1 "I shall vote in favour of
a directive which gives consumers"
Are you aware that " The vast majority of
people believe that labelling of GM food is essential
and parents remain adamant they would prefer not to
feed it to their children." "when it came
to labelling, 76% backed the EU position that
consumers should be told products contained GM
ingredients and only 6% supported the US position
that labelling should not be compulsory, with 20%
having no preference either way."
[Paul Brown, environment correspondent
for The Guardian - Monday May 06 2002]
Can you tell me how many "consumers" wrote
to you in support of the 1% contamination.?
Note 2 "information
that is verifiable"
How can anyone verify the quantity or type of GM
material in authorised products and moreso where the
existance is an unauthorised contamination. Clearly
the GM producer is unlikely to co-operate in a market
where "parents remain adamant they would prefer
not to feed it to their children". Further,
wholesalers, retailers and consumers are unlikely to
be able to undertake suitable analysis. Likewise the
Government, probably won't do it "given the
extent of the EU's international trade in food and
feed"; and given the amount of U-turns I
have witnessed the present Labour and earlier
Conservative led Parliaments make, I doubt any
elector will seriously trust either. So unless
electors do have a continuous, fully informed choice,
unfetered by the WTO the USA and TRIPS we are doomed
to a business driven morality that has no care for
electors' or individuals' concerns.
We may as well come clean and admit we have a fascist
regime where 'might is right'.
Note 3 "and
In your letter you say "I am in favour of
a rule which would require labelling for products
containing more that 1% GM material."
This is a major example of the type of language
that shows at best concern, as you put it, for
international trade "a level which is likely
to be more internationally acceptable than any lower
level" and a quagmire for any relatively
The problem focuses on the value "1%"
and the variable "material".
Your statement that "I
am in favour of a rule which would require labelling
for products containing more that 1% GM material. I
regard this as a level which expert advice has shown
to reflect the possibilities of modern
technology," seems contrary to the
Commissions assertion that 0.5% is a measurable
content, how else could they promote such a level?
Further if the bio-tech engineers can select
individual genes and transplant them they can
obviously detect individual genes. The claim that
single genes cannot be detected is clearly a lie.
What you are saying is that the creators of these new
life forms do not wish to be responsible for them.
See Percy Scmizter and *****. More worrying is that
'Politicians' are in concert with such lack of
accountability and support it with
misrepresentations, knowingly or otherwise.
Lets consider the use of the word 'material' in
your context in an example of tomatoes.
The material content of 100g of tomato is 100g,
yet the total protien is less than 1%. Given your
recomendations of "a rule which would
require labelling for products containing more that
1% GM material. As the inserted, alien gene is
only a small percentage of the protien and the total
protien is less than 1%, there will be no requirement
to label GM tomatoes.
With the knowledge that the GM gene is only a
small part of the proteinn even 0.5% would have
absolutely no control over labelling of tomatoes and
many other products.
It's bad enough that the GM would be present and
consumers wouldn't know, but in the example of
tomatoes, as they are built with fish genes the
bodies and minds of strict vegetarians, for religious
or other reasons, will violated and abused. Do you
really think this is reasonable for the sake of
My earlier correspondence clearly pointed this out,
but you have failed to address this obvious lack of
concern by the legisaltors.
So where is the meaninfullness in such 'aventitious'
Pop goes the precautionary
Note 4 "The
European Union should not"
Surely you mean you don't want the European Union
to have certain objectives. To say they "should
not" implies you have little regard for the what
the citizens(consumers) want. Assuming the European
Union's objectives are to promote the citizens wishes
rather than that of the bio-tech dictators to keep
their hold on the positions of power they dwell on I
would expect you to support their Directives in this
'Might is Right' so called democracy.
Note 5 "The
idea of a labelling system to indicate that GM material
may have been used in the production of a product which
does not contain GM material in it's final form is wholly
disproportionate, and an open invitation to fraud."
The issue here is again consumer information and
choice. There are two clear views. That of the WTO
(the USA) which bans boycotes of products for
ethical, religious etc. and consumer choice to buy
products not just on the basis of enjoyment of the
end product 'The ends justifies the means' but
enjoyment of the method. "enjoy the walk not the
destination". Surely with growing concern for
the environment the second is becoming the
So why is it disproportionate for the
comsumer to want to know how, why and where and what
effect their purchases have. I have no idea what
problem you imagine by 'fraud'. There's always fraud.
Monsanto, one of the great GM
supporters have been found guilty of "
Malicious Outrage. That charge according
to the former Attorney General of Alabama is reserved
for crimes that are incomprehensible for a
civilized being to commit" see Appendix 1
posted on www.monsantowatch.org.uk/usa/anniston/ <Anniston>. With Monsanto getting
support from many quaters who do you think is going
to commit any fraud to compare.
Anyway the legislation isn't designed
to stop fraud and contamination but to give authority
to check, compensate, clean-up and fine the
perputrators when caught.
Why do have a problem with full
Note 6 "I
am in favour of a rule which would require labelling for
products containing more that 1% GM material. I regard
this as a level which expert advice has shown to reflect
the possibilities of modern technology,"
Please see Note 3
para.2 Your statement that "I am
in favour of....."
"It is also a level which is likely to be more
internationally acceptable than any lower level, and this
is an important consideration given the extent of the
EU's international trade in food and feed."
Please see Note 2
"I oppose the idea that there should be a
requirement for the labelling of products from animals
fed GM feed. This too would be unenforceable."
No rule of law is enforceable, we
have many violent crimes and so it will always be
open to the bio-tech pushers to break the law - they
already do - do I have to detail the amount of times
they already have.
The purpose of the legislation is
that the polluter pays. I.e where it can be shown
that there is contaminantion of foodstuffs or any
other part of the environment then the creator of the
GMO should be responsible for compensation and
It is no use asking a farmer to
compensate his neighbour for GM drift if the
Government has chosen to use the excuse that the GMO
manufactures and so called independent sceientists
have said such drift couldn't happen. It does and it
will increase exponentially. I want a law that will
draw account from the creators of such
bio-contamination. The Government will never pay for
such contamination, even if they are responsible for
passing legislation that permits it. Why should they?
After all the Government funds are the electors, and
I don't want to pay for Monsanto's genetic disasters.
To call this a bio-war is not
outrageous, for comapanies like Monasnto are out to
change the face of not just agriculture - a
biological business - but the consumers choice in
food and environment, wether the electors want it or
not. Who's going to stop them or control their
onslaught. Cleary not the elected Government if your
proposals are anything to go by - not that the 0.5%
camp will make much difference unless they further
try and reduce the acceptable level to zero..
To think that consumers are not
intersted in what their animals have been fed is
unreasonable and likely to be an error. The main
issue is that it becomes an other area of genetic
exploitation that has no monitoring. The genes will
pass to ohter animals and animal products. The fact
that there is little evidence to say so is due to
lack of looking. The genes do not just disapear into
I read in newpapers, some months ago,
that gene transfer had happened between animals - I shall
try and find the report.
"While defending the need for consumers"
This statement shows how out of touch
you may be with the consumers, most don't want GMOs
at all. You clearly don't support their wishes yet
presume to know what they need. As an elected person
I would hope you represent the electors not presume
that you can lead them to your own desires. The
electors do not claim to need GMO's let alone
defending their need for your ideas of international
trade beased levels of compromise'. They just don't
It appears that you are defending the GMO
proliferators - a minoirty of power-heads.
At this point I must clarify that it
is not the GM architects that are causing any problem
but the application of the sceince in a profit only
concern. Such people think the ends justify the means
and will do whatever they can to reach their goal. I
would like them stopped - now.
The issue of global contamination is
being side-stepped by the argument over how much
contamination to allow (see Insert
1 below). It's contaminantion that
causes the problem. Although contamination via 'food
and feed' is likely to be small compared to that of
See Percy etc.
| Insert 1
of the Liberal Democrat and Reform Party in the
Plenary Speech: 2nd July 2002
- Mr President, concerns about the effects of
GMOs on human health are in the minds of many
of us overshadowed by doubts about
their effects upon other species of plants or
animal life and about the control of the
world's seed bank by a handful of companies.
But it is animal and human health which is
the issue before us and the ELDR Group is
united in its belief that products need to be
clearly labelled so that consumers can make
Accountability for small things is the way forward
- 'look after the pennies and the pounds will look
after themselves'. If we can get accountablity for
contamination of GM material in food and feed, we may
be able to control the spread of GM material. If we
cant do that we can't stop a continual increase in
contamination and bio-warfare by stealth.
"adventitious or technically unavoidable"
contamination should still be the responsibility of
the producer not the public or Governement. There is
the technology to avoid contamination. To say it's
technologically impossible is to say there is not the
will to control the spread of unwanted GM material.
The public have the desire and the bio-tech companies
have the technology, why do you not see they can work
point I shall digress and exploit the Euro-Monetary issue
- partly for light relief.
argument against accepting the Euro is not the idea
of a co-operative monetary system but the notes. They
has a bridge on it, some great symbolism of joining
together no doubt. Yet look at the bridges. The
smaller the notes the older the bridges. The 5
having a pretty old stone simple arched bridge with
the 500 having all straight lines of some
undefined technological engineering.
equates, if money has such value, that more money
means more technology means more good.
does not mean good.
comparison our UK notes all have three or four or
more differnce living beings on them, the Euros have
none they are dead. We already have Scottish, and had
Irish, notes. Using those other notes gave me a
feelijng of being part of co-operative Soverign
States. The pictorial deatils on the national notes
reminding me of the tolerance needed to co-operate
and the variety of cultures of the peoples in that
If we do
decide to join the Euro lets just have parity and
keep the notes. It must be cheaper to tell the rest
of Europeans that UK notes are valid tender than to
withdraw them and produce another load. I'm sure
there are other excuses for the new notes but it
would be nice to see Francs, Drachmas, Deutchmarks,
and Lire etc. Handling is like playing monopoly with
Mickey Mouse Money.
might as well have the real dollar in Europe not some
Ah well, back to the facist games
of the destruction of our bio-sphere and gene pool, based
on the same 'big busines wants to rule the world
"There is no evidence from those countries where GM
food and feed are allowed of any danger to human or
There are many claims contrary to your assertions,
that they have not been accepted yet by the
scientific comminity does not mean they won't in due
course as has been , DDT, PCB's Agent Orange etc. all
produced by Monsanto with government scientist
backing. Not surprising as Monsanto executives are
intricatly woven into the fabric of the USA
governement. See Appendix 2
Note 11 "I
have confidence in the scientific assessment for safety
purposes of such products. "
Please explain to me why in this case
you have such confidence in the "scientific
assesssment" when not only have Monsanto been
repeatedly wrong but we have Thalidomide and BJC in
the UK for ecample: only a small example of the
plethora of misrepresentaion by British scientist.
Note 12 "Mankind
eats and has eaten foods from animals and plants which
are constantly evolving."
Whereas your statement is a matter of fact, it is
inappropriate to use such an obvious argument. People
have been poisoned by plants and animal products
since the first consumpion of an apple, aledgedly.
And true we continue to evolve and mutate and most
surive the ever-changing environment. The worst we
have presently are political boundaries that obstruct
the hungry from migrating to areas where they could
grow food. There is plenty of land, it is just
uneconomcally used and fenced with aggresion.
The high rate of mutation/evolotion inspired by
fear, power and greed, forced upon the whole
environment, irrespective of political boudaries, via
enhanced plants that already destroy indeginous
species is not the same slow constant evolution we
are used to. We can hardly control introduced plants
such as Giant Hogweed, Japanesse Knotweed and
Himalyan Balsam, how do you propose we control plants
that are imune to glyphoste, the one obnoxious
chemical that is used against these invasive plants,
if they are designed to survive it. Even more
tradition herbicides are proving less effective
aginst the new GM strains.
Note 13 "GM
technology is another man-driven and science-facilitated,
step in this process."
Hardly a step compared to the preceding 'evolotion'. We
are not witnessing here the the breath of another child
being born but the immenent storms from the belching of
the a Monster incomparable to anything the human species
has witnessed. Even the storms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
will seem like summer hot spots if the biosphere is
polluted by the bad breath of the bio-tech dictators.
Nuclear polltion does not replicate itself each disaster
is localized in part, part to the immediate blast area
and then to the air we breath but it stops there or it
would if we stop tesing and nucelar power, but there's no
stoping the spread of GM pollen etc. GM contamination of
the environment is not a step but a slide in the
destruction of bio-diversity.
Note 14 "I
believe that GM food and feed could have significant
advantages in the European context"
I am aware that you work for Europe and it's masters,
elected and unelected but I am sure you will agree that
is is only planetary concern that should be addressed
here. What use is supporting the Europen branch of
humaninty if the truck is neglected and dies from
pollution, starvation and disease. The proliferation of
GM materials and the asscocuated patents are stopping
many from growing their chosen produce. See percy and India etc.
Note 15 "offering
us the chance to develop less environmentally damaging
forms of agriculture, with less use of pesticides and
herbicides, and less use of artificial fertilisers."
This does not appear to be the case please see Appendix
Note 16 "and
still avoid consuming them if they wish so"
How do you come to that conclusion, when by your own
words you say that a certain amount of contamination is
acceptable for business reasons (1%). There will be
fraudulent claims of freedom from GM materail and no
legislation to make the polluter accountable. Then there
is bound to be a general increase in pollutin and
legisaltion wil follow the money and greater
contaminantion levels will be permitted. I don't want it
and it seems the public in general don't want it so
where's the choice. The only choice is to swallow the
poison or choke on complaining. Thanks a lot!
Already fish genes
are in GE tomatoes so, as a strict vegetarian I
avoid tomatoes unless they are from an accredited organic
source, and even that has it's limits according to the
catch all 1% above. It is of no comfort that not all
tomatoes are effected or infected yet, as it is human
nature to make errors in the pursuit of profit and more
errors in the endeavour to make more profit. The
competitiveness in the need to be richer and more
powerful obviously ignores the wishes of those who have
little ability to be heard. They are just stepped on and
pushed aside with all the concern of a bull in a china
shop.Time and time again people, and especially big
businesses, show little or no regard for absolute
integrity. Profit based businesses are only concerned
with what a consumer will purchase, and so further
'legal', 'covert legal' and illegal contamination of
foodstuffs is inevitable.
Unlike DDT, Agent Orange
and other non GE pesticide contaminants GE contaminants
will breed from one plant to another and in time will
effect all wild examples of compatible species.
Cultivated species presently rely on cross breeding with
wild 'cousins' for evolution and variety. The future is
one of less and less indegionous wild varieties to
provide a versatile proven gene pool. Proven not by some
sceintist few years of half-baked observations and
experiments but by millenia of slow tolerance by other
There is also cross
species contamination. A small number of cows have
already been found to contain genes that although
producing no obvious detriment are nonetheless sheep
genes. Cross kingdom contamination already exists in the
placement of animal genes into vegetation and so it just
a matter of time before we experience the first
'accident' of cross kingdom transfer.
In our pursuit for person
comfort and profit each of accepts that accidents will
occur and sometimes these are fatal. With the exceptions
of wars and plagues each of tolerates the risk of illness
and death as a consequence of another's actions. However
an interested party my ask for justice and compensation
where a person or body can be shown to be responsible.
How can multinational companies, who more financial power
that many countries be held accountable not only for
personal injury but global disruption of the ecosystem.
The present field trials
and the actual results of wind blown and animal
transported pollen do not agree. There is clear evidence
that contamination does occur and can only increase with
the current controls.
We cannot rely of
companies like Monsanto to provide truthful or accurate
information about the current contamination or future
prospects as this would ruin their GM business. Note that
Monsanto have recently been found guilty of the 'Worst
PCB contamination in the World' . see www.monsantowatch.org.uk Add to that, that it was done in a
populated area and that they hid the facts, known to them
for decades, you can see that it is your 'job' to
support the general pubic against such criminal