Location: Home Page
> Learning Links
>
GM Basics >
Key Developments >
GM Food and Crops: What Next?
Friends of the Earth Press Briefing September 2003 [edited]
Copyright belongs to Friends of the Earth 2003. Minor edits done by LABB,
in order to provide a useful summary snapshot - which must now of course
be read in the context of later developments e.g. as outlined in the 'Recent Developments' section.
This briefing is an update on what has been happening on genetically
modified (GM) food and crops and what is coming up in the near
future. The autumn of 2003 sees a number of key dates, including a
report on the Government's public debate, 'GM Nation?', a report on the
Farm Scale Evaluations and the next steps in the GM Trade War between
the US and Europe.
The decisions made over the next few months could have widespread
repercussions for our food, farming and environment. Chief amongst
these will be whether the Government will allow GM crops to be
commercially grown in the UK. If they do, the first could be grown as
early as spring 2004.
BACKGROUND
GM food first went on sale in the UK in 1996. There was little
publicity and no consultation. Public opposition against GM soon grew
and the public started to demand GM-free food. In September 1998, a
new European law came into force which obliged all food manufacturers
and retailers (and restaurants) to label their food if it contained GM
maize and soya above a one per cent threshold. Consumers would now be
able to avoid GM food if they chose. Within months, practically all
the UK's leading supermarkets and food manufacturers bowed to consumer
pressure and started to source ingredients that didn't come from GM
crops. And in December 1999, Friends of the Earth revealed that even
Monsanto's staff canteen was effectively a GM-free zone.
GM CROPS
In response to public pressure the Government announced a four year
programme of GM farm-scale trials (or farm-scale evaluations), which
started in 1999. The Government also promised that commercial GM crop
growing would not be permitted until the trials were over. But these
trials also faced criticism. Friends of the Earth and others pointed
to the threat they posed to neighbouring crops and honey, and because
they would only provide a very limited view of the potential long-term
environmental impacts of this new technology.
PUBLIC OPINION
Public opposition to GM food and crops remains high. In October 2002,
an NOP survey revealed that 57 per cent did not want the Government to
allow GM crops to be commercially grown across the UK. The previous
month a poll for the Grocer found that 58 per cent would avoid
products containing GM ingredients. And in April 2003, a MORI poll
showed that 56 per cent opposed GM food, compared to a paltry one in
seven (14 per cent) who support it.
Between June and July 2003 the Government held a public consultation,
GM Nation? to assess public attitudes towards GM
food and crops. (It had its own website - www.gmnation.org.uk - now defunct, but see Note 1.) The Government said it would take account of the debate
(report in September) when making future policy decisions
on GM issues, particularly the commercialisation of GM crops.
The debate was controversial even before it started. In July, an
unnamed Government minister told journalists that the Government had
already made up its mind to commercialise GM crops, and that the
debate would merely be "a PR exercise".
The debate was also criticised by a coalition of environment and
consumer organisations for its rushed timetable, lack of clarity,
inadequate funding and poor publicity. Less than two weeks into the GM
debate, Environment Minister Michael Meacher was sacked, probably
because of his cautious approach to the GM issue. Despite the
concerns and squeezed timetable, at least 40,000 people completed GM
Nation? Response forms, demonstrating the issue of GM crops and food
remains a prime concern of the public.
Although the debate's report was not due to be published until September 2003,
Professor Malcolm Grant, the chairman of the GM Nation?, said that it
shows that people "are generally sceptical about the perceived
benefits of genetically modified crops". See:
https://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/scepticism_as_gm_debate_en
Two additional strands of the GM debate, a review of scientific
information and a cost/benefit analysis have now been published -
neither of which provides grounds for GM crops to be given an
immediate go-ahead.
GM ECONOMICS REPORT
A report on the economics of GM crops by the Number 10 Strategy
Unit concluded that the public's refusal to eat GM food
means that there is little economic value in the current
generation of GM crops, and that continuing public opposition would
also affect their long-term future. See:
https://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/government_report_on_econo
GM SCIENCE REPORT
A GM science review, led by Professor David King (the Government's
Chief Scientific Adviser), has also been published. Despite pro-GM
spin, far from giving GM crops the safety green light, the review
raised serious questions about significant gaps and uncertainties in
our scientific knowledge on the potential impacts GM food and crops on
our health and the environment. See:
https://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/uncertainty_over_gm_safety
GM-FREE BRITAIN
Friends of the Earth launched its GM free Britain campaign in October
2002. The campaign is aimed at local authorities and regional
assemblies and urges them to take steps to go GM-free because of the
potential impacts on health, the environment and the livelihoods of
farmers and bee-keepers. These steps could include stopping tenant
farmers growing GM crops, and banning GM food from local food services
such as school meals and residential homes. Some authorities have also
pledged to write to the Government and Brussels applying, under new
European laws, for their areas to be excluded from growing certain GM
crops.
The number of authorities that are taking GM action is growing by the
week. Those that have joined the campaign include the Welsh National
Assembly, Devon, Dorset, Lancashire, Cornwall, Warwickshire, South
Gloucestershire, Shropshire, Cumbria, Somerset and the Lake District
National Park. More authorities are expected to take similar
decisions. See: https://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/biodiversity/resource/gm_free_britain_index.html
This October (2003), individuals from around the country set out
on a pilgrimage for a GM-free Britain, culminating in an
event in London on Monday 13th October. For more information see
https://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/tractors_and_trolleys_line
GM CROP TRIALS/ FARM SCALE EVALUATIONS
The farm-scale trials started in 1999. Their focus was extremely
narrow. Their remit was "to study the effect, if any, that the
management practices associated with Genetically Modified Herbicide
Tolerant (GMHT) crops might have on farmland wildlife, when compared
with weed control used with non-GM crops." The trials didn't look at
other important issues such as whether GM pollen would pollute
neighbouring crops or the environment.
The crop trials provoked considerable criticism, not least because the
trials themselves threatened neighbouring crops, honey and the
environment. They have also proved deeply unpopular with local
communities - exacerbated by the lack of community consultation before
the crops were planted. Some protested directly to farmers taking part
in the trials, others organised parish referendums on the issue. This
pressure directly led to a number of farmers pulling out of the
trials.
Crop trials also became the focus of direct action. Some were secretly
destroyed at night, while other campaigners openly trashed GM crops,
allowing themselves to be arrested so that they could justify their
actions in court, often successfully.
In July this year, the Government warned farmers who grew GM oil seed
rape as part of the FSEs not to grow conventional rape in the same
fields this autumn. This follows research showing volunteer plants
from the GM crop could contaminate a following non-GM crop at a level
of 5%. This means that farmers may find their crop contained illegal
levels of GM oilseed rape not licensed for sale in the EU. Legislation
allows up to 0.5% contamination by unapproved varieties for a limited
three year period. If GM farmers did try and grow conventional oil
seed rape they might therefore produce a crop 10 times over the
legally permitted level for GM oil seed rape.
The last round of Farm Scale Evaluations have been harvested, and a
report on them was due to be sent to the Government in October 2003. A
critique of the FSE methodology is available from Friends of the
Earth.
https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/science_smokescreen.pdf
GM LABELLING
The European Union has passed new laws that will strengthen GM
labelling regulations. The laws will come into force in April 2004.
Currently food containing an ingredient with at least one per cent of
GM DNA must be labelled. The new laws will:
* strengthen the legislation by reducing the GM threshold (to 0.9%).
Major food manufacturers and retailers currently work to 0.1%;
* increase the scope of the legislation to include derivatives from GM
crops (such as oils which don't contain DNA). This will be done
through a comprehensive traceability regime;
* extend labelling to include animal feed.
The UK Government and Food Standards Agency, however, were not so
enthusiastic and lobbied behind the scenes against some of the
proposals.
CO-EXISTENCE
Co-existence is the term being used to describe the growing of GM and
non-GM crops together or in close proximity. If GM crops are grown in
the UK it will almost certainly lead to GM pollution escaping,
which could have a major impact on our food, farming and environment.
It has been unclear what measures to ensure co-existence will be taken
on either a UK or EU level as it is an issue that will not be easy to
resolve. Although MEPs recently backed measures that would allow
member states to try and prevent GM contamination, once again this was
opposed by the UK Government.
Co-existence legislation must ensure that genetic contamination of
food and feed supplies is prevented, the rights of conventional and
organic farmers to grow GM-free produce are protected, GM producers
and operators are financially liable for contamination and the costs
of coexistence fall on GM producers and operators.
GM LIABILITY
Currently there is no legislation to require biotech companies to pay
for damage caused by their crops. This includes damage to the
environment and compensation to farmers whose crops may be
contaminated causing them financial loss.
In the absence of a liability regime it will be the victims who will
pay for any harm caused by GMOs, while the biotechnology companies
profit from their products and offload the risks and costs of clean-up
on to others.
There is an Environmental Liability Directive being debated in Europe,
which covers environmental damage across a number of areas, not just
GMOs. But the Directive is very weak and in its current form would not
provide adequate cover for environmental damage from GM. One of the
reasons is that it only extends to 'protected areas', a relatively
small area of EU land which excludes most farmland where GMOs will be
grown.
The Directive also fails to cover economic damage such as compensation
measures for farmers whose crops are contaminated.
In the UK, a report was expected from the AEBC, the
Government's GM advisors on coexistence and liability. This puts
forward options for addressing these issues in the UK.
Currently there is no insurance company that will provide insurance
cover for farmers to grow GM crops. Even NFU Mutual refuses, stating
that the risk is unquantifiable and that farmers should ensure that
the biotech industry is liable.
TRADE WAR: THE US AND THE WTO
On 13 May 2003 the United States administration launched what could turn
out to be a trade war over GM food. The US (and a number of other
countries) has brought a case against Europe in the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) over "its illegal five-year moratorium on approving
agricultural biotech products".
The EU had not granted any new GM food and crop licences for five
years (to end 2003). Europeans are concerned about the threat that GM crops pose to
food, farming and the environment. There are also fears about the
long-term health impacts from eating GM food. Opinion polls show that
70% of the European public don't want GM food and 94% want to be able
to choose whether or not they eat it (Eurobarometer 2001).
The move could bring the full force of WTO sanctions to bear in order
to force GM food into European markets regardless of the wishes of
European consumers. Friends of the Earth is warning the move is the
latest in a series of attempts by the US to block other countries'
decisions to protect their environment, human health and social
standards.
The EU has vowed to fight the case, which could be a long, drawn out
process. After the WTO meeting on 29 August 2003 they are to set up a panel to hear the dispute.
The GM issue is also likely to be a major source of friction between
negotiating blocs at the WTO ministerial talks in Cancun (September 2003).
Agriculture talks have already run into difficulties over US and EU
subsidies.
Original text (2003) by Friends of the Earth (London)
Media contact:
Clare Oxborrow (GM food) 020 7566 1716
Pete Riley (GM food) 0113 389 9955
Eve Mitchell (GM trade dispute) 020 7566 1681
Helen Burley, Media Officer Tel: 020 7566 1702
Press office: 020 7566 1649
Mobile: 07778 069930
Email: helenby "at" foe.co.uk
Note 1 - The Government website for the GM
Nation? consultation (www.gmnation.org.uk) was taken offline in Autumn
2007. An archived copy of pages may be found at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.gmnation.org.uk Also still available are the final report on the consultation and the official Government response to it. Return to 'Public Debate' above.
Find Location Site Map