1. The government has completely lost my trust,
and quite frankly I no longer believe what it says. (See reasons given
below).
2. I have followed the GM debate for some years,
and made it my business to be as well informed as possible. I was not
able to attend one of your meetings because of poor
publicity/availability.
3 .I consider the government attempts at
a "public debate" have been cosmetic, and without real commitment,
particularly financial. (Compare with the amount spent by government on
promoting GM technology).
4. I have absolutely no trust in the government's
"best scientific advice". This is as a result of:
a) what I consider to be the disastrous
mishandling of the FMD epidemic, using flawed epidemiological models, and
ignoring the leading FMD veterinary scientists;
b) what I consider to be the poor science
behind the National Scrapie Plan, which could result in another mass slaughter
programme;
c) the withdrawal of funding from Prof Alan
Ebringer, whose research so far indicates an alternative cause for BSE, (with
enormous implications for the livestock industry), and a possible cause of MS;
d) the disastrous blow dealt to the cockle
industry as a result of using an outdated and discredited test as scientific
evidence.
These examples are just a few, but show
that we as a country should really do very much better - we were world
renowned for our scientific expertise,which was seen to be independent and of
the highest calibre. That perception has now radically changed - our
science/scientists are seen to be at the mercy of political and commercial
interests, with the result that the true "best science" has very often bit the
dust. In the FMD epidemic, our overseas colleagues were looking at us in utter
dismay and incredulity, as we proceeded to wipe out much of our livestock
industry and inflict a lasting blow on the rural community. Compare the
attempts in the SARS epidemic to find and validate a diagnostic test - this
was done in a few weeks, simply because there was the political will. With
FMD, the powers that be are still prevaricating in validation, even though
diagnostic tests were actually available before the FMD 2001
epidemic.
5. There are far too close links between
government and the biotech and drug companies. I also consider that Lord
Sainsbury's appointment was not helpful - it certainly does not encourage me
to perceive the government as open and unbiased.
6. There is overwhelming evidence to
suggest that the big companies are going to make enormous amounts of money for
themselves out of GM, and that their activities are not primarily concerned
with helping to feed the poorer countries, and other like issues. The claims
that have been made for the benefits of GM have been shown in Canada to have
been misleading, and they are 6 years down the road with GM trials. (Canadian
NFU visit to UK).
7. I consider there are enormous risks and
problems associated with GM crops/technology, and that far from resulting in
better yields, and less and fewer insecticides/weedkillers, the opposite is
happening, with the rise of all sorts of unwanted side effects e.g. the
superweeds, the need to revert to the "old" style of chemicals in large
amounts. The repercussions in human health may be enormous, for
example, the possible rise of further superbug resistance to
antibiotics.
8. I consider that the stranglehold that the big
companies will have on the third world growers, should GM take off, is
immoral, and will cause poverty, hardship, and the break up of rural
communities. The farmers will become slaves of the biotech companies - have we
really advanced from colonial days?