BMA delighted GM risks recognised by Health Committee/Government buries more bad news

ngin - Norfolk Genetic Information Network

15 January 2003

BMA DELIGHTED GM RISKS RECOGNISED BY HEALTH COMMITTEE/GOVERNMENT BURIES MORE BAD NEWS

Dr Charles Saunders, chairman of the BMA's Scottish committee for public health, medicine and community health, gave evidence during the parliamentary committee's inquiry. He said: "I am delighted that the committee, having listened to both sides of the debate, are supportive of the BMA's view that we do not know the potential risk GM crops pose to human health."

Press coverage of the Scottish Parliament's health committee report:
1. Press & Journal, editorial
2. Press & Journal, news article
3. The Scotsman
4. The Herald
Government buries more bad news:
5. UK Government buries more bad news - The Guardian, Ecosoundings
6 Marcus Williamson on UK Government burying information

***

1. ALARMING RISKS OF GM TRIALLING

Press & Journal, editorial, 09:00 - 15 January 2003
http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/

It has taken more than two years, but at last MSPs have voiced formal concerns about the safety of GM crops. Their views are every bit as acerbic as those of the most cynical environmentalist and the most worried layman, which creates the broadest spectrum of opposition to crop trials yet seen in Scotland.

The MSPs' attitude matches that of protesters and commentators: that the risks appear to have been played down and the questionable advantages played up as the corporations behind the technology, mostly American, play for high stakes and even higher profits. The bottom line on GM crop trials remains unchanged: the onus should not be on sceptics to prove that these are dangerous, but on biotechnology companies and their acolytes to prove that field trials are safe beyond reasonable doubt.

On that basis, the companies will need to show far greater proof than they have cared to provide thus far, as well as accepting much less margin for human error. It is still well remembered that GM seeds were "accidentally" planted on at least one Scottish farm despite express instructions that this was forbidden.

MSPs are worried that risk-assessment and monitoring procedures on Scottish trial farms are seriously lacking. They will find plenty of public support in that.

Even the layman, lacking scientific expertise, knows that windborne pollen travels far farther than the safety margins of present trials, rendering these margins worthless.

It might well be that GM crops offer crop productivity and relief from famine of a kind that has existed so far only in dreams.

Equally, it could be a shabby strategy to develop lucrative patents and stellar profits for a few US corporations, which would then hold other countries to ransom.

Until that is clarified, there is no reason to gamble with Scottish public health for the sake of cheering a boardroom in Missouri.

***

2. CAUTION URGED IN GIVING GO-AHEAD TO GM CROP TRIALS

PAUL GALLAGHER
Press & Journal, 09:00 - 15 January 2003

The Executive has been urged to be more cautious in approving GM crop tests in Scotland.

And ministers have been told more work needs to be done to assess the impact of such trials on the people living near to them. A parliamentary committee accused the Executive yesterday of flouting the "precautionary principle" by allowing GM crop trials to continue. The health committee is not satisfied that risk assessment in the trials is robust enough for the principle - ensuring that potential harm does not outweigh possible benefits - to be applied.

In its report, issued yesterday, on the impact of the farm-scale trials on public health, the committee finds the assessment process is "flawed" and urges the Executive to show greater caution when approving the tests.

It also calls for more investigation into what could happen if genetically-modified crops entered the food chain and for more rigorous monitoring of health in communities close to trial sites.

The Executive now has eight weeks in which to respond to the report but there will not be enough time for it to be the subject of a parliamentary debate before Parliament is dissolved at the end of March, prior to May's election.

However, an Executive spokesman said there was no question of the report being shelved and added: "The Scottish Executive will consider the conclusions of the health and community care committee's report in detail and respond fully in due course."

Crop trials, which have so far solely involved oilseed rape, have been authorised at nine sites in Scotland, including Munlochy on the Black Isle, Invergowrie near Dundee, and Daviot, Udny, Tillycorthie and Rothienorman, all in Aberdeenshire. A long-running protesters' vigil has been held at the Munlochy site while approval for the Invergowrie site was given to the Scottish Crop Research Institute.

One of the anti-GM campaigners, Anthony Jackson, submitted to Parliament a petition which inspired the health committee's inquiry. The petition, which sought an immediate end to the farm-scale trials and a debate on the future handling of GM crops, was initially scrutinised by MSPs on the environment committee but they referred it on after Environment Minister Ross Finnie refused to accede to their call for the Munlochy trial to be halted. Shirley Harrison, the farmer on whose land the Daviot trials have been conducted, has said she believes the results of the tests will shape the future of agriculture.

However, the health committee's report expresses grave misgivings about the manner in which the trials have been handled by the Executive. It believes a number of questions remain unanswered, including how regulations protect public health from any risks posed by GM organisms; what effect public consultation would have on public health protection measures; and what role would be played by the Health and Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency and the Advisory Committee on Release into the Environment (Acre) in implementing new measures, introduced last year, aimed at safeguarding health and the environment.

The report also states that, for the precautionary principle to have been met by the Executive, the current risk assessment procedure would have to be "sufficiently robust to adequately assess all potential hazards to human health". However, the committee is not convinced this has happened.

The committee believes health-risk assessment of the trials does not appear to follow a standard format. It sets out to prove the safety of GMOs rather than properly assess potential hazards and places too much emphasis on "model assumptions" rather than hard scientific assessment.

Concern is expressed by the committee that "even pro-trial organisations seem to accept the inevitability of GM contamination" and it recommends that all GM crops considered for trials should be tested "as if they were entering the food chain, even if they were not intended to be so used". The report adds: "The arguments being applied to counter the argument that GM crops may be hazardous to health - that no empirical evidence of harm has so far emerged - are similar to those applied in the past concerning other public concerns, where evidence of hazards to public health has subsequently emerged." Committee convener Margaret Smith said: "While we acknowledge that we are not qualified to deliberate definitively on the complex scientific questions that are raised, we have heard enough evidence to come to the view that the Executive's approach has not been sufficiently robust."

Mr Jackson said the Munlochy vigil was renewing its call for an immediate moratorium on the trials. He said: "Until the major issues raised in the health committee report have been addressed, GM crops should not be grown in the open environment."

Kevin Stewart, of Grampian Against GM, also believed the trials should stop immediately but added: "This evidence, I would argue, isn't particularly new. It has been gathered at the University of Jena in Germany and also in Canada.

"It's just the fact that the committee itself is finally realising the concerns the public have and have at last come up with the report, which should have been done before the farm-scale trials took place."

The British Medical Association Scotland welcomed the findings of the report.

***

3. Health risk fears spark call for moratorium on GM crop trials

The Scotsman 15 January 2003
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/health.cfm?id=50502003
DAVID SCOTT AND JAMES REYNOLDS [shortened]

PRESSURE was mounting on the Scottish Executive last night to halt GM crop trials after an influential committee of MSPs concluded that risk assessment procedures were "flawed".

The parliament1s influential health committee voiced concern about monitoring procedures and called on the Executive to examine the effects on human health around GM crop trial areas.

The committee also warned that there were "clear concerns" that genetically modified seed might have entered the food chain already.

The committee1s strong criticisms of the Executive's handling of GM crop testing is a setback for Ross Finnie, the environment minister, who will now face renewed calls for a moratorium on the trials.

Bruce Crawford, the SNP environment spokesman, said: "This report proves what the SNP has been saying for the last two years - that safety procedures to ensure public health is being protected from GM crops are simply not in place.

"The Executive must take immediate action to bring an end to these trials until they can be proved to be completely safe."

The British Medical Association welcomed the committee1s call to strengthen risk assessment procedures to protect human health.

Dr Charles Saunders, the chairman of the BMA‘s Scottish committee for public health medicine, said: "I am delighted that the committee are supportive of the BMA1s view that we do not know the potential risks GM crops pose to human health and that risk assessments must be strengthened before further GM crops trials are authorised."

The MSPs1 criticisms came in a report which follows a detailed inquiry into the health aspects of the procedures which began last September.

GM crop trials have been authorised by the Executive at several locations in Scotland, including Munlochy on the Black Isle, Newport-on-Tay in Fife and Invergowrie in Perth and Kinross.

Stressing its concerns about the robustness of the public health risk assessment procedures, the committee said these appeared to be flawed in a number of ways.

It argued that the procedures did not appear to follow a standard format, they sought to prove the safety of GM organisms rather than test and genuinely assess potential hazards, and they did not identify areas of uncertainty.

Margaret Smith, a Liberal Democrat MSP and convener of the committee, said: "We would like to see the Executive take a more cautious approach when deciding whether to approve GM crop tests in Scotland.

"We want to see additional tests brought in, based on the worst case scenario that GM crops will enter into the food chain.

"Protecting public health must remain at the forefront of the Executive1s policies and more must be done to monitor the health of those living around the test sites."

An Executive spokesman said it would consider the committee1s proposals in detail before responding to the report.

***

4. Ministers 'mishandled' GM tests

The Herald 15 January 2003
http://www.theherald.co.uk/election99/archive/15-1-19103-0-6-31.html

Executive could have put public at risk, says report by MSPs, writes ROBBIE DINWOODIE

MINISTERS mishandled tests on genetically modified crops and could have put the public at risk, MSPs ruled yesterday.

Holyrood's health and community care committee argued that the executive had failed to apply what is known as the precautionary principle, demonstrating unequivocally that there was no risk to the public.

"We are not so satisfied," the report into the health aspects of the GM controversy said. "Therefore, we believe that allowing GM crop trials to continue does contravene the precautionary principle, even as that principle is interpreted by the Scottish Executive."

The report said: "The arguments being applied to counter the argument that GM crops may be hazardous to health, that no empirical evidence of harm has so far emerged, are similar to those applied in the past concerning other public concerns, where evidence of hazards to public health has subsequently emerged."

Protesters opposed to the trials welcomed the findings that procedures were "flawed" and voiced alarm over monitoring procedures. The oilseed rape trials compare the effectiveness of a particular type of herbicide on GM and non-GM plants.

Trials have been authorised by the executive at several locations, including Munlochy on the Black Isle, Newport-on-Tay in Fife and Invergowrie in Perth and Kinross.

Campaigners against the Munlochy trials seized on the report as "damning". Anthony Jackson said: "Until the major issues raised in the health committee report have been addressed, GM crops should not be grown in the open environment."

The executive insisted there was no risk in the trials. A spokesman said: "There will be no question of releasing the crops being grown for farm-scale trials if there are any scientific reasons to believe they pose any greater threat to human health, or the environment, than the equivalent non-GM varieties. The precautionary principle is applied throughout these tests."

The MSPs argued the procedures do not appear to follow a standard format, that they seek to prove the safety of GM organisms rather than to genuinely assess potential hazards, and they they do not identify areas of uncertainty.

Margaret Smith, Liberal Democrat MSP for Edinburgh West and convener of the committee, said: "Protecting public health must remain at the forefront of the executive's policies and more must be done to monitor the health of those living around the test sites."

The committee demanded pharmaceutical-style testing to be applied to GM crops, for more research into the effect of GM pollen, and for all GM crops considered for trials to be tested as if they were to enter the food chain, even if that is not the case.

They also call for more information to be made public, and for "clarification" from the executive on the acceptability of withholding commercially-sensitive information.

The MSPs said: "While we appreciate that the purpose of these trials is not the commercial cultivation of crops for entry into the food or feed chain, it is clear there are real concerns that GM food may already have done so. This may introduce GM oil seed rape into the food chain without testing."

Bruce Crawford, the shadow environment minister, said: "This report proves what the SNP has been saying for the last two years. Safety procedures to ensure public health is being protected from GM crops are simply not in place.

"Now that a parliamentary committee has come out to say that the executive's approach has not been sufficiently robust, surely it is time the executive took notice."

***

5.Eco soundings

Paul Brown
Wednesday January 15, 2003
The Guardian
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,874583,00.html

Right to reply

The government's strategy unit requested comments on its paper, The Costs and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops, and received 151 replies. In the spirit of burying bad news, the replies have been published at
http://www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/gm/sub.shtml without saying which organisation they are from, just giving the name of the person. There has been no press release - the news being that most respondents thought costs far outweighed the benefits, which is exactly the opposite of what the government wanted to hear.

***

6 Marcus Williamson on UK Government burying information

The UK Government is again burying information which is critical of GM crops. In this case, the vast majority of 151 responses to a "Scoping Note", published by the Government's Strategy Unit, is critical of GM crops and GM food.

On 25 September 2002 the UK Government's Strategy Unit (SU) published a "Scoping Note" titled:

"The Costs and Benefits of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops"

The SU requested responses to this document by 25 October 2002.

The 151 responses are now available online here:

http://www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/gm/sub.shtml

The vast majority of the responses are critical of GM crops, GM food and/or Government policy of GM crops and GM food.

In typical UK Government style, the potential release of "bad news" on GM crops has again been buried. No announcement has been made on the SU "What's New" section, no press release issued and no e-mail sent to those whose responses have now been published.

Furthermore, the responses are presented as a list of individuals' names, with no indication of the organisation to which the respondant belongs. So, for example, it is necessary to know that "Mark Avery" is with the RSPB, to be able to read the RSPB's view on GM crops.

Additionally, there are many errors in the information presented on the page. For example:

The "Andrew Cockburn" (Monsanto) link contains only a press release from the European Commission

The "P Dale" link contains the letter from Patricia Elliot

The "Geoff King" file is blank

The "Kate O‚Connell" filename is wrongly spelled

The "Ronnie Patterson" filename is wrongly spelled

The "Paul Rylott" (Bayer/Aventis) file is blank

The "Catherine Usher" name is wrongly spelled ("Cathrine")

The "Brian Wynne" filename is wrongly spelled

The presentation of contributions is also poor. In many cases, e-mail messages have been "pasted" into a word processing document, without regard for font or line wrapping.

If you are concerned about the burying of this information, and the way in which the contributions critical of GM crops are being hushed up, contact:

Ian Coates, GM Crops Project Team Leader
Prime Minister's Strategy Unit
Tel: 020 7276 1423
Fax: 020 7276 1407
E-mail: ian.coates@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

I suggest you also copy Malcolm Grant (mjg25@cam.ac.uk), who is Chair of the "GM Public Debate".

Thanks & regards
Marcus Williamson
Editor, Genetically Modified Food-News
http://www.gmfoodnews.com/

ngin bulletin archive

INDEX