Party : Defendants Deponent : Kathryn Tulip : 1st Sworn : March 1999 Exhibit : "KT1" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1998-M-No.1180 QUEEN'S 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 of "genetix snowball", an unincorporated association) Defendants ____________________________________________ AFFIDAVIT OF KATHRYN TULIP ____________________________________________ I, KATHRYN TULIP, c/o Leigh Day and Co, Priory House, 25, St John's Lane, London, EC1M 4LB AFFIRM and say as follows:- 1. I am the third defendant in these proceedings. I have a doctorate in toxicology and am a qualified solicitor. I am currently active, in a voluntary capacity, in the genetiX snowball campaign, a campaign against genetically engineered ("GE") crops and food. I also work with a local group in Oxford, Oxford Genetics Action. 2. The facts to which I depose in this affidavit are within my own knowledge (except where stated to the contrary). All facts and matters herein are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. There is produced and shown to me in an exhibit marked "KT1" a paginated bundle of true copies of documents to which I will refer in this affidavit. 3. I first became aware of the dangers of genetic engineering of crops and food through conversations with friends, in or about June 1997, and through the 'Test Tube Harvest' campaign of the Women's Environmental Network, an organisation of which I have been a supporter for many years. I became very concerned about the potential of genetic engineering technology to cause irreparable damage to our environment, to public health and to food security. Initially I spent time gathering information and reading about the issue. 4. Among many publications which I read between June 1997 and July 1998, in particular I recall reading 'Genetic Engineering: Too Good to go Wrong' by Dr Douglas Parr of Greenpeace; 'Genetically Engineered Oilseed Rape: Agricultural Saviour or New Form of Pollution?' by Sue Mayer of GeneWatch; articles in The Ecologist Magazine by genetic scientists Ricarda Steinbrecher and Mae-Wan Ho and by humanities researchers Ruth McNally and Peter Wheale; 'Spilling the Genes: What we should Know about genetically engineered foods' by Julie Sheppard of Genetics Forum; the May/June1998 issue of Resurgence magazine entitled 'The Gene Debate' which contained many articles on the issue of genetic engineering of food including an article by Alan Simpson MP; an article in the Soil Association Magazine "Living Earth" by genetic scientist Dr Michael Antoniou; 'Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?' by Dr Mae-Wan Ho; 'Colonizing the Seed: Genetic Engineering and Techno- Industrial Agriculture' by Friends of the Earth, Melbourne; 'Genetically engineered oilseed rape' by Friends of the Earth; 'Betting on Biodiversity: Why Genetic Engineering Will Not Feed the Hungry' by Dr Vandana Shiva; a series of articles entitled 'The Food Revolution' in the Guardian newspaper; various articles in New Scientist Magazine and various scientific papers from respected scientific journals. 5. I also attended lectures by Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher, Dr Michael Antonio and Dr Mae-Wan Ho and have had the opportunity to question them on their concerns about GE crops and food. I have also been a subscriber to an e-mail list which sends out information, gathered from all over the world, about genetic engineering, since March 1998. 6. In addition to reading about the dangers of genetic engineering I found out about the work of campaigns against genetic engineering including the Women's Environmental Network, the Genetic Engineering Network, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Green Party and about the types of action that people concerned about the dangers of GE food h ad already taken, which have included lobbying the government, letter writing to MPs, MEPs, and local councillors, demanding GE free products in supermarkets, handing out leaflets to supermarket customers, putting stickers on GE products in supermarkets and other nonviolent direct actions such as the blockading of ships carrying GE soya, the occupation of biotechnology corporation offices, the picket of a patent lawyers office, the squatting of prospective test field sites in Germany and the destruction of GE seeds by farmers in France. 7. Having read, discussed and considered all of this information I came to the conclusion that I was right to be concerned about the dangers of GE crops and their release into the environment. The issue appeared to me to be about science, big business and politics in conflict with environmental sustainability and our fundamental right to plentiful and safe food. The biotechnology companies and our government appeared to be anxious to be push the technology forward before questions about its safety had been 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 onto future generations indefinitely. I decided that I had no choice but to take urgent action to oppose GE crops and food. I have detailed the sources of information that I have reviewed in order to show the court that my opposition to GE crops and food is a considered position and not one taken lightly. 8. I began by talking with family and friends about the dangers of genetic engineering and then participated in two actions at supermarkets where I handed out leaflets and talked to customers, supermarket staff and managers. I understand that my co-defendants have also participated in supermarket actions, written letters and undertaken other types of campaigning against GE crops and food. It appeared to me that there was growing public support for the various campaigns by environmental and consumer groups against genetic engineering, research papers from independent researchers began to be published showing the potential risks of genetic engineering, a number of scientists publicly stated their concerns about genetic engineering, some MPs and MEPs were also urging caution. The results of an opinion poll conducted by Mori for GeneWatch in June 1998 showed that 77% of the public wanted a ban on the growing of GE crops in Britain. 9. Yet, in the face of this opposition to GE crops and food the Government did not consult with the public, but continued with its policy of encouraging the growing and testing of GE crops in Britain. I understand from the GMO Public Register, a copy of which I obtained from the Biotechnology Unit of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), that 64 successful applications had already been made to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) for the release of genetically modified organisms("GMO's"). There were due to be over 300 different release sites for GMO's all over Britain during the Spring/Summer of 1998 and there was the prospect that the first GE crops would be grown on a commercial scale the following Spring. 10. The Prime Minister and some members of the government did not seem to be listening to public concerns about GE crops at all. Others such as Minister for Food, Jeff Rooker, seemed to be saying there was nothing the government could do even if it wanted to, in April 1998 he said "I am not sure we are in the driving seat....we cannot stop, as the UK government, these crops that have already been approved in the EU, from being planted". Alan Simpson MP advised that he believed the parliamentary process was inadequate to deal with the issue of genetic engineering stating "There are moments in history were Parliament is inadequate and it falls to the people themselves to act. With the case of genetic engineering and the granting of patents on life I believe we have reached one of those historic moments". 11. This reluctance or inability of the government to act in response to public opinion; the determination of the biotechnology corporations to push the technology forward regardless of doubts about its safety and their refusal to accept responsibility if anything should go wrong and the inadequacy of the regulatory system led me to the conclusion that the democratic process had failed and that the only thing I could do was to take responsibility myself where others had failed to do so. For me, taking responsibility meant going to the heart of the problem, the GE test field sites, and taking nonviolent direct action, in the spirit of Mahatma Ghandi, to uproot a small number of GE plants and encouraging others to do the same 12. The genetiX snowball campaign was conceived by myself together with a small group of like minded people as a way of taking responsibility for the dangers of genetic engineering in a safe, nonviolent, open and accountable way. The aims and objectives of the genetiX snowball campaign are set out in section 2 of the genetiX snowball 'Handbook for Action', a copy of which is exhibited to the second affidavit of Catherine Hooper, as exhibit "CLH11". The main aims of the campaign are to stimulate debate about GE crops and food, to increase the numbers of people actively campaigning against GE crops and to inspire and motivate people to take nonviolent direct action to uproot GE crops from test sites and ultimately to secure the very reasonable aim of "a five year moratorium on the deliberate release of Genetically Modified ("GM") plants in Britain, except for government sponsored ecological, health and safety tests (in enclosed systems) and; the removal by government agencies, farmers or the biotechnology companies of all GM plants already existing". I hope that this moratorium will give a breathing space to the public and the government to allow a full public debate and appropriate ecological, health and safety testing to be carried out in controlled systems to ascertain whether GE crops really are necessary and safe. 13. Contrary to what Anthony Phillips states in his first affidavit at paragraphs 3 and 8, genetiX snowball does not take 'direct action to "grab headlines"'. This was not a statement made by me nor by any of the other defendants, but a phrase used by the writer of the Times article referred to in his affidavit and exhibited at "ADP1". genetiX snowball is a campaign of nonviolent direct action because history has shown this to be an effective way to change our society, to make our society more democratic and accountable. The genetiX snowball campaign is not a campaign of direct action because it wishes to "grab headlines". Although genetiX snowball does some media work this is only as a means of gaining access to the public, in order to raise public awareness about the issue, again as a means of bringing about political and social change. Mr Phillips also appears to be confused as to which defendants are featured in the article, only the first, third and fourth defendants are in fact featured. 14. A few weeks before the action of 4th July, in the spirit of openness and nonviolence, and in order to alleviate any fears that farmers might have about the nature of our action, I wrote to all farmers listed in the GMO public register as having GMO test field sites (approximately 115 farmers) explaining about the proposed campaign, the launch date, its peaceful nature and inviting them to join the campaign and pull up the crops themselves. I took great care to make that letter as non-threatening as I could and indeed have been complimented on its content by several of the farmers who replied to it. In addition I wrote to the Environment Agency, Thames Valley Regional Office to advise them of our campaign and asking them to treat the plants that we intended to uproot as a biohazard and to put in place procedures for the safe disposal of the plants after our actions. The first defendant wrote to Thames Valley Police to explain the nature of the campaign, to reassure them of its nonviolence and to invite them to investigate the Plaintiff's crimes as set out in that letter. The first defendant also wrote to the 12 biotechnology companies with test field sites in the UK explaining our campaign and our concerns about the environment and asking them to remove the GM plants from the ground . True copies of these letters are shown at pages 1-6 of exhibit "KT1". 15. Before the action we also drew up a set of guidelines or ground rules for the action which incorporated our aim to have a safe, nonviolent open and accountable action, see section 3.2 of the genetiX snowball 'Handbook for Action', exhibit "CLH11". These groundrules were set out in a pledge. A copy of the pledge that I signed before the action can be seen at page 7 of exhibit "KT1". 16. From the GMO Public Register I found out that there were a number of GE test field sites in the Thames Valley area including a site at Model Farm, Shirburn near Watlington, Oxfordshire. One of the group visited a number of the sites and the Model Farm site was chosen as it was easily accessible, the trial site was easy to identify and the farmer had already confirmed that GE crops were planted there. I understand that the Plaintiff had consent from ACRE to grow herbicide (Round Up) tolerant oil seed rape, under reference number 98/R22/13, at Model Farm. 17. On the morning of 4th July we set off together in a minibus for the GE test field site at Model Farm. The bus was parked at a nearby village and we set off for the site on foot along a public footpath carrying our tools, safety clothing, biohazard symbols, a banner and an apple tree. The apple tree was to be a gift for the farmer and a symbol of a more sustainable way of producing our food than genetic engineering. I and the four other female defendants had decided before the action that we would pull up crops at the site and each of us had written and signed a statement about our reasons for taking action. We left copies of these statements at the site, we gave copies to the police and also sent copies to the Plaintiff immediately after the action. There is a true copy of my statement at pages 8-10 of exhibit "KT1". We had also decided before the action to pull up a certain number of plants as set out in the genetiX snowball 'Handbook for Action' at section 4.2 in the exhibit marked "CLH11". I had decided that I would pull up 64 plants to represent the 64 applications for GMO releases which have received approval from ACRE. 18. When we arrived at the site I put on my protective clothing: white suit; overshoes; gloves and a headscarf. I then went to the centre of the plot and began digging up the plants using a small hand fork, which I had decorated for the occasion with the words 'our food, our health, our future'. As I dug the plants up I placed them in a clear plastic bag labelled with biohazard tape. About five minutes after our arrival at the site the police arrived together with a woman, whom I now know to be Catherine Hooper, but who introduced herself to us as an agent for the farmer and did not give her name. She asked us to leave the land. A police officer also asked us to leave the land. I and the other four female defendants had a brief meeting and decided that we would continue to remove plants from the ground until we had removed the number that we had earlier planned to remove. I recall that the first defendant then had a conversation with a police officer and explained the reasons for our actions and that we intended to continue pulling up the crops. 19. The police officer then left the site saying he had to speak to his superiors. He then returned and asked us to leave the land again. I continued to remove plants from the ground until I had removed 64 plants, I then stopped. Shortly after that I was arrested for criminal damage and taken from the site to a waiting police van. The others followed shortly after. We had a pleasant conversation with the officers in the van and explained to them the reasons for our actions and our fears about the dangers of GE crops and food. We were then driven away from the site to a quiet lane close by and released without charge. I understand from the sixth defendant that after the action he telephoned the Thames Valley Press information line which had a recorded message describing our action as a 'peaceful action'. 20. In her first affidavit at paragraph 21, Catherine Hooper states that we had caused a hazard to wildlife at the farm by "discarding a number of plastic bags on the plot". During our action we placed the uprooted plants in large plastic bags marked with biohazard tape, the bags were then sealed with tape and placed in a neat pile for collection by the Environment Agency. I understand that after our arrest the plants were emptied out of the plastic bags onto the ground by police officers. I do not know what then happened to the plastic bags, unfortunately that was out of my control. I would never have discarded rubbish at the site nor would I have left anything behind had it not been for the fact that we were arrested before we could tidy up our tools and belongings. 21. After the first action I and others wrote the genetiX snowball 'Handbook for Action' in order to inform people of the dangers of genetic engineering and to inspire and motivate them to take direct action against GE crops. In her second affidavit at paragraph 8, Catherine Hooper refers to a phrase in the 'Handbook for Action' which she says shows that one of the objectives of the genetiX snowball campaign is to remove "all" GM plants. Whilst it is the aim of the campaign to have a five year moratorium on GM crops and to get removal of all existing crops from the ground, as I have outlined in paragraph 8 above, it is not the aim of genetiX snowball that 'snowballers' should do this, but rather that under pressure from the public, the government, companies or farmers should remove the crops. This is the view that the writer of the Evening Standard article exhibited as "CLH10" appears to have come to on reading the 'Handbook for Action' and which prompted him to write "The point is not to grub up every genetically modified plant in Britain.....". 22. At paragraph 10 of her second affidavit Catherine Hooper states "The whole point of the exercise was to strike at Monsanto GM crops....". I was aware before we went to the site at Model Farm that it purported to be a site containing the plaintiff's plants. However the site could have contained GE plants belonging to any one of the 12 biotechnology corporations with consent to plant GE crops in the UK. It was just chance that we chose the Plaintiff's test site. The genetiX snowball campaign is not directed at the Plaintiff, but at the technology of genetic engineering of crops. The Plaintiff just happens to be one of many corporations involved in exploiting that technology. In the same paragraph Catherine Hooper goes on to say, referring to the number of plants uprooted, "their own publication indicates rather more than admitted by their defence". The explanation for this difference is that the 'Handbook for Action' gives details of the number of plants we had intended to pull up whereas the Defence gives details of the number of plants that we actually pulled up before our arrest. 23. The plaintiff, as far as I am aware, only has consent for the release of Round Up Ready oil seed rape at Model Farm, as set out in the consent 98/R22/13. When I saw the plants at the test field site at Model Farm I was unsure whether they were in fact oil seed rape as some of the plants looked more like sugar beet. In addition when our action was reported on the Central Television early evening news on 4th July, the reporter stated that the crop was a mixture of oilseed rape and sugar beet. As this information was not, to my knowledge provided by genetiX snowball, I assume it was provided by the Plaintiff's employee, Catherine Hooper, as I understand she was interviewed by Central Television for their report. I also telephoned Bob Marchand at the Biotechnology Unit at the DETR and he confirmed that the plaintiff did not have consent for a GE sugar beet trial at Model Farm. 24. As I was concerned that the Plaintiff might have breached the regulations by planting GE sugar beet when there was no consent for such planting, I wrote to Dr Kath Heywood at the Health and Safety Executive, in a letter dated 16th July 1998, to ask her to investigate whether there had been any breach. She responded in a letter dated 5th August 1998 and advised that the site was visited on 31 July 1998 but no sugar beet had been found and therefore there was no breach. True copies of these letters can be found at pages 11-12 of the exhibit marked "KT1". Notwithstanding the negative result of the inspection by the Health and Safety Executive it appears from the second affidavit of Catherine Hooper, at paragraphs 11 and 12, that GE sugar beet was planted at the site. 25. I remain concerned that the plaintiff may have breached the regulations by failing to notify the DETR of its intention to plant GE sugar beet at Model Farm. The Plaintiff has a poor record of compliance with the regulations regarding the release of GMOs and was required to destroy a GE oilseed rape crop at East Lodge Farm, Stanton near Broadway in 1998 following breach of the consent (letter DETR to Plaintiff dated 16th March 1998 also reported in New Scientist 4th April 1998 and The Independent 7th April 1998) and was prosecuted and fined £17,000 for breach of consent at Nickersons Farms, Rothwell, Lincs on 17th March 1999 (The Independent 18th March 1999). 26. I believe that my action on 4th July 1998 was both necessary and in the public interest. Genetic engineering technology is unpredictable and little is known about its full effects on the environment and human/animal health. However what little is known causes me great concern. I believe that my action was reasonable given the potential danger to public health and the environment of this dangerous, unwanted and unnecessary technology. Affirmed this day of March 1999} at } } } before me A Solicitor