» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


Video of UK minister questioned about GM leak / Expert condemns 'fake' GM science / Spinning the science (20/2/2004)

Dr Leifert quit the GM Science Review Panel last July, saying it had been set up simply to rubber-stamp use of the science. He said: "...the whole GM science research was not there for evidence, it was there to find a particular result - that there is no risk involved. The trouble is, we just do not know what the risks are and we are not able to calculate the long-term impact." (item 2)

some good stuff:
1.Video footage of UK minister questioned about GM leak - from Kuala Lumpur
2.Expert condemns 'fake' GM science
3.Spinning the science
---

1.Video footage of UK minister questioned about GM leak - from Kuala lumpur
from jim thomas <[email protected]>

Dear all

This is to let you know that environment minister Elliot Morley was extensively questioned about GM commercialisationa nd the leaked document in a press conference here at the Convention for biological diversity in Kuala Lumpur malaysia this morning.

The press conference was filmed and his answers concerning GM crop commercialisation in the UK uploaded to Biotech indymedia in a number of segments..

You can access these as quicktime videos at www.biotechimc.org and check the news wire on the right hand side of the page.
http://www.biotechimc.org

the footage is also available as broadcast quality if that is any use to media outlets.. contact freelance cameraman Jens Beck on Malaysia 01939 51436 or by email [email protected]

Although saying he would not comment on leaked document Morley did talk about GM crop commercialisation, claiming that GM maize appeared to be scientifically acceptable to grow although recognising that the use of atrazine, soon to be banned in the EU, did cause problems for the legitimacy of the farm scale trial results. Elliot Morley also erroneously claimed that the 'narrow but deep' segment of the GM nation debate showed the public were open to the growing of GM crops. In fact, in announcing the results of GM Nation proffessor Malcolm Grant who oversaw the process laid great stress on how the 'narrow but deep' study actually corroborated the hostility to GM found in the wider exercise. The minister also claimed that GM Nation was "never intended as a referendum on GM crops".

Elliot Morley stressed that the UK should not be seen as trying to force GM crops on the developing world but said that DFID took the view that GM had a role in third world countries even though the UK British Overseas Aid Group who represent aid and development charities in the UK had strongly made it clear during GM nation that developing nations were more likely to suffer than benefit from GM crops and should not be used as the excuse.

best wishes
Jim Thomas - ETC Group (in Kuala Lumpur)
phone +44 7752 106806
email [email protected]
---

2.Expert condemns 'fake' GM science
By Daniel Cochlin
The Journal, Newcasatle upon Tyne
Feb 20 2004 [shortened]
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/thejournal/content_objectid=13970131_method=full_siteid=50081_headline=-Expert%2Dcondemns%2D%2Dfake%2D%2DGM%2Dscience-name_page.html

A top North scientist who quit a high-profile Government inquiry into genetically modified food said yesterday his stance was justified by reports the Government has apparently approved plans to grow the controversial crops.  Newcastle University professor of ecological agriculture Carlo Leifert quit the inquiry last year because he felt it was set on endorsing the use of GM science.

Yesterday leaked documents from minutes of a February 10 meeting of the Cabinet Office ministerial sub-committee on biotechnology were reported to show a decision to back the sowing of GM maize on a commercial scale.

Prof Leifert said: "I was hoping all this time that I was wrong with what I thought at the time, but this clearly shows that what we suspected is actually true.

"They want to get into growing the crops and are using one dubious test as something that says it will be of environmental benefit.

"That is completely fake. There is a report in the US which shows the true harm of pesticides and GM crops, but the Government have ignored this."

Dr Leifert quit the GM Science Review Panel last July, saying it had been set up simply to rubber-stamp use of the science. He said: "I think it was on the cards and the whole GM science research was not there for evidence, it was there to find a particular result - that there is no risk involved.

"The trouble is, we just do not know what the risks are and we are not able to calculate the long-term impact."
---

Spinning the science
Friday February 20, 2004
Letters, The Guardian

The Five Year Freeze was launched in February 1999 to give a platform to groups concerned at how little was known about the impacts of agricultural biotechnology (GM crops to get go-ahead, February 19). Five years on, many of the questions we wanted to be addressed in the period of a moratorium remain unanswered. How will the public's right to choose to eat GM-free food be maintained? Who will pay for damage, both economic or environmental, that may occur? What will the real repercussions of a global GM trade be for small farmers both here and in developing countries?

We remain deeply concerned that the serious issue of hunger in developing countries is constantly used as an excuse to commercialise GM crops in Europe, while so many commentators acknowledge that GM crops cannot "feed the world".

We remain sceptical about the use of GM crops as long as the supposed benefits fail to outweigh the tangible risks. It is foolhardy for the government to ignore public concerns and proceed on the strength of decisions based on flawed evidence, then expect to win over the public through spin and presentation.

Clare Devereux
Five Year Freeze campaign

The leaked papers make it clear the government is still swallowing the PR of the GM lobby that theirs is the only unbiased and relevant science. The PR is all about science and, more and more implausibly, feeding the world. The reality includes the pushing of large volumes of their expensive pesticides and herbicides. What about the sciences concerned with river and sea pollution, of sustainable agriculture, of biodiversity and ecology?

Peter Draper
London

Why so coy on the GM maize results (Why GM-free UK is popular but unfeasible, February 19), which showed a slight advantage to the environment of GM? Perhaps because Atrazine, the herbicide used on the conventional maize, is so toxic it is soon to banned. The science is fundamentally flawed. The scientific trial is not comparing like with like. There is no solid scientific argument in favour of GM maize.

Keir Mottram
London

Atrazine disrupts hormones, gets into rivers and aquifers. GM Liberty maize allowed US farmers to stop using atrazine. But weeds developed resistance to the Liberty herbicide and GM Liberty Atz is now used - maize with atrazine in every cell.

James Bruges
Bristol

It is disingenuous to argue that GM technology is being promoted to support developing countries. Not long ago, consumer leaders from 20 African countries issued the Lusaka declaration, which clearly rejects GM technology as a solution for food security in Africa. What is it about the word "no" that this government doesn't understand?

Caroline Lucas MEP
Green, SE England

We went to war in Iraq because a government listened to the experts. Foot and mouth devastated the countryside because they listened to the experts. The school system is in chaos because they listen to experts. Experts told us BSE couldn't jump species. Experts tell us GM crops are safe. Feeling confident?

Michael Brown
London

The leaked paper claims: "Opposition might eventually be worn down by solid, authoritative scientific argument." Wasn't there a similar line in the Iraqi dossier? It's not the nuclear button we need to worry about - it's the cut and paste key.

Keith Conlon
London

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive