Rothamsted's Latest Letter (for Guardian Debate)

This letter is both boring and patronising. We need to belittle them in the nicest possible way.

Can the designated Thursday press person take responsibility for sending the final version please

I’m having a go at putting together a final draft. here’s my starting points…

We are pleased with the action on Sunday and the surrounding media coverage which has resulted from our threat to decontaminate. Thank you to all those who came and who showed support in other ways.

Facts about how gm affects farmers.

As you say you are “not a large corporation, this work has no commercial sponsor and the results will be given away freely.” We do not understand how you could authoritatively say that the resulting crop, were this to work, be given away freely. Seed producers and distributors are multinationals so are going to want to make a profit and there is not record of GM seeds ever having been given away, the opposite in fact.
Something about contracts and farmers.
All trials of GM wheat are a push towards commercialisation of something which is fundamentally damaging to the environment and people. The research we call for is into the effects on humans from consuming GM, the long term affects on soils where GM has already been grown and real research into the problems of food distribution. Companies involved in GM try to silence the debate by preventing real research into the seeds through patenting issues.

Mburu quote, solidarity this is developed in the west and pushed on the south.

Here’s my full first draft. It’s slightly too long. a few comments would be good.
…..

We are pleased with the action on Sunday and the surrounding media coverage which has resulted from our threat to decontaminate. Thank you to all those who came and who showed support in other ways.

We believe that this trial is a test of the public opinion and the thin end of the wedge. GM is an issue people have good reason to be concerned about. On Sunday Mburu, from the African Biodiversity Network, summed up our opposition to GM “Experimenting with staple crops is a serious threat to food security. Our resilience comes from diversity, not the monocultures of GM. Beneath the rhetoric that GM is the key to feeding a hungry world, there is a very different story – a story of control and profit. The fact is that we need a diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their seeds”

GM crops consistently fail to live up to the hype surrounding them. In 2010 Monsanto announced that their GM cotton pest resistant crop grown in India, is no longer working, as the insects had developed resistance to the toxin. A trial in thale cress found that aphids become resistant to alarm pheromones within three generations. If pest-resistance is failing in other GM crops it is likely to do so with Rothamsted’s wheat. Even if the technology does work against aphids, a big if, there are other insects which damage wheat crops and so farmers will still be reliant on pesticide applications to treat these species.

We understand you are not a large corporation but we do not understand how you can categorically state that it would be given away freely if it works. Seed producers and distributors are multinationals driven by profit. There is not record of GM seeds ever having been given away. The opposite is true, farmers are forced into contacts that they cannot break and their yields and livelihoods suffer. Contracts are so tight that no-one is even allowed to do independent research on the GM seeds.

All trials of GM wheat are a push towards commercialisation. The research we call for is into the effects on humans from consuming GM, the long term affects on soils where GM has already been grown and real research into the problems of food distribution.

We want to debate – we will be back in touch with you soon.

Hiya -great work – Gathuru Mburu full name? xx

Re – commercial angle

In his interview with the BBC on Sunday, in response to a question about commercialisation of the crop, Maloney says that if the experiment is successful of course there will be commercial interest worldwide – not only in wheat but in lots of other crops – www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-...

Also, in 2007 – 8 “Rothamsted Research received funding from Bayer Crop Sciences, Germany to make transgenic wheat plants for a research project.” – see uploaded attachment doi.pdf. Different project presumably?

I like the quote from Mburu

ALongside this perhaps it could be pointed out that In October 2009 Rothamsted hosted the conference “Agriculture: Africa’s “Engine for Growth” – Plant science & biotechnology hold the key”, which received funding from the biotechnology company Monsanto. Agriculture: Africa’s “Engine for Growth” – Plant science & biotechnology hold the key www.aab.org.uk/images/Africa_P&BF.pdf

Can’t find the pdf online that shows the funding now but will upload it to this page (intro_and_contents pdf)

I don’t understand why we’re shying away from raising known corporate links?
There’s also the agreeement Rothamsted have with Dow – which is in doi.pdf uploaded already.

I could help editing down the piece to the word limit, whatever is decided, let me know in the morning and i can work on it.

OK,… in the full knowledge that this post is likely to be ignored, i’m going to have a stab a response anyway

Rothamsted,

This response focuses on the 3 key arguements by which you defend the trial.

Feeding the world – we believe that GM wheat poses a threat to global food security. This was highlighted by our key speaker on Sunday, Gathuru Mburu from the African Biodiversity network, who said: “we need a diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their seeds””.

Empirical evidence shows that GM crops cannot co-exist with non-GM crops, in fact they have the potential to completely wipe out our seed heritage and the genetic diversity that we will need in the future. Rothamsted is well aware of the science that backs up this arguement. Furthermore, GM crops must be purchased year after year because where the genes pop up in subsequent generations of plants is unpredictable. This clearly suits the interests of corporations above farmers, regardless of who is funding the current trial.

Regarding corporate involvement – Rothamsted has protested loudly that this is a UK government funded experiment. However, Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research Maurice Maloney, himself the owner of 400 patents on GM crops (citation needed) stated on BBC news that if the trial is successful there will be corporate interest from around the world. We note that in 2007 – 8 Rothamsted received funding from Bayer Crop Sciences to make transgenic wheat plants for “a research project” and that it has an ongoing agreement to use processes for genetic engineering patented by Dow Chemicals. Clearly Rothamsted does not operate in a vacuum untouched by corporate interests. Further examples available.

Regarding the science – it is our understanding that risk assessment of the crop so far have been focussed on proving that it is “substantially equivalent” to conventional wheat. We believe this to be wholly inadequate and welcome the opportunity to debate this with you in future.

TTFB

Heya,

This is cool, but I’m concerned that “We are pleased with the action on Sunday and the surrounding media coverage which has resulted from our threat to decontaminate” could sound like we only did it for the media coverage, and make us seem a bit disingenuous?

Sorry wiki down. Sent the below earlier. Bowler now working on bringing them all together.

You state that as scientists conducting a small-scale field trial you cannot address the wider socio-political dimensions of the debate and yet your articles and statements in the national press are peppered with socio-political justifications, mainly those around a burgeoning world population. The systems we develop to feed ourselves in the future are an inherently political debate, as the strength of feeling on both sides demonstrates. Empirical evidence shows that GM crops simply cannot co-exist with non-GM crops, so the choices we are making now have vital implications for future generations.

Science does not operate in a vacuum. While this trial is tax payer funded, your own Chief Executive Maurice Maloney (himself the owner of 400 crop patents) stated on BBC news that if the trial is successful there would be corporate interest from around the world. The role of your funders (the BBSRC) is to ensure that public science better meets the needs of industry and ‘to help industry, commerce and Government create wealth’, we do not argue with this aim or question Rothamsteds ongoing partnerships with biotech and agrochemical companies such as Bayer and Dow, it is afterall a complex field. We do however restate the need for public research institutions to be accountable to UK farmers and the public they claim to serve.

We disagree that the public is neutral on GM issues, all recent polls both in the UK and Europe continue to show that serious concern exists around the technology.
But this concern is also global, it is a shame you were not able to come and listen to these concerns on Sunday. Gathuru Mburu director of the African Biodiversity network, responded to your claims that GM was needed to feed Africa: “we need a diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their seeds”.

For us the debate is far from over, we regret that the 24hrs we were given to agree to your ‘public debate’, was not sufficient to confirm speakers – we feel that voices from around the world are essential in giving the practical experience of GM crops. As we’ve previously stated the time for debate was before British farmers and the wider eco-system were put at risk, but it is vital that this debate continue and that it address how decisions over the public funding of research are made. A head to head debate in the autumn when your trial is no longer in the ground will enable people to raise concerns without being vilified as ‘nazis’.

Think current edit looks like this. Aware that it doesn’t do justice to the eloquence of many of the points raised, but also that we wanted to wadge several aspects in and not everyone was able to work on it with us today. Profuse apologies. I know there are conversations to be had about this sort of editing process.
But obviously further suggestions (in next 10 mins!) appreciated
-—.

We are glad that you also recognise that the wider socio-political
dimensions raised by GM is a question that cannot be responded to
simply by scientists, or indeed by ourselves as growers. However we
are baffled that in this forum you present your research as the
abstract pursuit of knowledge, while simultaneously describing how you
would go about commercially releasing a product. Why will you not
address the inevitable consequences of such a process? Empirical
evidence shows that GM crops simply cannot co-exist with non-GM crops,
so the choices we are making now have vital implications for future
generations. Even the limited growing of GM maize in Spain
demonstrates this graphically- their organic sweetcorn market has
imploded as a result of cross contamination.

As we are sure you are also aware, science does not operate in a
vacuum. While this trial is tax payer funded, that funding comes under
a government which has declared it’s intent to be ‘the most pro GM
government ever’. A policy position which was challenged just a few
weeks ago by a cross party group of MPs – the Environmental Audit
Committee. Your own Chief Executive Maurice Maloney (himself the owner
of 400 GM patents) stated on BBC news that if the trial is successful
there would be corporate interest from around the world.

We disagree that the public is largely neutral on GM issues, all
recent polls both in the UK and Europe continue to show that serious
concern exists around the technology, as the lack of GM ingredients in
UK supermarkets testifies. But this concern is also global, it is a
shame you were not able to come and listen to these concerns on
Sunday. Gathuru Mburu director of the African Biodiversity network,
responded to your claims that GM was needed to feed Africa: “we need a
diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive
worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their
seeds”.

We regret that the 24hrs we were given to agree to your ‘public
debate’, was not sufficient to confirm speakers – we feel that voices
from around the world are essential in giving the practical experience
of GM crops. We hope we can both bring independent experts to the
table in the autumn when your trial is no longer in the ground,
enabling people to raise concerns without being vilified as ‘nazis’.

The final version of both letters, Adam agreed to let us correct spellings so long as we didn’t change meaning or word count. So we have the below.

Dear John Pickett and team,

It’s evident from your own application for this trial that you recognise open air planting of a crop which can cross pollinate with common couch grass does present a contamination risk. The example of Bayers 2006 rice trial in America shows that low pollination risk crops on a supposedly secure small trial site can escape and widely contaminate the food chain. British farmers must be protected from this.

Concerns about the health implications of GM in the food chain are too readily dismissed and we believe they should be thoroughly assessed before any open field trials are approved. In this case they were dismissed in a cavalier manner. We must look at the real problems caused by GM crops already grown, not try to create more.

You claim your experiment represents “part of an alternative vision for sustainable agriculture”. In which case the very first question should be, is this particular intervention/input needed? As no one, anywhere in the world, currently buys GM wheat – or seems likely to; and effective long term non-GM methods and non-pesticide methods for dealing with aphids already exist, the answer is no.

So why is Rothamsted determined to run this trial? Because it is the best way to achieve sustainable farming? Or is it connected to the fact that it is committed to a biotech, patent and high technological product driven vision that puts the food system, farmers
and citizens even more firmly in the hands of multi-national agri-business.

We too have a vision of sustainable agriculture. It is shared by Via Campsina, the world wide union of smaller farmers, which numbers some 20 million members, and the IAASTD (a major UN-funded study, produced by 400 scientific and agricultural experts and endorsed by 58 governments) as well as citizens throughout the world who do not want their food subject to GM and its associated corporate control.

Our vision is for an agro-ecology based farming, using appropriate technology available to even the poorest farmers. On a food system that is not contaminated by GM or pesticides.

From Brazil to India small farmers have risked their freedom to defend their crops against GM contamination. The time for public debate was before this crop went in the ground. The concerns of scientists, public bodies and the general public were ignored then – and so we are left with our protest action.

Yours Sincerely,

Take the Flour Back

Dear John Pickett and team,

We are glad that you also recognise that the wider socio-political implications of GM are questions that cannot be addressed by scientists alone, or indeed by ourselves as growers. However, we are baffled that in this forum you present your research as the abstract pursuit of knowledge, despite repeated discussions of its commercial application in the farming press. Why will you not address the inevitable consequences of such a process? Empirical evidence shows that GM crops simply cannot co-exist with non-GM crops, so the choices we are making now have vital implications for future generations. Even the very limited growing of GM maize in Spain demonstrates this graphically- their organic sweetcorn market having imploded as a result of cross contamination.

As we are sure you are also aware, science does not operate in a vacuum. The decision to fund this trial, was made by an administration which has declared it’s intention to be ‘the most pro GM government ever’. A policy position which was challenged just a few weeks ago by a cross party group of MPs – the Environmental Audit Committee. Your own Chief Executive Maurice Moloney (himself the owner of over 300 biotechnology patents) stated on BBC news that if the trial is successful there would be corporate interest from around the world.

We disagree that the public is neutral on GM issues, all recent polls both in the UK and Europe continue to show that serious concern remains around the technology, as the lack of GM ingredients in UK supermarkets testifies. But this concern is also global, it is a shame you were not able to come and listen to these concerns on Sunday. Gathuru Mburu director of the African Biodiversity network, responded to your claims that GM was needed to feed Africa: “we need a diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their seeds”.

We regret that the 24hrs we were given to agree to your ‘public debate’, was not sufficient to confirm speakers – we feel that voices from around the world are essential in giving the practical experience of GM crops. We hope we can both bring independent experts to the table once your trial is no longer in the ground, enabling people to raise concerns without being vilified as ‘Nazis’ or ‘zealots’. As always, we welcome further dialogue.

Yours sincerely,

Take the flour back

Well done yous xx
Question: Why are we saying the autumn? I think they will use a huge time lag like that to bury the chance for this debate and any media focus will be dead in the water by then, and they will feel no pressure to meet us any more.

I might also add to the letter:

‘Your talk of wishing for the presentation of “factual evidence” strikes a rather disingenous note considering your blatent refusal to admit the many examples of cross-contamination across the world from the US and Australia to Spain that have caused untold damage to export markets and farmers’ incomes, your obfiscation of the devastating realities for GM farmers around the world, from lower yields, to a loss of biodiversity and increased chemical use, as well as your failure to acknowledge that not only are the public still in oppostition to eating GM – but many scientists join them in opposing not only this trial, but the entire technology of GM as a solution to global farming solutions. Please read the IAASTD report conducted by over 400 scientists for the UN and World Bank, that did not find GM a viable solution to world hunger.’

sorry if I am too late, or if this is not appropraite. I’m a bit confused about which letter is going in from the 2 above…
xxx

For future pls pls note at RR a board member and a member of the Lead Expert Group on Food and Farming is David Lawrence from Syngenta Foundation! Man was heavily involved with Jealot’s Hill where GM Wheat trial was decontaminated a decade or so ago (see next comment).

Unregulated corporate involvement at RR is what we need to pull up.
On bee research Syngenta’s manipulations are clear for all to see.
Every time Moloney and cohorts come up with nonsense that RR is a charity and are doing common good we need to point out that they are well in the direction of a corporate takeover — simply blaming Moloney for the number of patents isn’t good enough. Pickett holds patents too. Possibly many others at RR hold patents.

Its interesting that Pickett and team try to fortify their argument with yet another safety test, this time with “Food and Environment Research Agency on 17th May 2012”. Is it because of the EFSA testing is now held in disrepute as Huw Jones is part of the GMO panel at EFSA? ACRE often takes instructions from EFSA

whenever Pickett and team come up with the lies “We are not a large corporation, this work has no commercial sponsor and the results will be given away freely. Illegally destroying this publically-funded research will push this science towards the big multinational companies and therefore promote the very problems you seek to avoid.”

we must point out to statement from one of RR’s (and BBSCR Council) directors David Lawrence explaining why its not ‘a large corporation’ doing it directly by pointing to :
www.organicconsumers.org/ge/syngenta120...

Sorry CP111, it had already gone, but the ‘autumn’ bit had been taken out. Annoyed that though we sent in spelling corrections they said a sub would check that anyway, so we are left with ‘even firmly’ and ‘maloney’….

Nice one media crew – www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun...

reality check … who is The Guardian? ; who is in there at the Guardian working for the fascists? How does The Guardian destroy set piece opposition to the fascists?

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/j...