Coexistence
is another word for contamination, which threatens
our food if GM crops are grown in this country
01-09-2006 - The government
has launched a consultation on the issue of coexistence
between genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops,
asking for feedback on what measures would be
required to allow GM crops to be grown in this
country.
Anyone with concerns about the
future of our food can contribute, including the
general public, and the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have published
their own proposal laying out what they see as
the way forward. Unfortunately, it doesn't go
nearly far enough to address the issue of contamination
and provide protection for both non-GM and organic
farmers.
We will be making our own submission
to the consultation but you can too. Friends of
the Earth have produced an action pack which will
help you prepare your submission - the closing
date is 20 October 2006.
Contamination, not coexistence
The word 'coexistence' is itself
misleading. It implies that GM crops can be grown
without any damaging effects to other crops, the
environment or human health. But nature is nothing
if not pervasive and once GM crops are released,
contamination of non-GM crops is inevitable.
If the principle of coexistence
is adopted, contamination will become the norm
but the government doesn't seem to think this
is a problem. Their proposal is based on two assumptions
- that contamination is acceptable, and that the
GM industry should use voluntary codes of conduct
to regulate itself. With continuing reports of
contamination around the world, including the
recent scandal surrounding US rice imports, it
would be grossly irresponsible to hand control
over to the very corporate interests promoting
GM foods in the first place.
Even when the proposal does
lay down measures to minimise contamination, they
are woefully inadequate. It suggests a buffer
zone of 110m between GM and non-GM crops for grain
maize and only 35m for oilseed rape, but pollen
from both species has been shown to travel many
times further than this on the wind. Add bees
and other pollinating insects into the equation
and those distances increase dramatically.
The government are also attempting
to shift the goalposts and redefine what levels
of contamination are 'acceptable'. Without prior
consultation, they have already decided that crops
can be contaminated by 0.9 per cent without needing
to be identified and labelled as GM. EU legislation
says this is only acceptable if the producer can
prove such contamination was no fault of their
own, but the UK seems prepared to overturn this.
It would be so easy to take
that limit right down. The lowest reliable detection
rate is 0.1 per cent and the Soil Association
already insist on this when certifying organic
producers. Yet even though one of the main attractions
of organic food is that it is guaranteed to be
GM-free, Defra think that insisting on this in
legislation would not be in the best interests
of the organic industry, a viewpoint that is hard
to fathom.
Who will be liable?
So contamination means non-GM
and organic farmers risk losing not only their
crops, but also their GM-free status. This can
have costly implications so liability needs to
be established, but the proposal is vague about
who should carry the can.
The government's preferred solution
is a voluntary scheme in which the GM industry
regulates itself, instead of strict measures being
laid out in legislation. The proposal also suggests
that only direct financial losses be paid for,
discounting other long-term costs such as an organic
farmer being decertified, loss of reputation or
even the expense of testing for contamination
in the first place.
In fact, the onus is on non-GM
farmers to prove that contamination was not their
fault rather than giving them the benefit of the
doubt. Non-GM farmers in the US and Canada who
are found to have GM strains growing as a result
of contamination are being asked by the biotech
companies to pay huge sums of money or face legal
action due to infringement of patent rights, and
the same could happen here.
But liability isn't just about
purely monetary concerns, there is also damage
to the environment to consider. Clean-up operations
to eradicate the contamination will be costly,
and it's doubtful whether such attempts would
be successful. Once GM pollen and seeds are released
into the wild, even unintentionally, they are
impossible to recall and the contamination could
be deeply entrenched before any clean-up attempt
can be mobilised.
Consumer says 'no'
It's clear that the government
is hell-bent on commercialising GM crops in the
UK, even after nearly a decade of complete rejection
by consumers and experts alike. Even the government's
own advisors have said that if GM crops are grown,
contamination is inevitable and that the knock-on
costs to non-GM and organic farmers will be considerable.
But it's not too late to have
your say. Make your voice heard and tell the government
there must be no GM crops grown in this country.
Other EU states will be watching the outcome closely
so this is a real opportunity to influence not
only the UK government, but also the rest of Europe.
You don't need to be an expert
on GM food to contribute to the consultation,
and Friends of the Earth have all the information
you need to prepare your submission. The closing
date is 20 October 2006, so make sure your voice
counts.
