GENTECH archive

[Index][Thread]

Re2: Destruction of GM trials threatening organic producerscall



Bob,
I forgot to put the question I wanted to ask in my previous post. My question is what do you tell your children to do when someone does not show any respect for them?
wytze

Bob Iwan wrote:

> Wytze,
>
> hypocricy: the act or practice of pretending to be what one is not or to have principles or beliefs that one does not have, esp: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue
>
> You recently stated "the real pity is that they did not burn down Zeneca Mogen."  I'm betting that this may have "disturbed their fields."  I guess your moral conscience only requires you to care about those sharing your own viewpoints.
>
> My previous point was not that one extreme is inherently good while the other is inherently evil.  Rather, my point was that a rational exchange of ideas would be far more constructive than preaching or enacting unlawful violence.
>
> It is clear that significant societal benefit can be achieved by the genetic modification of organisms, and it is also true that this technology could be mismanaged.  The challenge is to maximize the benefits of genetic modification while minimizing the risks, and this could be best accomplished if people with different viewpoints were a bit more honest and took the time to listen to the other viewpoints.
>
> I have very good friends that are molecular biologists, and also have very good friends that are organic farmers.  I enjoy talking to all of them, especially when they share with me viewpoints that are unfamiliar to me or that differ from my own.  . . . And never once has one of them lofted a pie in my direction or threatened to burn down my house.  Thus, I care about their opinions.
>
> The extreme viewpoints espoused by anti-GMO "activists" and the inane ways in which they seek attention do not serve to facilitate this exchange of ideas.  If the idea is to protest just to have a good time, then perhaps they are doing things right.  If the idea is to promote positive change, even if doing so isn't quite as conspicuous, then perhaps they should think a little bit harder.
>
> High school is over; it's time to grow up.
>
> Bob
>
> >>> wytze <geno@zap.a2000.nl> 04/24/00 12:34PM >>>
>
> Mr Iwan talked in another message about respect. I always learned to keep
> the fields of my neighbours undisturbed. How respectful does mr. Iwan
> consider the GE
> companies to be?
> Wytze
>
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> > Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin):
> > http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/
> >
> > The following press release from the Soil Association rightly focuses on
> > the way in which the organisation of GM trials in the UK under voluntary
> > industry guidelines is totally failing to protect non-GM production - a
> > problem far wider, of course, than organic production alone:
> >
> > "There are 41 government sponsored GMO farm scale sites which are
> > situated in close proximity to 46 organic farms and scores of GM free
> > conventional farms."
> >
> > In addition to the cross-pollination contamination issues that the Soil
> > Association has consistently highlighted, horizontal gene transfer and
> > soil contamination, and other means of genetic pollution of the
> > surrounding area (in the case of GM beet, for example, via
> > groundkeepers, displaced plant debris and seeds etc) must also now be
> > brought into focus.
> >
> > ngin
> >
> > -----------------------------------------+
> >   PRESS RELEASE
> > -----------------------------------------+
> >
> > UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL 00:01AM, 20 APRIL 2000
> >
> > The Director of the Soil Association Patrick Holden will
> >
> > meet Environment Minister Michael Meacher today [Thursday 20
> >
> > April, 10.30am] to seek his support for an action plan to
> >
> > protect organic crops from GM pollution. The Soil
> >
> > Association claims that current measures have failed to give
> >
> > any consideration to the location of GM trial sites in
> >
> > relation to neighbouring organic farmers.
> >
> > Patrik Holden, Soil Association Director says,
> >
> > 'The industry based body SCIMAC have completely failed to
> >
> > protect organic farmers from GM pollution because of the
> >
> > failure to give prior notification of intended GM trial crop
> >
> > locations and the inadequate separation distances between GM
> >
> > and organic crops. We are seeking to secure, as a matter of
> >
> > the utmost urgency, the maximum number of safeguards
> >
> > possible in order to limit any contamination to GM-free
> >
> > organic crops. Foremost of these is a pledge to destroy any
> >
> > trial plots which threaten the certification status of
> >
> > registered organic producers.'
> >
> > Holden continued 'The sheer scale of this year's field scale
> >
> > trial plots substantially increases the risk of
> >
> > contamination to any farmer wishing to grow GM-free crops.
> >
> > Until these trials are formally withdrawn from UK
> >
> > agriculture the Soil Association is therefore asking the
> >
> > government to replace SCIMAC "voluntary" procedures with a
> >
> > new independent advisory committee backed by legally binding
> >
> > enforcement procedures.'
> >
> > Their recommendations also include proposals for the
> >
> > establishment of a farmer-consumer working group within the
> >
> > next few weeks to advise and inform government on revised
> >
> > procedures for protecting organic crops. These should be in
> >
> > place in time for the next planting season even if such
> >
> > procedures have to be initially introduced informally.
> >
> > ENDS
> >
> > The suggestions to be presented to Meacher at the meeting
> > are listed below.
> >
> > Patrick Holden
> > Soil Association Director
> > 0117 929 3202
> > m 07774 846858
> > Harry Hadaway
> > Soil Association Campaigns Officer
> > 0117 914 2449
> > m 07939 025604
> >
> > Summary of the proposals presented to Meacher by the Soil
> > Association 20 April 2000
> >
> >    The UK Government has made a series of ministerial
> >    commitments to protect the rights of consumers and
> >    producers to purchase and produce food which is free of
> >    GM contamination.
> >
> >    The voluntary codes of practice currently operated by
> >    SCIMAC fail to protect organic producers from various
> >    forms of pollution due to the inadequacy of the buffer
> >    zones and the failure to identify nearby organic farms
> >    and assess pollution risks prior to planting.
> >
> >    The organic sector has held a series of meetings with the
> >    DETR, MAFF and UKROFS at which these issues have been
> >    discussed.
> >
> >    A document was tabled to the meeting on 18 October 1999
> >    proposing prior notification of organic producers before
> >    trial plot licensing decisions are made to be followed by
> >    a detailed assessment of pollution risks of all farms
> >    within a six mile notification zone using criteria based
> >    on Soil Association and draft UKROFS standards.
> >
> >    The planning and licensing of the 2000 trial plots has
> >    taken no account whatsoever of these proposals and
> >    criteria.  Consequently the Soil Association has been
> >    forced to undertake, once again, a costly and
> >    time-consuming audit of at-risk farms at its own expense.
> >
> >    This research has revealed that a total of forty-six
> >    farms lie within a six mile notification zone, eleven of
> >    which fall in a high risk category.
> >
> >    To protect the interests of these producers and the
> >    consumers who depend on them to obtain GMO free organic
> >    products the Soil Association requests the following
> >    action:
> >
> >    A commitment to order the destruction of any trial plot
> >    which is found to pose a significant
> >    pollution/contamination risk to an organic producer based
> >    on the standards and protocols submitted by the Soil
> >    Association on 18 November 1999.
> >
> >    Acceptance of the principle of prior notification and of
> >    full cost recovery for all relevant research in relation
> >    to the assessment of pollution risks for affected organic
> >    farms (this acceptance to include all costs incurred for
> >    the 2000 season)
> >
> >    that any notification procedures should be underpinned by
> >    a mapped based system of GM crop location recording (both
> >    pre and post proposal of GM crops) sufficient to
> >    accurately identify not simply the centroid of such crops
> >    but in particular all their boundaries (i.e as
> >    recommended by the Royal Institution of Chartered
> >    Surveyors)
> >
> >    that such notification procedures shall be linked to a
> >    new protocol on crop separation distances based on the
> >    latest available information on pollination and other
> >    contamination factors (and regularly updated in the light
> >    of new evidence)
> >
> >    The establishment of a new advisory committee reporting
> >    to MAFF and DETR whose primary remit will be the
> >    protection of the consumer interest in relation to the
> >    implementation of appropriate protection measures to
> >    protect the rights of both conventional and organic
> >    producers to grow GE free crops..
> >
> >    The phasing out of the current voluntary arrangements for
> >    approval and maintaining of GE trial plots and their
> >    replacement by a formalised statutory framework
> >    incorporating robust and legally binding enforcement
> >    procedures.
> >
> >    A fundamental review of the aims, objectives and
> >    legitimacy of the Government's current program of GM
> >    trial plots focusing on:
> >       The environmental safety of a deliberate release
> >       policy in relation to trial plots.
> >
> >       The research objectives, particularly in relation to
> >       the monitoring of gene flow
> >
> >       The justification and need for GM trial plots against
> >       a background of near universal public opposition to GM
> >       foods.
> >
> > Notes to Editors
> >    There are 41 government sponsored GMO farm scale sites
> >    which are situated in close proximity to 46 organic farms
> >    and scores of GM free conventional farms. The Soil
> >    Association is currently conducting risk assessments
> >    which result in the organic status of some crops being
> >    removed and subsequent loss of income.
> >
> >    A document containing these strategies will be presented
> >    to the Minister entitled 'Contamination of Land and Crops
> >    from Field-scale Trials of Genetically Modified Crops in
> >    the United Kingdom - Position Statement by The Soil
> >    Association'. Available from the Soil Association 0117
> >    914 2444
> >
> > -------------------------+-------------+------------------
> > Press Office              T: 0117 914   press@soilassociat
> >                            2448          ion.org
> > -------------------------+-------------+------------------
> >
> > -------------------------+-------------+------------------
> >
> > -------------------------+-------------+------------------
> >
> > -------------------------+-------------+------------------
> >
> > -------------------------+-------------+------------------
> > Soil Association          T: 0117 929   E:
> > Bristol House, 40-56      0661          info@soilassociati
> > Victoria Street, Bristol  F: 0117 925   on.org
> > BS1 6BY                   2504          W:
> >                                          www.soilassociatio
> >                                          n.org
> > -------------------------+-------------+------------------
> >
> > Updated:
> > 19/04/2000
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
> subscribe or help is:
>
>               GENTECH-REQUEST@gen.free.de
>
> The searchable WWW list archive is available at
>
>               http://www.gene.ch/archives.html