On Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 05:43 AM, STEVEN BISSELL wrote:

>
> Gus, I spent a bit of time googling (is that a word?) for the original
> report and cannot find anything like it. Did you have any luck? The  
> figure
> 2/3rds of *all* crops still gives me great pause. All I find is the  
> news
> article itself and reports about the news article or repeating the news
> article. No references to the actual report. It makes me very  
> suspicious.
>

Steven-
Found the following at

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/ 
cmenvaud/90/9007.htm#a8

This seems to be the report published Friday that was mentioned in the  
article I sent.  It was published by the relevant committee on Friday  
the 5th.  It doesn't seem to have the 2/3 US crops contaminated  
statistic - but it's report on Canada and rape seed is in that vein, as  
well as discussions of organic farming and GM crops.  I took out two  
excerpts that are relevant to our discussions and also to Suzuki's  
piece.  I have downloaded the entire report, but the Gods only know  
when I'll have time to read it.

I am sending a second email with additional stuff i found while  
googling.

Gus

------- - --

The north American experience

27. One of the points made in many of the memoranda that we received,  
and in oral evidence, was that the Government should examine the  
evidence with regard to the growing of GM crops in north America.  
Commercial cultivation of GM crops had been taking place there for a  
number of years, indeed, even before the FSEs began. Experiences with  
GM have been predominantly negative. Indeed, one of the memoranda  
received by us was from the Canadian National Farmers' Union which  
painted a lamentable picture of the potential effect upon biodiversity  
and agriculture in general of the contaminatory effect of GM wheat  
cultivation.[32]

28. Another north American issue pointed out in memoranda was the  
increasing amount of herbicide used on GM crops as the incidence of  
herbicide-resistant weeds rose. Dr Benbrook, agronomist and Director of  
the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center in the USA,  
published a paper at the beginning of 2004 on this experience in the  
United States, drawing on official US Department of Agriculture  
figures.[33] The problem had also been evident in Canadian agriculture.  
In some areas farmers had had to dose their GMHT herbicide with the  
more potent herbicide atrazine in order to cope with the number of  
herbicide-resistant volunteers in their crop.[34] As the Rt Hon Michael  
Meacher MP said in evidence us: "the Canadian NFU […] were gung-ho for  
GM in 1996 because they had been told that it would increase their  
yields [… and] reduce the use of herbicides, and contamination  
containment could reasonably easily be dealt with. All of those […]  
were not now believed by their farmers, […] yields had actually gone  
down […] herbicide use was more than companies said it was going to be,  
[…] and containment was a very real problem".[35]

29. The Canadians also have a significant problem with GM canola  
(oilseed rape) cultivation, particularly in relation to the prevalence  
of GM volunteers in successor crops. As these volunteers are  
herbicide-resistant, they pose a great challenge to the herbicide  
regime on the crops that follow. In one Province, volunteers from GMHT  
rape have become one of the top ten agricultural weeds.[36] Moreover,  
there is a particularly acute problem with the contamination of  
conventional or organic rape with GMHT rape. Following a visit to  
Saskatchewan, the Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP was reported as saying of  
GMHT rape pollen: "It gets everywhere […] that's what Canada shows. And  
if you can't separate crops out here in the Canadian prairies, what  
hope do you have in a tiny country like ours?".[37] Mr Meacher repeated  
his concerns as to contamination in evidence before the Committee.[38]  
Lord Melchett of the Soil Association also raised fears of  
contamination of organic crops by GMHT varieties in evidence before the  
Committee.[39] In parts of Canada, there was now no possibility of  
growing organic canola because GMHT volunteers and pollen were too  
widespread. The Soil Association had expressed fears that the FSEs  
might contaminate organic farmers in the UK: it carried out risk  
analyses at organic sites within 6 miles of FSE sites, but no  
contamination was found.[40]

30. In evidence before us, Professor Pollock claimed that the north  
American experience was of little direct relevance to the FSEs. He said  
that the GM crop which appeared to show most problems in terms of  
increasing herbicide applications in north America—maize—was not the  
same as the forage maize being trialed in the UK.[41] He also insisted  
that differences in agronomy between the US and UK made comparisons  
particularly odious[42]: "the main agronomy in the US was sufficiently  
distinctive that we did not feel there was a great deal of cross-talk".  
Significantly, Professor Pollock added that "that was the argument put  
forward by SCIMAC".[43] The Minister of State told us: "We do look at  
the experiences of other countries where GM crops have been established  
for a very long time… I am aware of concerns that have been expressed  
by some Canadian farmers and farming organisations. These are concerns  
that need to be taken seriously. They need to be taken into  
account".[44] Interestingly, Dr Church added that ACRE "are looking at  
the … Canadian and American stuff [and ] actively considering what  
implications it has for us".[45]

31. We note the opinion that the agronomies (and, in some cases, crop  
types) of north America and the UK FSEs were sufficiently distinctive  
that no direct account need be taken of perceived problems with GM  
crops in Canada and the United States for the narrow scientific  
purposes of the trials. The problems evident in north America have not  
been taken seriously enough. DEFRA should have advised the SSC to take  
account of north American experiences with GM. We agree with Mr Morley  
that north American experiences with GM should be taken into account.  
We note that the Government claims that some work is now being done to  
examine Dr Benbrook's findings, and to look into other aspects of how  
GM has been grown and managed in north America. The precise nature of  
this research is unclear, and, in any case, we are unhappy that this  
work has been left until after most of the FSEs have reported.  
Consequently, the findings from that trans-Atlantic research have not  
now been factored in to the decisions that are already being reached on  
those GMHT crops in the UK nearest approval. This is clearly  
unsatisfactory. No decision to proceed with the commercial growing of  
GM crops should be made until thorough research into the experience  
with GM crops in north America has been completed and published.

and.....

Contamination and liability: pollen spread and gene flow

37. Another area of concern was the threat the trials posed to  
conventional or organic crops on account of possible contamination by  
gene flow or pollen spread.[58] Many of those critical of the trials  
appeared unaware that DEFRA was using the trials as an opportunity also  
to assess gene flow as an additional piece of research.[59] The  
Minister of State, Elliot Morley MP, assured us that work on the  
studies of gene flow was still under way.[60] Criticisms that the  
trials did not formally include such research are therefore beside the  
point. Pollen spread and the calculation of separation distances so as  
to prevent contamination is a subject still heavily debated by  
scientific experts. It is a particular cause of anxiety to organic  
farmers in this country who would lose their organic accreditation if  
their farms because contaminated by GM pollen. The Soil Association, in  
its written and oral evidence, was understandably apprehensive about  
the possibilities of pollen spread. It was aggrieved that the  
Government in the FSEs had accepted the separation distances posited,  
as it put it, by the GM industry rather than those put forward by the  
Nation Pollen Research Unit (200-600 metres as opposed to 1-6  
kilometres, depending on crop type). [61] The north American experience  
with oilseed rape and the devastation of organic rape production should  
serve as an impetus to Government to bring in prudent guidelines for  
separation distances as quickly as possible.

38. Although no contamination by pollen of organic farms took place as  
a result of the trials, the disparity in recommended separation  
distances is a cause for concern.[62] We are aware that, along with  
gene flow, the Government is examining this issue.[63] The Government  
is keen to tighten up the current liability regimes in case  
contamination were to occur in the future. As Elliot Morley MP said to  
us: "We are currently reviewing the whole statutory framework with a  
view to whether we should make it tighter and more robust […] We are  
considering the AEBC report which had addressed the issue of  
co-existence and liability".[64] The Minister went on to tell us to  
expect some decisions on these issues by the summer.[65] While the  
possibilities of contamination may be slight, its effect could have  
enormous consequences for those so contaminated. We are very concerned  
about possible contamination by gene-flow and pollen spread of non-GM  
crops and insist that the issue of liability be settled before any GM  
crops are allowed to be commercially grown in the UK. The Government  
should ensure, through primary legislation, if necessary, that it puts  
into place, before any GM crops may be grown commercially in this  
country, a clear and comprehensive liability regime to underpin any  
future regulations dealing with co-existence issues. Moreover,  
liability should lie with the industry and not with farmers. It would  
be wrong for the Government to allow farmers to be used as a firewall  
for the industry.