Party : Defendants Deponent :Andrew Wood : 1st Sworn : March 1999 Exhibit : "ANW1" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1998-M-NO 1180 QUEENS BENCH DIVISION BETWEEN MONSANTO PLC Plaintiff -and- (1) ROWAN TILLY (2) JO HAMILTON (3) KATHRYN TULIP (4) MELANIE JARMAN (5) ZOE ELFORD (6) ANDREW WOOD (sued on their own behalf and on behalf of all the other members or representatives of "genetiX snowball", an unincorporated association) Defendants AFFIDAVIT OF ANDREW NEIL WOOD I, Andrew Wood of 6 Mount Street, Manchester M2 5NS, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am the sixth defendant. I make this affidavit from facts within my own knowledge except where otherwise stated. There is now produced and shown to me a paginated exhibit "AW1" containing copy documents to which I shall refer 2. My principle role within the genetiX snowball campaign ("The Campaign") has been to undertake press and media work; my working title is Media Liaison. This work is undertaken on a voluntary basis without payment or direction or instruction from others. I have been undertaking this role from prior to the launch of the campaign on Saturday July 4th 1998. On this date at Model Farm, Shirburn near Watlington in Oxfordshire ("Model Farm") the first five named defendants uprooted plants ("The Action") at a release site for genetically modified organisms ("The Site"). 3. The role of the campaign's Media Liaison involves ensuring that journalists, correspondents, freelance journalists, freelance photographers and film makers, print and broadcast organisations ("The Media"), are notified of events and forth coming events of the Campaign. This notification mostly takes the form of a press release. Copies of press release's which I have written for the Campaign are exhibited at pages 1 - ? of ANW1. The press release is sent by facsimile, post or e-mail to the media. After sending the press release a telephone call may be needed to ensure receipt. Part of the Media Liaison role also involves answering telephone inquires from the media. On occasion it may involve acting as a spokesperson for the campaign. 4. I act as the Media Liaison for the Campaign and acted as the Media Liaison for the Action at Model Farm. I did not uproot or interfere or trespass on the plants which may or may not be owned by the plaintiff and grown at Model Farm. I undertook the role of Media Liaison knowing that prior to the action on July 4th 1998 letters had been sent to farmers and others hosting sites for the release of genetically modified organisms ("GMOs") into the environment including the one at Model Farm. These letters were intended to inform them of the campaign and the issues surrounding genetically modified crops; to reassure them that their property would be respected and the country code would be followed; to reassure them of the nonviolent and peaceful nature of the campaign; and to invite them to join the campaign. 5. Prior to the action on July 4th 1998 I also understood that letters were sent to the major biotechnology companies, including the Plantiff with similar contents. I also knew that letters had been sent by the campaign to Thames Valley Police informing them of the peaceful nature of the campaign. Prior to the action at Model Farm I like the other defendants signed a pledge of non-violence. I also under took this role knowing that the first five named defendants, as with all genetiX snowball actions would remove no more than one hundred plants in the action and that the purpose of genetiX snowball campaign is - firstly, to obtain a five year moratorium on the deliberate release of GM plats in Britain except for government sponsored, ecological health and safety tests (in enclosed systems) and; secondly the removal by government agency, the farmers or the biotech companies of all genetically modified plants already existing. When this request is met the genetiX snowball campaign will be called off. Prior to the action leaflets stating this aim had been distributed and a true copy is contained in the Plantiffs exhibit CLH5. I have endeavoured to ensured that the campaigns purposes were effectively communicated by including them in genetiX snowball press releases, particularly the early releases. 6. Prior to the action at Model farm I had written a press release and ensured it was circulated to the media, a copy of the press release dated June 22nd 1998 is included in exhibit ANW1. Another press release dated July 1st in exhibit ANW1 was also circulated prior to the action. At about 10.00 a.m. on Saturday 4th July 1998 I meet with the media at a pre-arrange meeting point on the edge of Oxford. I distributed a press briefing, (page ? of ANW1), this included directions to the demonstration site for genetically modified crops at Model Farm. I travelled to the site in the car of a camera operator from Central TV whom I had met at the meeting point. After parking beside a path to Model Farm we walked to the site. When we reached the site many of the media had already arrived and the other defendants were being arrested by the Police. Once all the other defendants had been arrested then I was asked to give an interview to some of the media and left the site. I then prepared another press release, (page ? of ANW1) dated Saturday 4th July 1998. This was then sent out by facsimile to the media. 7. Prior to the action at Model Farm on July 4th I had sought to inform myself of the issues regarding genetically modified food and crops and have sought to inform myself by reading relevant publications and attending presentations by experts. In particular I had read: a) Dr Mae-Wan Ho's 'Genetic Engineering - Dream or Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business' published in 1997 by The Research Foundation for Science and Technology and Ecology and The Third World Network. b) 'Genetically Engineered Corn - No Real Benefits' Greenpeace Briefing, published February 1997 c) 'How decisions are made to allow Genetically Modified Organisims - an example of the misuse of science to cover up negligent policy on environmental risks' distributed at that talk. d) 'Genetically Engineered Oilseed Rape' Friend's of the Earth's Briefing Sheet, published November 1997 e) 'Colonizing the Seed' by Friends of the Earth, Melborne, Australia f) 'The Unholy Alliance' by Mae-Wan Ho, The Ecologist, Vol. 27, No. 4, July/August 1997 g) 'Gene Dream' a series of articles in the New Internationalist August 1997. h) 'Biopatenting and Biodiversity - Comparative Advantages in the New Global Order by Ruth McNally and Peter Wheale, The Ecologist Vol. 26, No. 5, September/October 1996 i) 'From Green to Gene Revolution - The Environmental Risks of Genetically Engineered Crops', The Ecologist, Vol.26, No. 6 November/ December 1996 j) 'Substantial Equivalence - A Licience to Kill' Dr Micheal Antonion, Nutritional Therapy Today Vol 7 No 3 1997. k) 'Genetic engineering, too good to go wrong?', Greenpeace, October 1997. l) 'The Gene Debate' published in Resurgence May/June 1998, No. 188. m) 'What is Genetic Engineering?' published by The Womens Environmental Network May 1998. n) 'Genetically Engineered Oilseed Rape: Agricultural Savior or New Form of Pollution?' GeneWatch Briefing No. 2 May 1998 o) 'Fatal Flaws in Food Safety Assessment: A critical Response to The joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report(FAO Food and Nutrition paper 61) by Dr Mae-Wan Ho and Dr Ricarda A. Steinbrecher for the Third World Network. p) 'Eugenics - a self defence guide on protecting your genes' published by ASEED June 1997 q) 'No Patents on Life! A briefing on the proposed EU directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions' published by The Corner House, September 1997. r) 'GenetiX Update' the newsletters of the Genetic Engineering Network from its first publication in July 1997. s) Articles in a series called 'The Food Revolution' published in the Guardian Newspaper from Monday 15th December 1997. 8. I have attended the following presentations: a) A debate between Dr Mae-Wan Ho, a professor of biology at the Open University, and John Durant, Assistant Director, Science Communication Division, The Science Museum on 17th March 1998 at Linnean Society, London. b) A workshop at the Alternative Summit, Amsterdam in June 1997 by Dr Ian Taylor, Scientific Political Advisor for Greenpeace Uk. This talk explained the inadequacy of the British and European regulatory systems for genetically modified food and crops to safeguard human health and the environment, particularly in relation to genetically modified maize. c) A one day workshop in Cambridge hosted by Patrice Gladwin of Cambridge Concern with speakers Dr Micheal Antoniou and Dr Ricarda A. Steinbrecher. 9. In the Summer 1997 I started working with Corporate Watch in Oxford. This organisation undertakes research into large businesses whose activities cause concern in ethical, social or environmental issues. Corporate Watch also publishes a magazine of the same name and its December 1996 issue includes an articles about genetic engineering prompted by the arrival of the first cargo of Monsanto's Genetically Engineered soya at Liverpool docks on November 26 1996. In spring 1997 Corporate Watch were one of the groups involved in organising the 'Big Gene Gathering', a weekend of workshops to understand genetic engineering, the companies and corporations involved, and to promote campaigning. Working at Corporate Watch I had learned about genetic engineering from their resources which included access to e-mail and the internet; more specifically to the frequent and informative email notes from the Genetic Engineering Network and its affiliates. I continued to work with Corporate Watch until the Action at Model Farm. 10. I have been active with local groups of Friends of the Earth for several years. I have been a recipient of mailings from their Food and Biotechnology campaign since it started in 1997. In February 1998 I distributed about 500 of Friends of the Earth's 'Stop the Crop' postcards for people to sign and post. These postcards, addressed to Jack Cunningham the then Secretary of State for Agriculture, expressed concerned about the environmental consequences of genetically engineered oil seed rape in the UK. They asked for a moratorium to be introduced 'until it can be shown it will benefit farming, the environment and consumers'. On 21st March 1998 I attended Friends of the Earth's one day Food and Biotechnology training day which included workshops about genetic engineering. In April 1998 I was appointed as the Food and Biotechnology Campaigner with Oxford Friends of the Earth. 11. The day before the action I visited the site at Model Farm and was concerned that insufficient measures had been taken to contain the release of genetically modified organisms. The demonstration site was not enclosed; it was not for example enclosed in a tunnel of polyethylene or in a netting material. There were no measures to ensure birds, insects or other animals were not able to visit the plants and remove genetically modified organisms from the site. Genetically modified organisms or soil contaminated by genetically modified organisms could also have been removed from the site by physical forces such as wind. Neither did there appear to be any barrier set in the soil to prevent creatures living in the earth from removing genetically modified material from the plants at the site. I do not believe that the Plaintiff were using the Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excess Costs (BATNEC) to constrain the movement of genetically modified material and prevent geneflow. This geneflow could have damaged the crops not owned by the Plaintiff via horizontal gene transfer or pollination of other crops. 12. I am concerned that Monsanto have not complied with the statutory requirements for the release of Genetically Modified Organisms("GMO") at Model Farm. They have previously breached regulations governing their consent to release GMOs at other sites. I was aware of this breach prior to the action at Model Farm from an article in the Independent Newspaper on ? , a copy is contained at page ? of ANW1. I understand that the Plaintiff has been found guilty of failing to comply with the statutory regulations for the release of GMOs. 13. I am also concerned that even if the plaintiff were breaching their consent requirements at Model Farm then these would not be known to the Health and Safety executive who are responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations. I understand that the plaintiff has on occasion provided mis-information to the government committee, known as The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) responsible for sanctioning release of the plaintiff's GMOs to the environment, see page ? ANW1. I believe that until there is full disclosure of documents relating to the practices of the Plaintiff at Model farm then it will not be possible to ensure that the Plaintiff was adhering to the statutory regulatory procedures. I understand that these documents can only be disclosed during the process of a full trial, therefore I believe a full trial is necessary. 14. I believe that the five other defendants were articulating public opinion in their action at Model Farm and so were seeking to uphold democracy. An opinion poll carried out by MORI for Genewatch in June of 1998, the month prior to the action found that 77% of respondents wanted genetically modified crops banned and that 61% did not want to eat genetically modified food. Repeated opinion polls have reaffirmed these findings. 15. I understand that the genetiX snowball campaign's call for a five year moratorium is one which is receiving support from a large numbers of organisations. These organisations are members of the Genetic Engineering Alliance ("The GEA"). I understand from Sandra Bell, the GEA co-ordinator that as of 5th March 1999 there are thirty seven members of the Genetic Engineering Alliance and others are expected to join. At the launch of the GEA's call for a Five Year Freeze on genetic engineering and patenting in food and farming on 16th February there were twenty nine consumer, development, health and environment organisations that had joined the GEA. One of these organisations was genetiX snowball, see page ? of ANW1. 16. I agreed to take on the role of Media liaison for the campaign to raise public awareness of the issues surrounding genetically modified crops. I believe that by raising public awareness then political change, democratic political change can occur. I do not consider media coverage as an end in itself but as a means to an end and that end is political change. 17. I consider the action of a person removing between one and ninety nine genetically modified plants to be an effective means of political expression. I believe such an act is a symbolic act in the spirit of democracy just as the marking of a cross on a ballot paper is a symbolic act. I consider such symbols, which are the basis of our thoughts and language as powerful entities and as a means to political change. 18. Prior to the second genetiX snowball action I received a phone call on 17th July 1998 from Sarah Goodall, a Press Officer from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) who had been contacted by the media regarding the second genetiX snowball action. I was told that they had not seen the MORI poll findings quoted in the advance notice press release for the second genetiX snowball action, a copy is contained in exhibit ANW1 dated July 16th 1998. I was told by Sarah Goodall that neither she nor her department were aware of the MORI poll and its findings. I believe that the media can help to effect political change and that this is an example where a representative of a government department, the DTI was being effectively lobbied. 19. The Plaintiff's exhibit "ADP3" contains an item which starts 'We believe that genetic engineering will make us more money'. This item is not one of the materials produced by myself or the campaign and has not been distributed by the campaign. 20. From the period when I moved to Oxford in the summer of 1997 until December 1998 I had access to all the daily and weekend newspapers as I shared a house with a journalist who provided a clippings service for a national environment magazine. The newspapers received included The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Financial Times, The Independent on Sunday, The Sunday Times, The Observer, The Sunday Telegraph. On occasion The Express or Daily Mail newspapers would also be purchased. 21. On June 6th 1998, a month prior to the action at Model Farm the Plaintiff started an advertising campaign. The campaign reported to cost £ 1 million or more placed advertisements in the weekend magazine supplements of the Guardian, Independent, Times, Mail on Sunday, Observer, Independent on Sunday, Daily Telegraph Magazine and Sunday Times. I had seen these advertisements at the time of their publication and prior to the action at Model farm. I believed these advertisement made claims for the benefits of genetically modified crops and food which were false. These claims include that genetically modified crops will lead to reduced environmental impact though reduced use of pesticides and herbicides; that thorough tests have been carried out to ensure the safety of genetically modified food crops for human consumption heath; and that genetically modified crops would be effective in preventing world hunger. I also believed the advertisements purported to show facts which where in fact the Plaintiff's opinions and were misleading to readers. 22. An advertisement by the Plaintiff which appears in the Mail on Sunday on 7th June 1998 states that 'Rigorous tests have been undertaken thought out Monsanto's 20 year biotech history to ensure our food crops are safe and nutritious as the standard alternatives'. The implication is that the Plaintiffs food crops will not cause harm. However the Plaintiffs exhibit "CLH14" contains a Broadcast Report of ITV's television programme World in Action broadcast on August 10th 1998. It quotes Dr Catherine Hooper, an employee of the Plaintiff on page 20 of "CLH14", as saying 'We don't do long, long term animal tests on any new variety'. I believe the film footage from which this Broadcast Report was taken was shot at Model Farm immediately after the arrest of the first five defendants. Prior to the action at Model Farm I did not believe that long term testing of genetically modified food crops had been undertaken and that therefore they may bring harm to people who consumed them. I came to this view by my reading and consulting experts. 23. I understand that the Advertising Standards Authority ("ASA"), the advertising industries ruling body has produced it's draft report concerning the complaints about the Plaintiff advertisements, see 'Watchdog slams Monsanto ads' taken from the Observer Newspaper of February 28th 1999 in exhibit ANW3 ("The article"). I understand from the article that the ASA draft report says 'the US giant [referring to the Plaintiff] expressed its own opinion as accepted fact and published wrong and unproved scientific claims.' I understand from the article that in the ASA draft report the Plaintiff has been condemned for making 'wrong, unproved, misleading and confusing claims'. I understand that from the article that 'The authority also dismissed Monsanto's assertion that GM crops were more environmentally friendly than ordinary crops'. 24. I am concerned that people who are not as economically power full as the Plaintiff can effectively and fairly communicated their concerns when they have not the finance resources to undertake expensive advertising campaigns. I believe one way the power less can be heard is to engage in symbolic acts such as was witnessed at Model Farm on July 4th 1998. 25. I believe that the corporate culture of the Plaintiff is one based on oppressive and ruthless commercial behaviour which disregards the concerns of public well being and individual and collective rights and freedoms. I understand that in a film by Wolfgang Herles, copyright 1998 called 'Machtspiele. Das Gen-Monoply: Wie Monsanto Furcht und Hoffnung Saet' which I am told translates to ' Power games . The Gene Monoply: How Monsanto Sows Fear and Hope' shows the office of Robert Shapiro ("Bob Shapiro"), Chairman of Monsanto with a framed quotation from George Patton which reads 'A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week'. I understand that when asked 'Do you believe that?', Bob Shaprio replies 'Yes I do'. I understand similar sentiments have been expressed by Hendrik Verfailleie, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for the Plaintiff. The book 'Against the Grain' first published in the UK in 1999 by Earthscan Publications quotes him as saying 'The biggest mistake that anyone can make is moving slowly, because the game is over before you start'. I had also read prior to the action at Model Farm in The Guardian Newspaper of Monday 15th December 1997 a copy of which is contained in exhibit ANW3, quotes by a Senior Executive of the Plaintiff as saying 'What your seeing is ... a consolidation of the entire food chain'. 26. I do not be believe that a summary hearing will be sufficient for there to have been a fair consideration of my defence. A full trial would allow experts to appear in court and support my defence. It would also allow disclosure of documents relating to this case which I believe would also support my defence. Sworn this day of March ) 1999 at ) ) before me ...........................