it reasoned, "for making GM crops readily and economically
available to developing countries who want them is compelling." This
is perhaps the most asinine report on biotechnology ever written. The stain it leaves on
the Nuffield Council's excellent reputation will last for years.
The panel made three fundamental mistakes . The first
was to assume that the technology is neutral and
could, given the right conditions, be evenly deployed and distributed. In truth, genetic
engineering is inseparable from its ownership. No genetically engineered crop reaches the
market without a patent. Most of these forbid the farmer from saving seed for future
plantings: control of the foodchain remains with the corporation at every stage of
production.
The second was its crude, even childish, supposition that any
technology which produces more will feed the starving . The world is littered
with the wreckage of such assumptions. Ethiopia's modern agro-industrialists were
exporting animal feed to Europe throughout its devastating famine. Latin America's green
revolution, Christian Aid points out, raised food production by 8% per head, but
malnutrition increased in the same period by 19%. The Kalahandi region in India suffers
repeated famines, but produces surpluses every year. Starvation occurs because of the
distorted ownership of the foodchain.
The panel's third mistake was its inexplicable premise that
biotechnology will somehow boost employment . Monsanto's leading biotech
products - herbicide resistant crops - are sold with the promise that they reduce the need
for labour: farmers give their money not to local labourers but to one of the biggest
corporations on earth.
So why did such a distinguished panel make such evident mistakes? You don't have to look
very far for an answer. While people of every kind sat on the
committee, all its biotechnology experts were drawn from the same ideological poo .
It is not hard to see how Prue Leith, for example, well meaning as she doubtless was,
would have felt obliged to defer to the superior wisdom of the former chairman of the
advisory committee for novel foods and processes, or the Unilever research professor of
biological sciences. So how do we feed the world? When I suggest that the answer lies in a combination of land reform and organic or semi-organic
farming , you'll think I've gone soft in the head. But Jules Pretty of Essex
University has documented a quiet revolution across the developing world, in which peasant
farmers have doubled or tripled their yields by modern organic techniques. They require
lots of labour, no debt, and no help from predatory corporations. Only
by such means can the world's poor maintain control over their food supply, and protect
themselves from the technologies that the Nuffield panel celebrates .
03 Jun 99 - GMO - WI joins call for five-year ban
on GM food crops
By David Brown, Agriculture Editor
Telegraph ... Thursday 3 June 1999
More than 250,000 women yesterday added their voices to demands for a five-year moratorium on growing GM crops for food.
The National Federation of Women's Institutes voted
overwhelmingly to throw its support behind the Prince of Wales , who delivered
an outspoken attack on GM food on Monday. They also
demanded that the Government should ban imports of GM foods for
the same period , until consumer safety and environmental concerns have been
fully investigated.
With 7,055 votes to 368 voting in favour of the moratorium at a packed meeting in the
Royal Albert Hall in London, the institute delivered a major blow
to Government efforts to reassure consumers about the new food technology.
The WI has more than 250,000 members in 368 local federations throughout the country and
is renowned for its "traditional" approach to food and community values. The
move was instigated by a motion from the Ickenham village branch in Middlesex.
Sangeeta Haindl, federation spokeswoman, said: "Lots of our branches are concerned
about the issue of GM food. Local WIs are involved in many projects to improve the quality
of life in their areas and food is a very important part of that. Women want to be sure of
the ingredients they use when baking their cakes and cooking in general. They are
concerned for their families."
In a debate which dominated the first day of the Royal Bath and West Show at Shepton
Mallet, Somerset, - one of Britain's main farming shows - Joan
Ruddock, the Labour MP and former minister for women, attacked farmers who grew GM crops
as "sinners more than saviours".
She accused supporters of GM technology of "emotional
blackmail " by claiming that the new foods would feed the world. She said:
"What people in the developing world need is the opportunity to diversify their food,
not be condemned in perpetuity to a mono-diet."
The MP for Lewisham and Deptford claimed that GM companies were proceeding without public
consent. She said: "Why did they lobby the world's governments to introduce new
patent laws for seeds? Why did they fight regulation and labelling? Why
in the US did they take the deliberate and irresponsible decision to mix GM and non-GM
foods?
"Why? Because unlike most of the governments which they were dealing with, they
recognised the awesome implications of this science and didn't
want the questions asked ."
She said, dismissing criticism of anti-GM protesters as hysterical, Luddites and
scientifically illiterate: "On the contrary, it is neither ignorant nor primitive to
be concerned about what we eat. Our instincts may be primeval but BSE taught us they are
entirely rational."
There might currently be no evidence to suggest that GM technologies used to produce food
were harmful. She said: "But we simply don't know. That is why it is no business of
government to try to persuade us one way or the other."
As the controversy raged around him following his comments earlier in the week concerning
GM food, Prince Charles strolled in a traditional flower meadow at Clattinger Farm, Wilts,
yesterday and joked about rolling in the hay. Standing knee deep in the wild flowers, the
Prince told photographers: "Perhaps you want me to recline in it. It makes a change
from elephant seals in the background" - a reference to a visit to the Falklands
earlier this year.
Owned by the Wildlife Trust, of which the Prince is patron, the farmland has not been
treated with modern fertilisers or herbicides. Dr Gary Mantle, director of the trusts,
said the royal visit was "a great opportunity for Charles to give his support to
sustainable organic farming which is very much in harmony with his own feelings on GM
food".
02 Jun 99 - GMO - Locations of UK GMO test site
on web
Friends of the Earth
Internet ... Wednesday 2 June 1999
The locations of UK GMO test sites are now accessible on the web courtesy of Friends of
the Earth at: http://www.foe.co.uk/camps/foodbio/queries/
02 Jun 99 - GMO - Hunting crops
Staff Reporter
Guardian ... Wednesday 2 June 1999
The debate over genetically modified foods is now polarised between those who hail their
development as the solution to our planet's demographic explosion, and those who fear an
Orwellian future where our dabbling in the stuff of life will kill much more than the
beautiful Monarch butterfly. Prince Charles is the latest recruit to the latter camp.
Between these positions lie many confused people. However, there
is one point on which virtually everyone, bar a few environmental fundamentalists, agree:
more testing is needed.
There is a vast debate over the details of how, when and where GM crops should be tested.
Subjects such as "isolation distance", which have until now only interested a
few crop manufacturers, farmers and officials, are now a matter of burning public
interest.
What worries HRH, English Nature and a growing list of organisations not known for their
radicalism is that a bee can fly for miles , and on
its journey it can assist the cross-pollination of GM and non-GM
crops . This threatens to make a mockery of
the whole idea that we can safely ring-fence the development of GM, and that this small
island can accommodate both GM and organic farming. The government admits it is now
looking again at this issue.
About time too. The testing of GM, its impact on wildlife and on other non-GM crops, must
be strictly controlled, monitored and independently evaluated; we are not convinced that
this is happening. There is sympathy for Genetix Snowball and other responsible direct
action groups digging up test sites. But this offers no solution in the long term.
GM crops must be tested and it is the government's job to ensure that is done in a way
which builds public confidence. The threat to the Monarch butterfly posed by GM maize was
only discovered after years of widespread planting. What scares people is the
irreversibility of the environmental impact of GM and that it may be discovered too late.
02 Jun 99 - GMO - The 10 questions - Government
answers
Staff Reporter
Guardian ... Wednesday 2 June 1999
The Guardian yesterday asked the government to answer Prince Charles' 10 fears for GM food
1. Do we need GM food in this country?
The Prince: The benefits, such as there are seem to be limited to the people who own the
technology and the people who farm on an industrialised scale.
The Government: Biotechnology offers enormous opportunities for improving the quality of
life in terms of health, agriculture, food and environmental protection.
2. Is GM food safe for us to eat?
The Prince: Only independent scientific research, over a long period, can provide the
final answer.
The Government: That is a question for the scientists not politicians. The Government's
top priorities are protecting human health and the environment.
3. Why are the final rules for approving GM foods so much less
stringent than those for new medicines produced using the same technology?
The Prince: Before drugs are released on to the market they have to undergo the most
rigorous testing...Surely it is equally important that [GM foods] will do us no harm.
The Government: Before crops are approved for planting they are subject to several years
of testing for adverse effects.
4. How much do we really know about the environmental
consequences of GM crops?
The Prince: Lab tests showing that pollen from GM maize in the United States caused damage
to the caterpillars of Monarch butterflies provide the latest cause for concern. More
alarmingly, this GM maize is not under test.
The Government: Says it recognises the concerns of people who feel that there may be
unforeseen long-term effects on the environment. That is why large-scale independent
monitoring and testing is so important.
5. Is it sensible to plant test crops without strict regulations
in place?
The Prince: Such crops are being planted in this country now - under a voluntary code of
practice. But English Nature has argued that enforceable regulations should be in place
first.
The Government: New safeguards and a system of enforcement have been agreed between the
industry and the Government which could form basis of future statutory or regulatory
intervention.
6. How will consumers be able to exercise genuine choice?
The Prince: Labelling schemes clearly have a role to play, but if conventional and organic
crops are contaminated by GM crops, people who wish to avoid GM food products will be
denied choice.
The Government: This Government was the first to introduce labelling for GM foods. The
testing process will establish the dangers, if any, of contamination of non-GM crops.
7. If something goes wrong with a GM crop, who will be held
responsible?
The Prince: It is important that we know precisely who is going to be legally liable to
pay for any damage - whether it be to human health, the environment or both.
The Government: The issue of liability is being discussed but no regulations have been put
in place. If a commercial GM crop is shown to have adverse effects, the Government will
have the power to have it removed.
8. Are GM crops really the only way to feed the world's growing
population?
The Prince: This arguments sounds suspiciously like emotional blackmail to me.
The Government: That is a question for the scientists. Govt emphasises the enormous
benefits from GM crops such as pest resistance.
9. What effect will GM crops have on the people of world's
poorest countries?
The Prince: Where people are starving, lack of food is rarely the underlying cause. The
need is to create sustainable livelihoods for everyone. Will GM crops really help or will
they make the problems worse?
The Government: Say they are taking steps to ensure that individual states have power over
ability of multinationals to move GM crops and foods between countries.
10. What sort of world do we want to live in?
The Prince: Are we going to allow the industrialisation of Life itself, redesigning the
natural world for the sake of convenience? Or should we be adopting a gentler, more
considered approach, seeking always to work with the grain of nature?
The Government: A safe one. That is why we are proceeding extremely cautiously.
02 Jun 99 - GMO - Industry condemns test site map
as terrorist charter
James Meikle, Michael White and Stuart Millar
Guardian ... Wednesday 2 June 1999
The first comprehensive map and guide to test sites for
genetically modified crops was condemned yesterday by the biotechnology
industry for encouraging "terrorist tactics" as the government yesterday moved
to play down claims that it was at public loggerheads with the Prince of Wales on the
issue.
With Downing Street putting a brave face on the prince's fierce attack on the safety of GM
crops and foodstuffs, the temperature was further increased by
Friends of the Earth which revealed details of a new website which will allow
users to find out their nearest test centres by tapping in their postcodes or using a
locator on a map of Britain.
The map, to be launched today, highlights 148 sites often more
than one per farm or research facility where consents for planting have either been given
(140) or are awaited (eight) (UK Correspo