Memorandum submitted by Jean Ide (A10)
1. I regret that I have not been able to
consult my committee on this matter as we have not met during
the summer and have all been too busy to undertake the inevitably
complicated task of circulating draft comments for approval or
amendment.
2. However, I would very much like to record
my own reactions as I felt it was, by way of "executive summary",
a rather strange affair.
3. For the record, This Association's [The
Family Farmers' Association] attitude to GMs is given in this
resolution: "In the light of so much conflicting evidence;
with family farming organisations in countries already growing
GM crops resisting further expansion; with the danger to farming's
image from widespread public opinion against GM food and with
as yet no long term independent evaluation of their environmental
impact and safety: The Family Farmers' Association believes that
Genetically Modified crops should not be commercialised in Britain
until more experience is gained in other countries of their impact
on the environment and food safety and their value to farmers."
4. I presume it is in order to submit a
personal view on the Debate. My immediate reaction on hearing
that this public debate was to be organised was to wonder why
the public should be asked for its opinion before the results
of the field trials were known. I am still wondering. There was
also a scientific review in progress, the results of which were
not known until the Public Debate was mainly closed.
5. I hoped to attend the official debate
in Taunton, but on phoning for details a few days before it I
was told I could not go, all places were booked. From the newspaper
I learned that some attempt was made to accommodate more people,
but I was unable to discover anyone who had at all clear views
as to exactly what they learned from the meeting.
6. The only meeting I attended was organised
by the NFU for the whole of Devon. This was chaired by a member
of the Biotechnology Commission, David Carmichael. He professed
to be independent, but his otherwise rather uninformative opening
included the statement that a lady in Kenya used to earn £50
a year from her acre of bananas, but since she had GM bananas
she was making £600 a year and was able to pay for her children
to go to school and to buy more land. I have yet to discover anyone
who has heard of GM bananas. (This, of course, does not mean they
do not exist). He later confirmed that we were to discuss the
growing of GM crops in Britain, not their worldwide possibilities.
7. He then showed a 15 minute official video,
which seemed singularly unhelpful. I hope you will watch it and
be able to judge for yourselves. Many of the farmers present remarked
on the fact that it had taught them nothing.
8. We then had a wide ranging and interesting
debate. My impression was that most of those present were opposed
to the growing of GM crops in England for many and varied well
thought out reasons. One farmer, a member of the NFU's biotechnology
committee, spoke strongly in favour. Another said he had been
feeding GMs to his broiler chickens for years with no ill effects.
9. It was a little odd that our NFU Regional
Director reported in his weekly column in the regional newspaper
that the majority at this meeting were in favour. I had the opportunity
today to discuss this with another farmer who had been present,
and he said his impression was that the majority were opposed.
(I mention this as you may have had the newspaper report circulated
to you.)
10. I did not discover about any other local
meetings in time to go. I read in the paper that there had been
meetings with good debates in Plymouth and Cornwall, but I am
not sure who organised them.
11. The Crown Copyright document seemed
a fair presentation, and it is to be hoped that the results of
the poll or questionnaire contained therein will be published.
I am not equipped to study material on the internet, so am unable
to comment on what the government has produced in that line.
12. What many people I have spoken to would
like to know is whether we have any effective choice in the matter.
It is thought by many people that if GMOs are once grown in any
quantity we shall never be able to get rid on them should they
turn out to be undesirable. These people argue that we would be
able to stay free of them as an island and that we should do so
until there is more experience of their use worldwide. It is similarly
suggested that Britain would then be in a position of economic
strength if it turned out that GM had long term ill effects. But
Mr. Fischler is quoted as saying that no area has the right to
keep them out. If this is the case, why the Debate?
10 September 2003
| 
