KATHRYN TULIP On 4th July 1998 I uprooted 64 genetically engineered oil seed rape plants at Model Farm, Shirburn, Oxfordshire. I took that action openly and accountably as part of the genetiX snowball campaign, a campaign of nonviolent civil responsibility. I am here in Court today to explain why it was necessary and in the public interest for me to take action against a technology which I believe is unwanted, unnecessary, unsafe and irreversible. Feeding the world and saving the planet are the most common justifications used by the biotechnology industry for introducing genetically engineered crops into agriculture. But genetic engineering of our food is fundamentally about big business attempting to take control of our entire agricultural system: by patenting seeds, by controlling seed fertility; by controlling seed distribution and by controlling farmers through onerous contracts. This consolidation of the food supply system by big business is in direct conflict with environmental and agricultural sustainability and our right to a plentiful supply of safe food. This is an issue which affects all of us, from English princes to the slum dwellers of Delhi. Yet we have never been asked whether we want GE crops and food. But, ordinary people, like me, are concerned about the dangers of genetic engineering. There is growing public support from all over the world for the campaigns by environmental and consumer groups against genetic engineering of food. Many scientists around the world have publicly stated their concerns and increasing numbers of our elected representatives are also urging caution. The results of an opinion poll conducted by Mori for GeneWatch in June 1998 has shown that 77% of the British public want a ban on the growing of GE crops in Britain. Yet, in the face of this opposition the Government has not consulted with the public, but has continued with its policy of encouraging the growing and testing of GE crops in Britain. I understand from the GMO Public Register, that there were over 300 different release sites for GE crops in Britain during the Summer of 1998 and there will be a similar number of sites this year. So what are the dangers of genetically engineered our crops and food? The proponents of genetic engineering claim that it is safe, more precise, more predictable and a natural extension of traditional cross-breeding methods and that all they are doing is giving nature a helping hand. This is not the case. Genetic engineering permits the transfer of genes between totally unrelated organisms, circumventing natural species barriers. Scientists can now take genes from a fish and put them into a tomato or a strawberry. This crossing of species barriers is something that would never happen by traditional breeding methods. When the new gene is incorporated into the host plant's DNA, it could end up anywhere, next to any gene or even within one of the plant's own genes. Genes don't work in isolation and the activity of each gene is affected by its neighbours. So the random incorporation of a new gene into a plant can cause unpredictable disturbance to the normal function and regulation of the plant's own genes. For example a gene for the colour red was inserted into a white flowering petunia. The petunia turned red but also grew more leaves and shoots, had lower fertility and was more resistant to fungi: none of these additional effects was predicted. There are many unanswered questions about the basic science behind the technology of genetic engineering and many believe that until we have answers to these questions genetic engineering should be kept in the laboratory. Others, principally the biotechnology companies and government are determined to push the technology forward before these questions are answered, paying no heed to the fact that once released into the environment, genetic mistakes cannot be recalled, cleaned up or allowed to decay but will be passed on to future generations indefinitely. So, what are the environmental risks of releases to the environment? Firstly, gene pollution and the creation of super weeds Most of the genetically engineered crop varieties (including the GE oilseed rape at Model Farm) currently being grown at trial sites in the UK have been genetically engineered to be tolerant to broad spectrum herbicides. The manufacturers claim that inserting a herbicide resistance gene will allow farmers to plant the seeds and then to spray with the appropriate herbicide, leaving the crop intact but killing all the weeds in the field, thereby reducing competition and improving yield. Oil seed rape has a number of wild relatives including wild turnip, wild radish and hoary mustard as well as the related allotment vegetable, mustard greens, with which it has been shown to freely cross pollinate. Oil seed rape pollen can be transported by wind and insects (especially bees), over distances of up to 2.5 kilometres. Cross pollination of wild relatives by GE oil seed rape and the transfer of herbicide resistance genes will lead to the emergence of new herbicide resistant weed species, 'super weeds', which will disrupt ecosystems by displacing wild native flora. When herbicide-resistant oil seed rape was crossed with a wild relative to produce a herbicide resistant weed, the weed was as strong as the original wild relative. The product of crossing had been expected to be less vigorous and to produce less seed. GE plants have also been shown to be more vigorous cross pollinators than their non GE relatives. Soil bacteria and horizontal gene transfer. Another way in which genes can move from plants to their surroundings is by a process called natural transformation. Around 40 species of bacteria, some of which are soil or water-borne, are known to have the ability for natural transformation, the ability of bacteria to actively take up free DNA. In scientific experiments, gene transfer from GE plants (in that case GE sugarbeet) to bacteria has been shown to occur. So gene pollution could spread for many miles around GE crop fields, carried by soil and water borne bacteria. Increased Use of Herbicides Whilst the biotechnology companies say that herbicide resistant varieties of GE crops will reduce herbicide usage, this argument does not seem very convincing: when the corporations are at the same time increasing their production facilities for these herbicides; when the production of herbicide resistant GE crops also encourages farmers to look upon the use of herbicides as the first choice for weed control, rather than as one of a number of options and when Monsanto has applied in several countries for a relaxation in environmental legislation to allow a 200 fold increase in glyphosate residues in soya. Increased use of broad spectrum herbicides will mean not only higher residues in food and the contamination of land and ground water, but will also cause a serious loss of biodiversity from our countryside. Spraying fields with herbicides will cause loss of weeds within crops, around field edges and in hedgerows, all very important food sources for insects, birds and small mammals Plants with built-in insecticide Biotechnology companies have developed crops which are resistant to insect pests by the incorporation of genes which produce proteins that are toxic to insects. For example, a GE maize plant with genes for the production of Bt toxin has been developed. Bt toxin is a very effective natural pesticide used by organic farmers on a "one-off" basis to kill insect pests. But in crops with the Bt gene built in, the gene is never switched off and so the plant produces low levels of Bt continuously. This is a very effective way to make the insect pests resistant to Bt, creating "super bugs" and removing from organic farmers the use of a very effective pesticide. The newly incorporated toxins may also be harmful to beneficial insects. To give just two examples, green lacewings, beneficial predators that feed on corn borers, died when fed on corn borers which had eaten Bt maize. Trials for GE potatoes modified with a gene from snowdrops which were toxic to greenflies were stopped when it was found that when the poisoned greenflies were fed to beneficial ladybirds, the ladybirds also died. Agricultural Risks of GE crops There will be problems for farmers who plant GE crops and also for their neighbours. Difficulties with weed control already exist for oil seed rape farmers because of the number of weedy relatives like wild radish which are present in the fields. Use of herbicide resistant oil seed rape will increase these problems due to the creation of herbicide resistant volunteer weeds. These can arise in three ways: when seeds from a crop survive to the following year and emerge among a different crop grown in that same field; spillage of seed onto verges and field edges during transportation and cross pollination with plants in neighbouring fields. GE oil seed rape will readily cross pollinate not only with weeds but also with regular commercial oil seed rape crops, thereby contaminating the crop. There is already evidence of this in Canada where commercial planting of GE oil seed rape has gone ahead on a large scale. A farmer in Canada is being sued by Monsanto Corporation. He is accused of replanting the company's patented, herbicide resistant oil seed rape seeds in violation of a company rule requiring farmers to buy new GE seeds each year. The farmer denies having purchased Monsanto's seeds, saying pollen or seeds must have blown onto his farm from a neighbour's land. The contamination of neighbouring organic farmers crops will prevent organic farmers getting organic certification for their produce. In Texas a whole batch of organic tortilla chips had to be destroyed when they were found to be contaminated with GE maize, which had presumably cross pollinated with the organic maize used in the tortilla chips. Honey bees are the primary pollinators of oil seed rape and it is likely that honey from hives close to a GE oil seed rape field will contain large amounts of GE pollen. Beekeepers producing honey from these hives will be unable to claim that their honey is organic, because of the high risk that it will contain GE pollen. The widespread use of GE crop varieties will mean that the idea of organic farming is meaningless as all crops will be contaminated. Yields of GE crops are no better than those of conventional hybrids and in some cases worse. According to FACTT (Familiarisation and Acceptance of Crops incorporating Transgenic Technology), a body funded by the European Commission and Agrochemical companies, yields from GE oil seed rape are no better than from conventional oil seed rape hybrids. There are also reports of lower yields from Canada, where the Ontario Canola Growers Association reported reduced yields from Monsanto's glyphosate resistant rape seed. In 1997, farmers in the Southern United States sued Monsanto for the failure of its Bt secreting "Bollguard" cotton, Monsanto reached settlement with most farmers but three refused to settle and were awarded nearly $2 million by the Mississippi Seed Arbitration Council. Farmers who planted a Monsanto glyphosate resistant cotton crop also had severe crop failures which produced either deformed cotton bolls or dropped the bolls before harvest What are the human health risks? Genetically engineered soya and maize products are present in up to 80% of processed foods, including bread, cakes, biscuits, chocolate, ice cream, vegetable oils and margarine. These products have not been tested in long term studies in animals nor have they been tested in human volunteers. There is no requirement to do so as the risk assessments required by the present regulatory system, are based on the principle of substantial equivalence, that is, the new food even though it is genetically engineered is substantially the same as foods already available for consumption. We are then, all part of the experiment whether we like it or not. Antibiotic Resistance As the process for adding new genes to host plant cells is random, genetic engineers add "marker" genes at the same time so that they can tell which plant cells have been genetically modified. The commonest marker gene used is an antibiotic resistance gene. There is a risk that this antibiotic resistance gene could be transferred to bacteria in the human gut thereby creating antibiotic resistant pathogenic bacteria. The antibiotic resistance gene is a remnant of the genetic engineering technique and serves no function except as a marker gene for the manufacturer. Concerns over the presence of antibiotic resistance genes led Austria and Luxembourg to ban some varieties of GE crops. Viruses Genetic engineering of crops involves the transfer of a foreign gene into the host plant cell by a carrier, known as a vector. While natural vectors respect species barriers, the artificial vectors made by genetic engineers are designed to cross these barriers, thus greatly enhancing the potential for creating new and possibly more virulent pathogens which can in turn infect humans and animals. The cauliflower mosaic virus vector has been suggested as a possible cause of the unexpected damage to immune systems and brains, livers, kidneys and other vital organs found by Dr Arpad Pusztai in rats fed GE potatoes modified with a snowdrop lectin. Toxins and allergens The unpredictability of the genetic engineering process means that there is the potential for the presence of unexpected proteins and novel toxins in GE food products. In 1989, a genetically engineered bacteria was introduced into the manufacturing process of L- tryptophan, a food supplement. Many users of the supplement suffered Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS) in the USA. Some 5000 people were affected, of whom 37 were killed and 1,500 were left with permanent disabilities. The L-tryptophan batches were destroyed before tests could be carried out. The manufacturer claims that the toxin resulted from corner-cutting in the purification process and was unrelated to genetic engineering, but this does not adequately explain why the contaminant was only produced in batches of L-tryptophan which had been genetically engineered. A GM yeast engineered for better fermentation of beer and bread was found to have abnormally high levels of a metabolite, methyl glyoxal, a chemical known to cause damage to DNA. The scientists who carried out this work believe that the risk assessment procedures currently in place would not have required testing for the DNA damaging chemical, even though it has the potential to cause cancers. The introduction of foreign genes may also lead to foods causing allergic reactions in some people. A biotechnology company inserted genetic material from brazil nuts into soya beans, to increase their protein content. However, tests using blood of people allergic to brazil nuts showed that the modified soya bean would also have caused allergic reactions of a severity that might well have led to fatalities. Whilst the brazil nut is a known allergen it is possible that unknown allergens could occur in GE foods. Tests for allergenicity are targeted at known allergens and are not designed to reveal new allergens. Corporate control of the food supply system The widespread adoption of genetic engineering in agriculture will not feed the world and save the planet but will rather have the opposite effect and increase poverty and food insecurity and accelerate the ecologically destructive impact of industrial agriculture. Hunger is not caused by lack of food but by inequalities of political and economic power.genetic engineering does not deal with these underlying structural causes of hunger but simply promises more food from higher yielding GE crops, a promise which in any event has not been shown to have any sound basis. Few of the GE crops being developed are foods which the hungry can afford. In India the first GE crop to be grown was a cash crop, cotton, rather than a food crop. Farmers will be required to pay royalties for the use of GE seed through the system of patenting and will be encouraged to buy fertilisers and pesticides to put on these crops causing poor farmers to be forever locked in a cycle of debt. A further threat to the livelihood of farmers is the 'terminator technology', a patented genetic alteration of seed so that it will not germinate in the second generation. This technology will prevent farmers, particularly poor farmers of the South, from saving seed and will require them to buy new seed each year. The trend in genetic engineering of crops is to narrow the genetic base of our food supply so that there is only one bean crop, soya and only one oil seed crop, oil seed rape, in place of the huge diversity of crops eaten around the world. This narrowing of the food base adds to the likelihood of pests and disease wiping out harvests. Genetic engineering of crops is likely to undermine the ecological basis of food production by creating super weeds and super bugs which will require higher doses of chemicals and make food crops more vulnerable to pest damage again increasing the chances of food shortages and famine. There is increasing control of the food system by multinational corporations especially biotechnology companies, who now control the genetic material through the patenting of genes, control the fertility of GE seeds by incorporation of the 'Terminator gene' and following a series of recent mergers and acquisitions corporations, particularly Monsanto, control many of the major seed producing and seed distribution companies. They control the farmers by tying them into complex licensing agreements which require them to buy the corporations herbicides and prevent them from saving GE seed and also control what consumers can buy, by refusing to segregate GE crops from non-GE crops. The control of such a fundamental requirement as food by a handful of multinational corporations is a very disturbing route for our society to take. In the 1980's many of Monsanto's products were found to be contaminated with dioxin, including Agent Orange, the defoliant used in the Vietnam War .Monsanto was found to have been aware of the contamination of its products and the potentially lethal consequences for those exposed to dioxin but tried to coverthis up, putting its sales and profits before the health of its workers. Monsanto is now a major player in the business of genetic engineering and the commodification of life. Monsanto is seeking to profit from taking risks with our futures yet wants to claim it is the innocent and injured party. I do not believe that Monsanto comes to this court with clean hands, perhaps not in the legal sense, but certainly in the moral sense. Monsanto has been shown to act against the public interest before. Should we be trusting them now when so much is at stake with the so called genetic engineering revolution. Can they be trusted not to put profit before the health of our planet and its people. I think the answer is no. The reluctance or inability of our government to act in response to public opinion; the determination of the biotechnology corporations to push this technology forward regardless of doubts about its safety, their refusal to accept responsibility if anything should go wrong and the inadequacy of the regulatory system have led me to the conclusion that the democratic process has failed and that the only thing I can do is to take responsibility myself where others have failed to do so. For me, taking responsibility means going to the heart of the problem, the GE test field sites, and taking nonviolent direct action, in the spirit of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, by uprooting GE plants and through my actions motivating and encouraging others to do the same.