This and other evidence produced by the Pesticide Action Network
UK to support Greenpeace volunteers in their original court case has now been
published(1). In July last year, the volunteers cut down part of a crop of GM maize which was in the government trials.
In April, the volunteers were acquitted on theft charges but the jury failed to reach a verdict on a criminal damage charge. The Crown Prosecution Service has now announced that it will seek a re-trial.
Evidence from the PAN UK and other organisations describes the risk posed by the crops which were removed. Increased use of the same herbicide – glufosinate ammonium – could lead to resistant weed populations around the GM crop. ‘It seems likely that if use of herbicide-resistant crops becomes widespread, then after a few seasons, resistance will become a problem,’ wrote Peter Beaumont, development director of Pesticide Action Network
UK, in a submission to the trial. ‘Farmers will still be locked into herbicide use to manage new and increased weed problems.’
Glufosinate-ammonium – the chemical used in the GM maize crop attacked by Greenpeace is ‘extremely mobile and many of the limitations on its use are designed to minimise risks to water. In general, no use is permitted between the end of September and the beginning of March to reduce the risks of run-off to water over bare ground.’
But interim results from a project in which a number of GM and non-GM crops are being grown at different sites in crop rotations showed that some glufosinate use ignored these warnings. ‘It appeared that on some crops that were tolerant to glufosinate ammonium, applications were permitted under special experimental permits for usage in October and November, increasing the risks to water,’ said PAN
UK.
Enforcing the existing rules for pesticides use on the GM trial sites will be very hard. Statutory enforcement of current law is in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – but there are only about 80 inspectors to cover the whole of England. ‘This translates to a visit every ten years or so for the average farmer. It is understood that perhaps two inspectors have been allocated the responsibility for GM sites.’
GM-contaminated crops destroyed by farmers
Just before the trial evidence was published, the government announced that about 13,700 ha of oilseed rape contaminated with GM seed had been sown in the UK last year and this spring. The Country Landowners Association said it would back farmers who destroy crops contaminated with the GM seed after Norfolk farmer John Sanderson said he would take legal action after ploughing in his £5,000 crop.
English Nature, the government’s conservation agency, said the crops should not be destroyed, but farmers must take out any seeds which germinate after the harvest, that might be a threat to wildlife and the environment. ‘If, as Advanta – the company which supplied the seed – tells us, the GM variety is sterile, it doesn’t pose any immediate risk to wildlife, neighbouring crops or the environment,’ said Dr Brian Johnson, English Nature’s biotechnology adviser.
Cabinet Office Minister Mo Mowlam said although there may have been a mistake in waiting for three weeks before telling the public that up to 600 farmers had sown contaminated rape, there had been no intention to deceive. Environment Minister Michael Meacher insisted the question of legal liability for environmental damage caused by any crop should be sorted out. He added that compensation claims from farmers hit by the bungle would be sent to Advanta Seeds UK.
1. GM on Trial: Scientific evidence presented in the defence of 28 Greenpeace volunteers on trial for their non-violent removal of a GM maize crop, Greenpeace, London, May 2000, 92pp.
John Harvey is a broadcaster and writer on farming issues.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 48, June 2000, page 15]