GM crops roll-out is blighted as MPs prepare to challenge No 10
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00
GM crops roll-out is blighted as MPs prepare to challenge No 10http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=496238
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
29 February 2004
MPs are poised to reject the Government's plans to approve the growing of GM crops in Britain, just as ministers are preparing to announce them. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, one of its two most powerful select committees, is putting the final touches to a report concluding that no modified crops should be cultivated commercially until more trials are carried out. This would delay their introduction until the end of the decade.
The MPs believe that the official trial of GM maize, which ministers are using to justify the go-ahead, is invalid and should be repeated. They want lessons to be learnt from North America, where genes from modified crops have contaminated organic and conventional produce.
Their report is due to be published at the end of this week, at the worst possible moment for the Government which is planning to announce in the next three weeks that it has given the technology its approval.
The timing of the report is explosive, as ministers are reeling from the leak of cabinet committee minutes 10 days ago. The minutes outlined plans for spinning the announcement to "wear down" public opposition to the technology. Downing Street officials are warning the Prime Minister there could be pitched battles in the fields during a general election campaign next spring.
Ministers last week let slip plans for a new period of public consultation on how far GM and traditional crops should be kept apart. This would give them an excuse to delay the planting of GM maize until after the election.
Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth said: "The Select Committee report is really going to put the cat among the pigeons and ruin the Government's plans to spin the announcement."
The report is by one of only two Commons committees mandated to examine policy across Whitehall. It has been deeply influenced by the discovery, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last October, that the maize trial has been invalidated by the banning of a controversial weedkiller called Atrazine, used on conventional crops.
The devastating effects of the herbicide ensured that growing conventional maize was more harmful to wildlife than cultivating the GM crop. However, with beet and oilseed rape, where Atrazine was not used, the reverse was the case. Ministers are using the results to justify going ahead with the modified variety, even though the banning of the chemical means they are no longer relevant.
The MPs believe approval should not be given until after new trails are carried out using the herbicides that replace Atrazine, and that these trials need to be run for at least four years.
They also believe ministers have not taken enough account of problems with GM crops in the US and Canada, where neighbouring crops have been contaminated and superweeds created.
In another blow for the industry, Bayer CropScience, which owns the maize about to be approved by ministers, has made the heads of its GM operations in Europe redundant.
Science and politics
Saturday, 22 December 2012 22:48
Science and politics need counselling, not a separation
Jack Stilgoe
The Guardian, 21 December 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/dec/21/science-policy-brian-cox?CMP=twt_fd
*Brian Cox and Robin Ince say they're fighting for the status of science, but they're picking the wrong fight
A piece by Brian Cox and Robin Ince in the New Statesman has excited that corner of the Twittersphere concerned with things scientific. Their argument is that, because science has been twisted and undermined by politicians, there needs to be clearer separation between scientific truths and political values.
I think it's worth spending some time thinking about what's going on here. As corroborative evidence, I'd also like to submit Royal Society president Paul Nurse's recent anniversary address (pdf).
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/about-us/history/anniversary/2012-11-30_Anniversary%20Address.pdf
I welcome the recent involvement of Cox and Ince in a debate that has long been dominated by scientific grandees. They and Nurse are thoughtful people interested in the relationship between science and society, and they work hard to improve it.
Those of us who teach and write about science policy, the philosophy of science and the history of science can join a clichéd academic chorus of "it's more complicated than that". The historians can remind Nurse that scientists are not as sceptical of their own ideas as he would like us to believe. The philosophers can tell Cox and Ince that there is no single "scientific method". The sociologists can point out that Nature (oddly capitalised, as @green_gambit pointed out) does not speak for itself. And the policy wonks can wryly observe that advocates of "evidence-based policy" seem to forget their mantra when it comes to science policy.
Such rejoinders are healthy and important, but they miss a bigger point. Cox, Ince and Nurse are fighting for the status of science. They are standing up for science in the face of an imagined enemy. My problem with their rhetoric is that it is bad politics. They are picking the wrong fight and giving the wrong impression about science. Their aim is to boost the credibility of science, but the effect is the opposite.
All three call for a separation between science and politics. Cox and Ince want "a place where science stops and politics begins". Nurse wants to "keep science as far as is possible from political, ideological and religious influence". But their own rhetorical tangles demonstrate just how hard this is.
Cox and Ince are right to say: "The loud criticism of climate science is motivated in the main not by technical objections, but by the difficult political choices with which it confronts us." But they are wrong to equate the rantings of climate change deniers as "an attack on the scientific method". To say such things only confirms the deniers' suspicions that science is trying to close off its discussions. Science is strong enough to withstand and benefit from scepticism, even if that scepticism is more disorganised than scientists would like.
Climate science cannot be separated from climate politics, and this is a good thing. Nurse laments that scientists are "only human". This is a good thing too. Many climate scientists are driven by a personal desire to describe and solve a big problem, and most of them are funded because their work is seen as politically important as well as scientifically interesting.
Moving along the litany of controversies involving science to GM crops, Nurse claims that the scientific consensus view is that regulatory procedures for GM crops "should be similar to those used for conventionally produced crop plants". Renewed enthusiasm for GM crops in the UK is seen as a welcome "return to the science". To my ears, those statements sound rather, well, political. As I have argued before, science never had one view on GM crops.
http://jackstilgoe.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/anti-anti-science/
In the past few decades, the UK has seen greatly improved debates about science and technology. Successive governments have realised the importance of investing in science. They no longer pretend that science has all the answers. The lessons from controversies over GM crops and mad cow disease (BSE) led to what the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee called "a new humility on the part of science in the face of public attitudes". There are echoes of this in Nurse's speech. He admits that Climategate illustrated how important areas of science may have been too secretive. He says, "Scientists have to listen to the public." But such statements cannot disguise his distaste for public and political debate. He caricatures public opposition to GM crops as being based on mistaken unease about eating "food containing genes", downplaying serious public concerns about corporate control of the world's food supply.
Churchill was right to have argued that science should be "on tap, not on top". For Cox and Ince, this won't do. For policy, they call science an "adjudicator above opinion". But policy debates can rarely be reduced to questions of fact. Science cannot tell us what food to eat, nor can it tell us what to do about climate change. It can certainly help, but only if we understand its limits, its uncertainties and its politics.
Cox, Ince and Nurse want science to matter to politics and the public. But they are too defensive. Nobody is suggesting, as Cox and Ince fear, that we abandon science. Those who claim to fight for science, by shoring up the boundaries around science, retreat from political relevance, belittling science and damaging its public credibility.
(And please, scientists, don't point out that the Twittersphere can't have corners).
Jack Stilgoe teaches science policy at University College London
China destroys three shipments of GM corn from US
Wednesday, 22 May 2013 10:26
1. Wanzai Port in Zhuhai City destroyed two shipments of imported GM foods
2. Harbin intercepted a total of 115 kgs of GM corn seeds, which will be destroyed
NOTE: The news items below report that in May, the Chinese government destroyed three shipments of GM corn from the US. The shipments were illegal under China’s GMO biosafety law.
The law says that the Ministry of Agriculture must require environmental and food safety tests to be carried out by Chinese institutions, in order to verify data provided by the seed developer. All these documents must be reviewed by the National Biosafety Committee before the MOA can issue a safety certificate.
http://bit.ly/10jvwaa
Yet these shipments of US corn did not have the relevant safety certificates and approval documents, according to the news reports below.
A Chinese citizen, whom we call Mr Li, calls the new government’s decisive move to destroy the illegal GMOs “progressive, encouraging, and satisfying”. He regards it as a sign that it is keeping its promise to work for the people and the nation.
Mr Li said: “The deeply pro-GMO old government would not have made such a thing public. It would have secretly returned the shipments, or in most cases it would not even have inspected shipments that could contain GM ingredients.”
The Ministry of Agriculture of the previous government raised the anger of citizens when it failed to require any independent experiments to test the safety of Monsanto's GM soybeans, in violation of Chinese law:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/micro-reading/dzh/2012-06-12/content_6157498.html (bilingual article over 3 pages)
However, Mr Li says the new government still has a long way to go to eliminate the GMOs that he and others believe are being grown across the country and to impose a ban on domestically grown and imported GMOs.
The news of the new Chinese government’s actions comes shortly after China told a delegation of Brazilian soy producers that the better-off part of its population wants non-GM soy, even if they have to pay more:
http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14778
---
---
1. Wanzai Port in Zhuhai City destroyed two shipments of imported GM foods
Zhuhai Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, 7 May 2013
http://www.zhciq.gov.cn/showInfo.do?infoId=26648
(translated from the Chinese by Mr Li)
Recently, during inspection and quarantine of imported food from USA by a certain company, the Wanzai Office of Zhuhai Inspection and Quarantine Bureau (in Guangdong Province in the south of China) detected two shipments containing GM corn products, which are not in compliance with China's "Entry and Exit of Genetically Modified Products Inspection and Quarantine Management Approach". The Office destroyed the two shipments of corn according to the provisions.
---
---
2. Harbin intercepted a total of 115 kgs of GM corn seeds, which will be destroyed
news.china.com.cn, 19 May 2013
http://news.china.com.cn/politics/2013-05/19/content_28867193.htm
(translated from the Chinese by Mr Li)
Recently, the Harbin Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau intercepted inbound mail of 21 cartons of corn seeds from USA, totaling 115 kgs, which were detected as GM seeds. This is the first time that the Heilongjiang Provincial Inspection and Quarantine System has intercepted inbound corn seeds containing GM ingredients. These corn seeds will be destroyed.
Because the USA is a corn bacterial wilt infected area, China has banned import of US corn seeds. The above-mentioned corn seeds were shipped from the same US company to two seed companies in Heilongjiang Province. According to China's relevant provisions, all agricultural GMOs imported from abroad should be cleared with the relevant departments in advance. However, this shipment of corn seed did not have the relevant safety certificates and approval documents.
According to the relevant person in charge of the inspection and quarantine, if an import contains GM ingredients without risk assessment and approval, there is a great possibility that pests will sneak in at the same time. If not strictly controlled, this could pose a significant threat to agricultural production and public health.
MAANDELIJKS NIEUWSOVERZICHT 77
Thursday, 11 February 2010 11:57
FDA clears way for GM salmon
Saturday, 22 December 2012 22:41
1.Consumers Union Says FDA Assessment of GE Salmon Is Flawed and Inadequate
2.Obama Administration Snubs Risks, Moves Forward With GE Salmon Approval
TAKE ACTION: Tell FDA: Do Not Approve Genetically Engineered Salmon!
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9138
---
---
1.Consumers Union Says FDA Assessment of GE Salmon Is Flawed and Inadequate
Consumers Union, December 21 2012
http://notinmyfood.org/press_release/cu-says-fda-assessment-of-ge-salmon-is-flawed-and-inadequate
Yonkers, NY - Consumers Union, the advocacy and policy arm of Consumer Reports, criticized the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Aquabounty genetically engineered salmon released today by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as flawed and inadequate.
“The EA states that the FDA has found that the salmon is safe to eat. However, we are deeply concerned that the potential of these fish to cause allergic reactions has not been adequately researched. FDA has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six engineered fish - tests that actually did show an increase in allergy-causing potential,” stated Michael Hansen PhD, Senior Scientist with Consumers Union. “Further, there have been no safety testing of fish grown in Panama, where Aquabounty intends to raise the salmon. The health and safety of fish can be affected by growing conditions.”
“We are also concerned that FDA puts great weight, in their finding of ‘no significant impact’ on the fact that the engineered salmon would be sterile females. However FDA indicates that only 95 percent of the salmon may be sterile, and the rest fertile. When you are talking about millions of fish, even one percent comes to thousands of fish. Moreover, perhaps even more important, the fish at the egg production facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada would obviously not be sterile - otherwise they could not produce eggs,” Hansen states.
“We are further concerned that consumers will in many cases not have any way to avoid this fish if they want to. While salmon is required by law to be labeled as to country of origin in supermarkets, this does not apply to fish markets or restaurants. While in supermarkets consumers could avoid fish from Panama, where this salmon will be grown, they will not have this ability when eating out or buying at a fish store,” Hansen said.
Contact: Michael McCauley,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
, 415-431-6747, ext 126 or 415-902-9537 (cell) or Michael Hansen,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
, 917-774-3801 (cell)
---
---
2.Obama Administration Snubs Risks, Moves Forward With GE Salmon Approval
Center for Food Safety, December 21 2012
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2012/12/21/obama-administration-snubs-risks-moves-forward-with-ge-salmon-approval/
*400,000 public comments, 40 Members of Congress ignored;
*CFS calls proposed approval of first ever GE animal “premature and misguided”
Center for Food Safety sharply criticized today’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) announcement releasing an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the controversial AquaBounty AquaAdvantage® transgenic salmon. The FDA action is widely viewed as confirmation that the Obama Administration is prepared to approve shortly the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption in the face of widespread opposition.
“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama Administration continues to push approval of this dangerous and unnecessary product,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety. “The GE salmon has no socially redeeming value; it’s bad for the consumer, bad for the salmon industry and bad for the environment. FDA’s decision is premature and misguided.”
The FDA decision ignores calls from more than forty members of the U.S. Congress who have repeatedly urged FDA to conduct more rigorous review of environmental and health safety, and halt any approval process until concerns over risks, transparency and oversight have been fully satisfied. The public filed nearly 400,000 comments demanding FDA reject this application. Additionally, more than 300 environmental, consumer, health and animal welfare organizations, salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants filed joint statements with FDA opposing approval.
AquaBounty claims that the company’s process for raising GE fish is safer than traditional aquaculture, yet documents released by the Canadian government show that a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia, the deadly fish flu which has been devastating fish stocks around the world, contaminated their Canadian production site. This information was not included in the FDA’s review and hidden from the public. Many additional long standing concerns regarding impacts to wild species and the environment raised during a Senate hearing last year remain unanswered in the latest FDA review documents.
“We need a robust regulatory system that puts environmental, human health, economic and animal welfare risks first,” said Kimbrell. “Putting a GE animal on the path to consumer use without proper safeguards and with no mandatory labeling requirement proves that the system FDA has in place gives us none of that.”
More Articles...
Page 7 of 2631
