As Tony Blair's Labour government apparently prepares to approve the first commercial GM crop in the UK, the chorus of disapproval grows louder (see items 1 and 2 below)

Find out more about the big GM connections of: *Lord Sainsbury - Blair's science minister and major Labour donor *David Hill - Blair's spin doctor in chief and Monsanto's PR man *Mike Craven - Labour's former spin doctor in chief who now helps direct the industry's lobbying.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=28&page=1

1.Tony Blair must listen on GM
2.Cardiff and London in GM crops row

---

1.Tony Blair must listen on GM
Letters, The Guardian
Saturday January 17, 2004

You report that Bayer is ready to plant GM maize this spring, provided seed listing and herbicide approval are in place (Scientists clear GM crop for planting, January 14). The government has laid great emphasis on the need for sound science, yet the advisory committee on releases to the environment's advice to go ahead with GM maize takes no account of US findings over the past eight years.

Recent research shows that while herbicide use was initially less on herbicide-resistant GM maize, it increased by up to 29% in subsequent years. Such a rise would be expected to substantially change the effects on biodiversity. When I raised this with environment minister Elliot Morley last week, he agreed that Acre would have to look at these findings in relation to the farm-scale evaluations.

It would be outrageous if commercial planting were to be agreed when the public remains hostile, the science is uncertain, the economic advantages unproven and when, despite repeated calls, there has been no parliamentary debate.
Joan Ruddock MP Lab, Deptford

Margaret Beckett's apparent confusion over English Nature's advice is hardly surprising, given the wealth of conflicting studies into the implications of ending the ban on commercial GM planting. Acre warns against authorising GM sugar beet and oil seed rape, but gives a cautious go-ahead for maize. This decision is confusing - and disingenuous, based as it is on the impact of growing GM maize alongside the use of atrazine, a herbicide banned by the EU. The only study to have provided anything approaching a clear answer is the report into last year's GM Nation debate, which showed overwhelming public opposition to GM.

To give precedence to an inconclusive scientific finding, based on the use of a banned pesticide, over clearly stated public opposition will be a betrayal of public trust.

Dr Caroline Lucas MEP
Green, SE England

Last year, a million people marched against the war in Iraq. Mr Blair ignored them. Since then, thousands have been killed and no WMD have been found. Now, it seems, despite public opinion, GM crops will be introduced. So much for Mr Blair's "big discussion".
Sarah Pegg
Seaford, E Sussex

---

2.Cardiff and London in GM crops row
Steve Dube, The Western Mail, Jan 17 2004

A CONFRONTATION is looming between the Welsh and UK Governments over whether to allow genetically-modified maize to be grown in Britain.  The prospect of open disagreement over the controversial technology looks more likely following provisional approval by the Government's statutory advisers.

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment - Acre - advised UK Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett that farmers could grow GM herbicide-tolerant maize under strict rules without adverse effects on wildlife.

The different approaches from London and Cardiff became immediately apparent.

UK Environment Minister Elliott Morley told MPs there was a comparatively strong case for growing the GM maize because trials showed it was less damaging than a conventional crop.

But Wales Countryside Minister Carwyn Jones said the Acre advice supported the National Assembly's opposition to GM crops.

Acre's advice on the farm scale evaluations of three spring-sown crops, which were published last October, warned that GM beet and oilseed rape would harm wildlife, particularly farmland birds. But the GM maize appeared harmless when treated with the herbicide Liberty.

Acre did not point out that the tests have been criticised as less than helpful given the fact that US farmers grow GM maize with a herbicide containing the chemical Atrazine.

This was used in the tests on the comparative, non-GM maize and is used on maize crops in Britain but is banned in France as too toxic and will be withdrawn throughout Europe in 2006.

Critics also claimed that the non-GM crops was sprayed several times with Atrazine while the GM crop was sprayed with herbicide just once at the start of the season - and farmers alarmed at the growth of weeds were told not to spray a second time.

Acre deputy chairman Jules Pretty said one of the most important results to come out of the trials was the extent to which modern agriculture of all types damaged the environment.

"Perhaps the question we should be asking is whether we should be growing maize at all, if we want a healthy farmland environment," he said.

Acre has set up a sub-group to look at the effect of modern intensive agricultural methods on the environment.  Following the Acre report, Mr Morley told MPs there is little prospect of GM beet and spring sown oil seed rape getting the go-ahead.

He added, "It is quite clear from the farm-scale evaluations that the GM maize came out better in relation to the environmental consequences than conventional maize.

"But that is on the basis of a particu