APPENDIX 19
Memorandum submitted by Mr Peter Lundgren
(R 31)
INTRODUCTION
The following is the fruits of research made
by a small farmer, struggling to service a mortgage and an overdraft,
into the issue of growing GM crops. My initial interest was raised
by my neighbour's desire to host a GM field scale trial and the
difficulties I encountered in getting information from sources
other than those with a vested interest in selling the technology.
This is not intended as an attack on the biotech companies but
as a genuine attempt to provide more information to British farmers
in order to raise the level of debate so that farmers will be
able to make a more informed decision as to whether or not they
believe GM crops are suitable for their businesses and as to whether
or not they believe that the field scale trials should continue.
GM HISTORY
In the late 80s' the GM companies applied to
the US Patent Office to patent genetic material. The US Patent
Office agreed that new life forms, excluding human, can be patented.
However in 1992 the US Food and Drug Administration
decided that GM food was "substantially equivalent"
to conventional food. This meant that the GM food did not have
to undergo full safety testing as for a new food or drug. The
FDA also ruled that the gene is a pesticide, however the EPA ruled
that the gene is a food and as such could not undertake safety
tests. The GM crops were licensed for commercial use in the USA
on the basis of safety tests undertaken by one of the GM companies,
with no independent government safety testing. Health Canada accepted
the ruling of the FDA and also licensed the GM crops for commercial
use in Canada without independent government safety tests.
Professor Philip Regal of the University of
Minnesota said that the government "just gave up" because
the technical problems of testing were just too difficult.
The Centre for Food Safety is now suing the
Food and Drug Administration over its failure to undertake safety
testing of GM foods.
Advisors to Health Canada have recently advised
the Canadian government to "go slow on GM", citing potential
health and environment problems.
European governments are the first to undertake
independent safety trials.
The herbicide resistant technology is now eight
years old and with genetic science evolving so quickly is now
outdated.
GM FIELD SCALE
EVALUATIONS
Trials are to test the effect on the environment
of the herbicide only, in the case of the AgrEvo trials the herbicide
is glufosinate, and does not attempt to assess the impact of the
genetic material on the environment.
Trials specifically exclude monitoring the gene
flow—fail to assess whether the gene leaves the site and
if it does where it goes to and what it gets up to.
The trials are being undertaken to test if GM
cropping is safe but in doing so will release GM material into
the environment before the results are known.
Scientists working in the genetics field are
questioning the validity of the method of the trials and are claiming
that any information from the trials is fundamentally flawed from
the outset.
Whether or not the science is good, it's got
to be seen to be good science. At the end of the trials it will
be easy for scientists and environmental groups to rubbish the
results of the field scale evaluations.
The Shadow Minister of Agriculture, Tim Yeo,
has called for a moratorium of the field scale trials and a Royal
Commission to look into the methodology of the trials.
The GM crops will produce viable pollen at flowering.
Trials in England involving honey bees have
proved that GM pollen carried by bees can contaminate bee hives
at a distance of three miles and the Beekeepers Association now
recommend that bees are kept at a minimum six miles away from
a GM trial site.
The John Innes Centre concluded that cross-pollination
will occur.
In experiments conducted by the University of
Wisconsin, cross contamination has been proved between GM crops
and conventional crops at a distance of three miles for oil seed
rape and one mile for maize and potatoes. Research by the Scottish
Crop Research Centre has concluded that cross-pollination can
occur at up to four kilometres.
If cross pollination of a neighbouring crop
of OSR occurred the contaminated seed could be deemed a GMO and,
under current rules prohibiting unlicensed GMOs entering the food
chain, the crop would have to be destroyed by incineration or
landfill at the farmer's cost.
If contaminated material from unlicensed GM
OSR gets into the food chain the farmer may be liable for a £5,000
fine and may be liable for any losses incurred by food manufacturers
or retailers. In reality compensation could run into £ millions,
even if the farmer did not realise that his crops had been contaminated.
There is no compensation package from government
or from the GM companies should contamination or cross-pollination
occur or if the value of neighbours land surrounding the trial
sites is reduced.
It is currently not possible for neighbouring
farmers to insure themselves against cross-pollination or to insure
against a reduction in their land value.
Compensation may be available via the courts
from the GM host farmer—but if the contamination is extensive
the GM host farmer may not have sufficient collateral to cover
the liabilities.
If anti-GM protesters trash a neighbour's crop
there is no compensation available from the GM company or from
government, however it is possible to insure against malignant
damage.
The biotech companies do not appear to have
liability insurance for GMOs.
Nottinghamshire Police had made contingency
plans to handle 2,500 protesters at the Syerston trial site. There
has not been a Newbury Bypass or a Manchester Runway type of protest
recently and GM crops could become the next target of this type
of protester.
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has
advised the government that farmers hosting GM crops risk reducing
the value of their land and advise that a register of land that
has grown GM, crops should be kept. The Banks have shown an interest
in maintaining such a register. In a recent poll of members of
the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors 58 per cent of members
believe that the growing of GM crops will affect the value of
land (16 per cent thought that it would not), 64 per cent thought
that the previous or present growing of GM crops would make land
more difficult to sell (25 per cent said it would not) and 83
per cent said that the issue of GM cropping should be taken into
consideration when making a Red Book valuation (9 per cent said
it should not).
Forty-three per cent thought that the growing
of GM crops on neighbouring land would affect the value of a farmers
land (32 per cent did not).
THE NORTH
AMERICAN EXPERIENCE
In 1997 the USA exported 70 million bushels
of maize to Europe, last year the USA exported just three million
bushels of maize to Europe as a result of European consumers rejecting
GM foods.
In 1999 US farmers received $15 billion in direct
income support (bailouts) over and above the support for ag products
that is allowed under the GATT agreements.
The Clinton administration is "looking
again" at the issue of food labelling. In the US the law
does not require food labels to show if foods have a GM content.
Europe, Japan, New Zealand and Australia have,
or intend to, introduce legislation to label GM foods.
In the US farmers are suing neighbouring farmers
for allowing GM crops to contaminate their non-GM crops.
A group of US and English lawyers are suing
the GM companies under the American anti-trust laws but also representing
farmers from America, Australia and India whose GM crops have
not performed as promised and whose non-GM crops have been contaminated
by cross pollination.
In Canada, where GM crops are more common than
non-GM, canola has fallen to its lowest price in a decade and
farmers are desperate. In 1999 $90 million of Canadian canola
could not be sold into the EU.
Canadian organic canola (a major crop in Canada)
cannot be sold as organic due to cross pollination and contamination
in store.
Brazil, a top soyabean producer, has banned
the planting of GM seeds pending an environmental review.
Many countries that have licensed GM crops for
commercial use are now voting not to approve new varieties of
GM crops, these countries include the European Union,Brazil, Australia,
New Zealand, Japan, Korea and Mexico.
With so much grain in North America excluded
from traditional export markets it is possible that discounting
of GM crops may be reducing the world price of grains. In other
words, British farmers may be receiving less for their crops.
Agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland is
to segregate all of its purchased commodities in response to world
wide antipathy to GMOs.
Brazil and Argentina are now segregating GM
and non-GM crops. US farmers are demanding segregation, but who
pays.
The US Secretary of Agriculture is calling for
federal funding for on-farm storage facilities as farmers seek
to segregate harvest into crops containing genetically modified
organisms and those without.
Monsanto is contacting all farmers who planted
its GM products in an attempt to help them find markets for their
products.
Monsanto, DuPont and Novartis, three of the
worlds biggest chemical companies, are now three of the world's
five biggest seed companies.
30 farming organisations in the US are now advising
their members that if they grow GM crops they risk losing their
livelihoods.
HOME MARKETS
Claims that GM technology is needed to feed
the world in the mext millennium will not lead to increased exports
for farmers in developed countries. Only the technology will be
exported potentially leading to a loss of export markets and more
countries entering the export market.
European consumers will not accept that food
derived from a cross between a plant and a soil microbe is "substantially
equivalent" to conventional food.
There is massive distrust of new science by
the public after the disaster of BSE—people died and more
might still die—no wonder the public is suspicious.
The European Union has become the battleground
for the future of GM. The GM companies have massive investments
in biotech and a failure to secure the EU market could seriously
damage established markets and could seriously damage company
profits.
For years the NFU and other organisations have
been exhorting farmers to grow for the markets and to listen to
their customers. The message from the customer is very clear—they
do not trust GM foods.
Sainsbury's and others will not restock with
GM products where they have removed the product from their shelves
until their customers ask. The price is not an issue.
Iceland and Marks and Spencer are now GM free.
Sainsburys and Marks and Spencers are stocking
non-GM fed poultry, eggs and pork—other products to follow—under
a premium food banner. Livestock farmers feeding rations that
include GMOs could see their produce discounted.
Nestle, Unilever and Cadbury Schweppes are going
GM free.
Heinz and Gerber are producing GM free baby
food in the USA.
Even McDonalds are using GM free soya in the
UK.
Supermarkets are asking contracted farmers in
Kenya and Zimbabwe to agree not to grow GM crops on their farms.
OPINION
The public will not accept "substantially
safe" as safe. After the fiasco of BSE, when the public was
treated to government scientists saying that beef is absolute
safe, independent scientists saying beef is potentially lethal
and a Minister of State for Agriculture stuffing a greasy burger
into his daughter's mouth, the public do not accept the opinions
of scientists. History has proved Professor Lacey and company
correct and people have died from new variant CJD (and let's not
forget the farmers who could not face collapsing businesses and
the thought that their produce was damaging the health of their
customers).
The public does not trust new science—and
who can blame them.
The public perceives the GM issue as another
BSE. On the one hand they see scientists claiming GM is "substantially
safe" and on the other they see scientists claiming GM is
not safe—what are they meant to believe. Not surprisingly
they believe it is wise to err on the side of caution and to reject
GM foods.
The GM issue has the potential to cause another
massive crisis of confidence amongst the general public similar
to that of the BSE crisis. I am not suggesting that GM foods will
cause anybody's death but, especially now that the public is beginning
to support British farmers and put their faith in British produce,
they will not forgive farmers for putting their health or the
environment at risk.
There is a real risk, in fact it is likely,
that crops and wild plants related to the GM crop will cross-pollinate
at a distance of up to three miles away from the GM trail. Should
GM contaminated food get into the food chain as GM free food,
and be traced back to a British farm, the ensuing furore could
be the death knell of British agriculture.
The real problem for farmers lies with the perceived
dangers and unless these fears are addressed sensibly there will
not be a future for GM technology in Europe. The biotech companies
must realise that if they force GM foods on to the public and
into the environment before the public are ready to accept it,
then the backlash will end GM cropping for good. It may even put
an end to the research into genetic engineering that will bring
real benefits in new treatments for serious illnesses.
I believe that I will be growing GM crops in
the future, not food crops but crops for industrial and pharmaceutical
uses, and that these crops will be of benefit to farmers and consumers.
But this will only happen if the biotech companies wake up to
the reality of the market place.
The only option is to gracefully withdraw GM
crops from the market place, stopping the contentious field scale
evaluations, and then come back to the market with improved products
that fulfil the three basic requirements of:
— firstly, is it absolutely demonstrably
safe;
— secondly, will it give growers a
better gross margin;
— and thirdly, will customers want
to buy it.
Please copy and pass on to another interested
party. The more people that are in a position to make an informed
decision, whatever that decision may be, the greater the chance
that the correct decision is made.
3 December 1999
| 
