From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Viviane Lerner)

DAILY MAIL (London) February 6, 2002

FRANKENFOODS - The truth at last Geoffrey Lean

FORGET all those bland reassurances about the safety of GM foods and
crops.
Ignore all those patronising experts and Government ministers who have
long
insisted that the public has been irrational to suspect them. Two
reports
from the heart of the scientific establishment now reveal that the
British
people were right to have been worried. Housewives and their families
turned against the so-called Frankenstein foods years ago, refusing to
buy
them. The supermarkets followed suit quickly, taking them off their
shelves. This is likely to be recorded as the week in which those who
are
supposed to govern and guide us finally begin to abandon GM foods too.

Already ministers are edging away from the technology, which the Prime
Minister once adopted almost as a personal crusade, and are increasingly

talking up organic agriculture. Last week the official Curry Commision,
set
up at the height of the foot- and-mouth epidemic to review British
farming,
strongly backed chemical-free agriculture. It also called for the
public's
fears on GM crops to be 'respected'. Ministers welcomed the report and
called for an independent debate on GM technology before any decision
was
taken to grow the crops commercially.

This week's reports - one from the Government's official wildlife
watchdog,
the other from Britain's principal scientific body - are bound to
accelerate the retreat. They confirm that the two main concerns about
the
technology - first raised by the Daily Mail more than three years ago -
are
real. Genes have, as feared, escaped in pollen from GM crops, creating
'super weeds' which are resistant to herbicides; and GM foods - which Mr

Blair said he was happy to feed his children - may indeed damage human
health. Lord Melchett, who was arrested for uprooting GM crops, calls
the
reports a 'breakthrough' and Peter Ainsworth, the shadow environment
secretary, says they show the Government must 'put caution first'.

The first report, by English Nature, bluntly concludes that it is
'inevitable' that super weeds will emerge in Britain if GM oilseed rape
is
grown here. A Canadian Government study found them at every site
examined
and discovered that the GM genes 'travelled' more than 730 metres from
the
crops. This makes a nonsense of Britain's safety precautions, which
allow
for a gap of only 50 metres between GM rape and other crops. But,
alarmingly, the report adds that the genes spread so readily that even
multiplying this distance many times over will do little to reduce the
danger. It concludes that the contamination 'is almost impossible to
prevent unless the crops are very widely dispersed'. It can say that
again.
Studies carried out by the National Pollen Research Unit for the Soil
Association suggest that genes from oilseed rape could travel four
miles,
not just creating super weeds but endangering organic agriculture.

Organic farmers say they cannot coexist with GM technology, and that the

public would be denied the chance to buy uncontaminated food if such
crops
were grown widely in Britain. And that is not the only danger. Once the
super weeds get established, the report says, only highly toxic
chemicals
will get rid of them. The Canadians still use 2,4D, an ingredient of the

infamous herbicide Agent Orange that was used in Vietnam and is banned
in
Britain.

The second report is, if anything, even more remarkable. It comes from
the
Royal Society which has been one of the most ardent proponents of GM
technology in Britain. In 1998 it produced a report extolling its
potential
benefits for 'agriculture, food quality, nutrition and health'. But now
it
has evidently had second thoughts. A working group of the society,
including some leading GM supporters, now reluctantly concludes that the

foods may damage health after all. It continues to insist that 'there is
no
reason to doubt the safety of foods made from GM ingredients that are
currently available' but adds that the technology could 'lead to
unpredicted harmful changes' in ingredients put into infant foods or
given
to pregnant or breastfeeding women in future. And it adds that
introducing
a new gene into a plant could 'induce allergic reactions' in sensitive
people. Even more disturbingly, the Royal Society questions the system
used
in Britain to determine whether GM foods are safe. This has long been
attacked by critics as being specifically designed to avoid testing
them.
If GM foods are similar to non-GM ones in a limited way - such as the
amounts of fibre and fatty acids, proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and
minerals they contain - it is simply assumed that the chemical and
genetic
differences will not make them more toxic. The authorities declare them
to
be 'substantially equivalent' to non-GM foods and wave them through. But

the Royal Society, which is calling for the system to be tightened, now
admits that this may not reveal 'any unexpected effects of genetic
modification'.

This change of heart is long overdue. Both the scientific establishment
and
the Government have been complacent about the risks of GM technology. It
is
scandalous that such a slapdash method of checking for health dangers
has
been allowed to persist for so long. But the Government's attitude to
testing for the spread of genes to create 'super weeds' and contaminate
other crops has been almost as negligent. Ministers have sugested time
and
again that 'farm-scale trials' - where scores of fields have been split
between GM and non-GM crops - would provide conclusive evidence on their

safety. But the trials were not designed to look at whether genes
escape,
but at the effect different ways of using pesticides on the two crops
had
on wildlife. No wonder Environment Minister Michael Meacher admitted
last
week that the Government does not have high credibility' on GM issues
and
'needs to listen' to the public. As the reports reveal, it should have
done
so a long time ago. Mr Blair should now follow the public he has so long

misled and end this dangerous experiment with a hazardous and unwanted
technology before it is too late.

GEOFFREY LEAN is an award-winning writer on the environment.

Norfolk Genetic Information Network
http://www.ngin.org.uk

--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Sharon and Wayne McEachern

http://www.LightExpression.com

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"A Divine Program for Healing and Transformation"

and

Expressing the Light

"A Ministry Dedicated to the Divine Process"

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Reply via email to