APPENDIX 2
Memorandum submitted by Mr Peter Lundgren
(G 3)
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.
INTRODUCTION
I do grow oil seed rape but fortunately I did
not sow the variety Hyola this spring, however I have spoken to
some of the farmers who have been affected. I am hopeful that
some of them will contribute their experiences to the Committee
but they are very anxious that they may damage their businesses
by "going public". There is a real possibility that
farmers growing GM crops, even inadvertently, will see their land
devalued and will lose the opportunity to supply GM free markets.
CONTAMINATION
Press reports show that Advanta became aware
of the contamination on 3 April, Advanta then waited for two weeks
before informing the government on 17 April. The government and
Advanta then sat on the information until 17 May before announcing
to the public that farmers had inadvertently sown GM contaminated
seed. This timescale is significant because on 3 April a considerable
quantity of the Hyola seed was still in farmers' stores waiting
to be planted—especially in the North and Scotland—and
if Advanta had recalled the contaminated seed immediately, a majority
of the affected farmers would have avoided the problem.
When the farmers and the public were informed
of the problem there was no clear coherent advice for farmers,
even though MAFF had known of the problem for four weeks. I phoned
the Ministry of Agriculture on 23 May, just 10 days before the
deadline for planting crops and claiming Area Aid Payments (the
last day that farmers could destroy the contaminated crop and
replant), to discover that there was still no clear advice for
farmers and that the Ministry was advising that the crop could
be sold, even though the contaminant, RT73, is not cleared for
growing in Britain. It was the following weekend that the Minister
for Agriculture stated that farmers could continue to grow the
crop but would not be able to sell the crop in Britain, however,
they would have to sell the crop abroad—chaos. Again, there
was no advice for farmers who wanted to destroy the crops, liability,
compensation and complying with IACS regulations.
At this time some affected farmers took the
decision to destroy their crops publicly and we owe them a debt
of gratitude for presenting a positive image of responsible farming
which deflected public anger away from farming towards the biotech
industry and the government.
Both Advanta and MAFF seriously underestimated
the public reaction to the news that contaminated crops were growing—one
has to wonder which planet they have been on for the last 12 months—and
failed to get information to farmers quickly, failed to give clear
advice as to the options of destroying or retaining the crops
and failed to advise farmers about compensation for both the growing
crop and any further losses.
Looking back it appears that both Advanta and
the Government were more interested in reducing their liability
and protecting their own interests than in looking after the interests
of the farmers and the general public.
The lack of immediate and decisive action has
lost the confidence of the farming community in the Government's
ability to regulate the introduction of GM crops.
CROSS POLLINATION
Advanta have stated that the Hyola seed was
contaminated by cross pollination and was growing 1,600 metres
away from the GM crop, considerably in excess of the 800 metre
separation required under Canadian regulations for seed production
and the 200 metres recommended by SCIMAC (just 50 metres for food
crops). Some reports suggest that the seed was contaminated by
both glyphosate resistant genes and glufosinate resistant genes.
Reading the Agriculture Committee's report "segregation
of genetically modified foods" it appeared that the members
were concerned that the SCIMAC segregation distances are insufficient
to give farmers the choice to produce GM free foods and the public
the choice to consume GM free foods.
The contamination of rape and maize seed crops
over great distances demonstrates that the incidence of cross
pollination between GM and non GM crops will make it extremely
difficult to preserve that choice with home grown produce. The
idea that "mixed GM farming" can take place with both
GM and non GM crops of the same species on the same farm, or that
one farmer who is GM free can co-exist with a neighbouring farmer
growing GM crops is questionable.
Professor Bevan Moseley, Chairman of the EU
Novel Foods working group, recounts that on a visit to the USA
and in conversation with the USDA, biotech companies and soya
growers, the idea was entertained that farmers in the northern
states (Ohio and Minnesota) could grow GM free soya and export
to Europe via the Great Lakes while GM crops could be grown in
the southern states and exported down the Mississippi. The idea
that "mixed farming" and keeping the crops segregated
was thought not to be practical.
In a small and overcrowded island like Britain
we are soon going to be at the point of no return. When a given
percentage of GM crops are being grown then it will be impossible
for any British farmer to claim to be producing GM free food from
crops where a GM equivalent is also being grown. If consumers
continue to exercise their choice to purchase GM free foods and
British farmers are unable to supply that market, then others
will step in. New Zealand's farmers have taken the decision to
be GM free and not to allow the field scale trials or commercial
growing of GM crops, so if British consumers want GM free lamb,
butter, reconstituted milk and "squirty" cream then
New Zealand's farmers will be happy to supply our customers. Countries
like Brazil have already taken steps to ensure a supply of GM
free soya and take a big chunk of the US export market. In England,
a group of 25 dairy farmers have revealed plans to build the first
factory to specialise in GM free milk, processing over 200 million
litres a year at a total cost of £30 million for the venture.
Local group Lincolnshire Quality Beef and Lamb report that the
Co-op supermarket chain is extremely interested in sourcing meat
derived from GM free rations.
The demand for GM free foods, along with meat,
eggs and dairy products derived from GM free animal rations, is
growing. In order to satisfy this premium market British farmers
need GM free seed and a GM free environment—this does not
mean a ban on the growing of GM crops but it does mean that those
wishing to grow GM free crops should be able to do so with a minimal
risk of cross-pollination and contamination, and that the threshold
for GM contamination must be set at a level that is acceptable
to our customers.
British farmers can produce far more of the
national diet. Farmers can grow the protein crops, such as peas
and beans, that can replace imported GM soya for processed foods
and animal rations. British farmers must have the opportunity
to supply our own markets for GM free produce and to benefit from
the opportunity to develop new export markets from GM free produce.
In a final twist, I understand that Advanta
is moving the production of conventional seed varieties to New
Zealand where there is no risk of GM contamination and they can
guarantee GM free status. Surely this is an opportunity that ought
to be open to British farmers—or is this country already
deemed to be contaminated?
10 July 2000
| 
