 |
 |
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.