Address removed
9.9.2008.
Dear Mr Woolas,
RE Radio 4 Farming Today Programme on Genetically Engineered Foods and Seeds. Week ending 5th September 2008.
I understand you to say that, “those opposed to GM crops have 12 months to make a strong scientific case why GM crops should not go ahead”. I would therefore ask you to notify me when the Consultation Document on Genetic Engineering comes available please, or alternatively, place this letter and enclosures to the Committee. I object most strongly to the placing of any Genetic engineered material in our Country, and consider it a hazard for the safety of today’s generations, adults, children and babies for the next and future generations. I write regarding the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and as you Sir are only the Minister for England, I would like copy’s of my objections, and reports to also be seen by the other three EU Regions that make up our nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I wrote to you Sir, on the 17th August after reading your Article in the Telegraph of the same date, sending to you a copy of “The Official Journal of the European Union” regarding the EU Commission’s decision of 23 January 1997 that authorized the placing on the market of genetically modified maize, proving that, and I quote, “that economic and commercial pressures were put before considerations of public health and protection of the environment”. (Official Journal C 132, 28.4.1997 p.0029). Proving from the EU itself that the needs and fears of the people came after commercial pressures.
I also urged you to read an article on “Novel Foods” OJ L 253/13 of the EU 16.9.97
And quoted, “Ability of the GMM to survive in and colonise the human gut”.
There are more paragraphs of concern that I did not mention, which should be of great concern to all that read it. (Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients). My research over eleven years on this matter which commenced in 1997-is therefore contained in a rather large file.
Once more, I will only quote (as I did in my previous letter) from either the UK’s studies on Genetic Engineering or from the EU (UN,WTO) that makes the decisions on what we ‘may’ eat, or ‘may not eat’ because quite simply our own Governments over the years have opted out of decision making in this area. We can only eat what the EU says we may eat.
When reading COM (96) 630 final, Brussels 10.12.1996 which is “ON THE REVIEW OF DIRECTIVE 90/220/EEC IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMISSION' COMMUNICATION ON BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE WHITE PAPER”, it becomes very clear that, and I am trying to remain calm here because in the re-reading, it makes me angry that the people are treated as guinea pigs. eg; (Page 10) “Directive 90/220/EEC has helped Member States to introduce the infrastructure for assessing potential human health and environmental effects from the placing on the market of products containing GMOs, but its implementation has revealed a number of problem areas”. There is also an article from STOA on Directive 90/220/EEC. Dated 2nd January 1998. With all the words re “Risk Assessment”?
I then look at Directive 90/679/EEC Official Journal of the European Communities - 31.12.90 - Page No L 374/1 COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 26 November 1990 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (90/679/EEC) ¹ and wonder if anyone knows exactly what they are doing?
For more safety precautions see Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms²
I now draw your attention to the United Nations involvement on GMO’s and GMM’s³
The contained use of a GMO other than a GMM, 9/ if: (1)Contingency plans are deemed necessary for the use of the GMO in a facility; [and] [or] (ii) The GMO has not already been used [in the same location and] under comparable conditions and been approved using a public participation procedure conforming to the requirements of article 6, paragraphs [2 to 10]]. Contingency plans for a large scale GM disaster?
I note the contents of the Aahus Convention, along with the UN involvement particularly this paragraph, “Recognizing the concern of the public about the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and the need for increased transparency and greater public participation in decision-making in this field” The people should be listened to otherwise there is no point in such a convention.
One or two problems in this report, which, as it comes from DEFRA you probably already know about it. Report on GM Inspection & Enforcement Activities: 2000/2001⁴
I now turn to a Working Document for the STOA Panel Luxembourg December 1999 PE 168.441/Fin.St.⁵ A snippet here, 3.1 For human health.
The importance of taking into account health aspects of the introduction of GM food has been reflected by the creation of specific national agencies aimed at issuing recommendations concerning possible risks for human health. In the UK, for instance, a Food Standards Agency has recently been created and a similar body has been set up in France (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments) (Philipon, 1999).
Several consequences resulting from the introduction of foreign genes in a genome are unpredictable, as well as the effects on the composition of the food concerned. Besides desirable (primary) effects, the introduction of foreign genes may thus produce undesirable (secondary) effects.
The risks for human health are twofold : toxic and allergic. One potential danger is the intake of new, unknown pathogens together with modified plants, which may have appeared due to the modification which has made plant species resistant to viral infections.
1 It has been shown that inactivated viruses, inserted in GM plants, are capable of recombining with the host genome and be « reactivated » (Martinez, 1997). Inserted genes may activate oncogenes and cause certain cancers (Pimbert, 1997).
Toxicological risks can be associated with the addition of one new gene in a plant. Secondary metabolic changes may cause undesirable effects, such as the production of new toxic substances or stimulating the production of toxins normally present in the plant, even if only at very low level (see solanine in potato, tomatine in tomato or erucic acid in oilseed rape) (Le Déaut, 1998).
The evaluation of allergenic risks is complicated by the uncertainties linked to the prediction and future of the behaviour of transferred genes. The effect of a gene’s genetic and cellular environment on the characteristics of amino-acids produced may have been underestimated. The behaviour of proteins is thus not fully known and it is currently impossible to say whether these changes will bring about an increased sensitivity to allergenic substances (Le Déaut, 1998). My Comment, perhaps you should read the whole if you have not already done so?
I am mindful of another STOA Article on “An appraisal of the working in practice of directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms” dated, 2 JANUARY 1998⁶. To give you an idea of the message, “Member States have interpreted the current directive differently and this directive did not foresee in a procedure to resolve these disagreements. Scientific risk assessments could not enforce a consensus on the risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The approval of market-products has been delayed in almost all cases. Proposals to amend the directive has come from competent authorities of the member states, industrial organisations and nongovernmental organisations for various reasons”. The message should be clear and precise on such an important matter which may affect us all, for what else did the ‘directive’ not ‘foresee’?
A report on the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms, Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Report on GM Inspection & Enforcement Activities: 2000/2001 GM Inspectorate, Central Science Laboratory DEFRA, Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ Submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the National Assembly for Wales 10 August 2001. This report describes a number of disturbing instances of unauthorized mixing of non GM with GM plants such as “ events over the summer of 2000 involving some lines of Hyola oilseed rape4 underlined the need for effective control of seed imports. The GM Inspectorate was heavily involved in the audit of the destruction of the Hyola crops and seed stocks (see section 2.2.1)”
2.2.1 Audit of Advanta in summer 2000 after finding of a low GM presence in Hyola Oilseed Rape seed . Some batches of seed of the cultivar Hyola were reported to contain an adventitious GM presence. The stocks were produced in Canada in 1998 and imported into the UK. By the time that the GM presence had been confirmed a large amount of the seed had already been sold and sown widely in the UK. Advanta put in place a scheme for tracing the seed and destroying all of the affected crops before they were allowed to flower or set seed.” This indeed is a worrying trend.
“2.2.2 The presence of ‘single markers’ in oilseed rape seed samples
Conventional (non-GM) seed consignments are commonly analysed for GM presence
by PCR based methods. These look for a panel of DNA sequences that are
characteristic (markers) of the genetic modification process. Examples include the
presence of commonly used promoter sequences from the cauliflower mosaic virus
(CaMV 35S) or Agrobacterium (p-nos); selectable marker genes, such as antibiotic
resistance (nptII); or specific trait genes for herbicide resistance (pat, bar, epsps).
During the seed auditing procedure of winter and spring oilseed rape, PCR test results
were revealed that had detected only a ‘single marker’, for example just p-nos or npt-
II but with no detection of a transgene or any other characteristic ‘GM’ sequences.
These results are puzzling. They might indicate the adventitious presence of GM
seeds although it is difficult to see how single markers like these can occur in the
absence of any other characteristic GM sequences/traits. Alternatively, the single
marker scenario may be indicative not of GM presence but of bacterial contamination
in the laboratory or naturally occurring soil microorganisms on/under the seed coat.” In other words, the answer is not known. No one seems to know why certain things happen and over the years, just how things will develop. Why take the risk?
Finally, I ask you to look at (The following is the GM Freeze Submission to the FSA’s review of their handling of the 2006/7 GM contamination of US rice, submitted 19 November 2007) GM RICE INCIDENT FEEDBACK FORM, ⁷
I should think that by now you are aware of the amount of (scientific) “evidence” I have collected over the years, and I have just slightly touched on “Official” documentation, and left out the many horrendous things from other sources. I am concerned mainly by who is insisting that these Genetically Engineered products are grown and/or imported into our Country when it is known that the general public do not want their land contaminated and certainly do not want small children eating it for what it has done to the organs of the rats that are put to “test” these products is horrendous and why on earth are we torturing these hapless rats anyway? We know ‘natural’ and the food we have eaten for years is relatively safe so why oh why take such risks that once openly out in the environment, there is no way of containing or getting rid of them?
I am sure you know of GM-TRYPTOPHAN Food Supplement Epidemic? There are many other instances like that, but I hope I have provided you with enough information for you to decide that it is our own politicians that should research and decide what to grow and what not to grow, for it is you we, the people vote and pay for to do just that. These matters should not be governed by the EU, the WTO or the United Nations, the people’s health here in the UK should come first. There really is no point in insisting the people stay fit by eating well and taking exercise, that our children should eat five pieces of fruit every day and the same with vegetables, if what they are eating has been genetically engineered and may damage certain organs or the medicines they might take when they are ill, ends up killing them as some GE medicines allegedly already have done or reducing their life span on this earth.
Yours faithfully,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx ap
¹ http://www.biosafety.be/GB/Dir.Eur.GB/Other/90_679/Sect1.html#Art1
² http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998L0081:EN:HTML
³ http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2004/pp/mp.pp/ac.2/mp.pp.ac.2.2004.4.e.pdf
⁴ http://www.gm-inspectorate.gov.uk/documents/GMI_Report_2000-01.pdf
⁵ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/19990501_en.pdf
⁶ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/19971101_en.pdf
⁷ http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/GM_rice_feedback_form_1_final_version.pdf
Mentioned in previous letter:-
Resolution on Genetically Modified Maize Official Journal C 132, 28/04/1997 P.0029 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:51997IP0147:EN:HTML
97/618/EC: Commission Recommendation of 29 July 1997 concerning the scientific aspects and the presentation of information necessary to support applications for the placing on the market of novel foods and novel food ingredients and the preparation of initial assessment reports under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31997H0618&model=guichett
STOA= Science and Technology Options Assessment
Posts
