ZOE ELFORD

My intention on the 4th July 1998 was to take action against the imposition of gene 
technology. I knew that ignoring the situation would not sit easily with my conscience. I 
took the action with a group of people who had thought meticulously about what they 
were going to do and the possible consequences. We acted in a nonviolent, open and 
accountable way. 

Genetechnology arrived in a deliberately clandestine way, there was no discussion. No 
one asked for it. It is a technology whose impacts and consequences cannot be recalled, 
remedied or reversed, it is a living self-replicating pollution. All of us will have to bear 
the brunt of the hazards that will result for example, the slow chemical poisoning of our 
land and wildlife through broad spectrum herbicide use, the creation of resistant super 
weeds, the production of novel toxins, the genetic contamination of
existing crops and so on.

All of us can take responsibility for averting those hazards. Biotechnology companies are 
creating risks which no one can even begin to assess. Transgenic plants are already 
affecting complex ecological systems. They may be affecting human and animal health. 
Genetechnology is inherently unpredictable, one simply cannot know what to test for or 
how to test. The questions asked by the regulatory authorities are inevitably limited, the 
greater questions such as do we need this technology, or is it in the public interest are 
ignored.

The regulatory system is wholly inadequate. It provides citizens with no opportunity to 
veto this technology. The UK government not only fails to take appropriate action but is 
daily encouraging the release of genetic pollution against the wishes of the population. In 
light of this I believe removal of GM plants is a reasonable and legitimate act of 
precaution. My act of nonviolent civil responsibility was the only way I could veto this 
"false progress". Our contribution was an effective, meaningful one, I recognised there 
might be legal repercussions. I continue to be prepared to accept these and make myself 
vulnerable to them. But it seems to me that this case now has little to do with the legality 
or otherwise of removing a few GM plants. The question right here is this: corporations 
are attempting to prohibit the public from participating in decisions which effect them. 
Should this be allowed. Should Monsanto be allowed to secure Draconian measures in an 
attempt to suffocate dissident voices? 

I'd like the judge to consider refusing Monsanto's application on the grounds that it 
amounts to little more than bullying by an economic giant who is intent on riding 
roughshod over public opinion. The police have considered our actions such as de-
manilas that is not worth pursuing. Monsanto are seeking a permanent injunction because 
they want to engineer a situation where people are intimidated and scared to take 
effective action against genetech food. The facts in this case are straightforward 
Monsanto have come to court in order to secure a court order which will prohibit the six 
of us from taking actions which many people believe are legitimate and of fundamental 
importance. And yet what we did has yet to be proved unlawful. Monsanto's business is 
violence. The violent interruption of the natural order of life by genetic engineering, 
aggressive intimidation by forcing farmer's to sign prohibitive contracts and the bullying 
use of civil law to turn their opponents into criminals. In dealing with us Monsanto have 
been frustrated by the criminal justice system. In seeking to apply anachronistic torts to 
the arena of public protest they are now trying to be vindictive by other routes.  It would 
be wrong if such a measure, such a change in the legal practice was to
take place without a full trial. I sincerely hope that the judge feels able to give us a full 
hearing in which all the interests are taken into careful consideration.