Statements

Christopher Disley

15th August 1998

When I first heard about genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified (GM) food I was worried. Worried about the unknown. I have taken it upon myself to educate myself with both sides of the argument, read widely and listened to the views of the genetic scientists, seed companies and also pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. On the evidence (including the lack of evidence) that I have been able to find, it has become clear to me that GM crops represent a real and terrible danger to our health, the environment and to the way society operates now and more so in the future. In this document I aim to outline my feelings about the subject and therein find justification for my actions. On Sunday 16th August 1998 I will be pulling up one GM sugarbeet plant from a research farm just outside of Boothby Graffoe in Lincolnshire. I chose one only. I have many reasons for doing so. One plant is a very small number. People regularly pick one plant, whether walking through a farmers' field, in the park or in a nature reserve. It is such a simple thing to do yet such a hard thing for what it represents. One plant is all that it takes to stand against a global corporation in my beliefs that what they are doing is wrong. One plant is all that it takes to overcome my fears for what I am doing. I want to demonstrate to others and help them to join me in such a simple action as picking a flower. In doing so in unity the people can have their say. In doing so, I am grasping control of my life and challenging my perception of possibility. This one plants means so little to me, but in many ways it means so much. I will be overcoming my fears in confronting a massively rich and powerful company, overcoming my fears of possible arrest and also showing how easy it is to join in with what is such an important issue. I have tried my best to make the following text as clear as possible.

When studying both physics and chemistry it has become clear to me that every system is governed by an equilibrium. The transition of water to water vapour in an enclosed space has an equilibrium point at which, the same amount that evaporates will condense. If you take out some of the evaporated water, then the equilibrium is disturbed, and more water will evaporate to re-establish a new point of equilibrium. It is a fundamental law that when a change is exerted on an equilibrium, then the equilibrium will react in a certain way to counter-act the change. The world could be seen as one big equilibrium. When sulphur dioxide is put into the equilibrium, then acid rain is the result. The acid rain will then effect for example a species of tree. This in turn will have a knock on effect to the life dependent of that tree. The knock on will continue in varying degrees right the way up the food chain until a new equilibrium is reached. It is a very complex web of life. Each point is linked to so many other points (both directly and indirectly) such that it is impossible to tell what changes will occur when macro biology is altered. Genetic engineering is a step beyond this. It is not only changing the equilibria, but in its very essence is changing the ways in which the points of the web behave, and therefore upsets the equilibria between individual points as well as changing the overall equilibrium. It is hard enough to predict the out-come of altering a macro biological equilibuim let alone changing an equilibriumn within an equilibrium within another as is the case with altering a macro biological equilibrium. What will the equilibium change to counteract the disturbance caused? How will this happen? What are the knock-on effects of this on other equilibria? None of these questions are answerable.

'When have consumers ever asked for tomatoes that take longer to rot' Professor Tim Lang

The companies developing the GM crops are promising greater yields for farmers and plants that last longer. No one has asked for this. What is wrong with food that it needs 'enhancing' to for example last longer? All apples are not the same size. What good will become the consumer? And at what risk? Statistics from the seed companies declare how much more money can be made with the production of these unnatural food stuffs. No where in the information volunteered by these companies are details of risk assessment. The big companies are driven by the whip that is profit. There is enough food in the world already. We don't need more. Yes people are starving, yet 30% of Americans are clinically obese. Surely the problem does not lie in the amount of food being produced, but in the distribution system. If more food is needed, then other methods such as organic farming using complementary crops can produce just as high yields as farming intensive farming if not higher. Organic farming also provides jobs - something that GM could take away especially in such a farming intensive county as Lincolnshire. If a crop is modified to be easier to grow, and more resistant, then less work will need to be done to it resulting in less employment. There are 150 000 people in Lincolnshire - the second biggest county in the country, yet 100 000 of those people live within five miles of Lincoln. The rest of these people live in and amongst the vast farms and many derive an income from them. If this income is eliminated, then in the rural community there is less scope for finding alternative employment than in a city. If farmers are allowed to use the modified crops, then it will not be long before the unemployment than in a city. If farmers are allowed to use the modified crops, then it will not be long before the unemployment figures start to rise for rural Lincolnshire.

I suggest that the seed companies don't have the consumer in mind when producing a product that will mean unemployment for the very same consumers. The profit margins will rise and these incredibly rich global companies will be making even more money than ever.

'While scientists have learnt to be precise about the way they replicate genes, the process of insertion and expression is still very imprecise, and its results unpredictable. All policy should therefore be made within a context that recognises our relative lack of knowledge and that genetic engineering can have unexpected results' Dr Michael Hansen

Science is a world of black and white. A world where either something is fact or non fact. Proof is required if any fact is to remain a fact. In science there is no room for something between fact and non fact. So why is it that there are no facts that say genetic engineering is safe? There is no proof. If a scientist were to declare a statement about a new theory without backing it up with fact and proof, then the scientist ceases to be a scientist and becomes a speculator. These are the rules that science uses for itself. Are we not good enough to play by the same rules or at the least when interacting with science be given the same black and white reasoning. The same fact or non fact. As it stands, everything that says GM is safe is by the definition of every working scientist non fact. It is such a fundamental principle yet has been overlooked.

'I happen to believe that technology should be the servant of mankind and not the master. But this is rapidly becoming a minority view in a society where any new technology ability is rapidly put into practice with only the most cursory glance at the wisdom and ethics of doing so' HRH The Prince of Wales

When an organism passes its genes on it only passes them to another like minded organism - one of the species. Plants do not cross fertilise with mammals and vice versa. All natural gene transfer is done vertically - i.e from father to child to grandchild. The fathers' genes would never jump into his next door neighbour's genome or that of his dog or the trees in his garden. This is horizontal gene transfer and nature does not allow for it to happen. Yet this is the whole concept of genetic engineering. Taking a gene out of its genome, and putting it into the genome of a completely unrelated species. This is like taking a quote out of its original context. All original meaning can be lost, or even contradicted. When does this happen in nature? Never. Science was born of nature and man's wish to understand it. Nature was not, and never will be born of science.

The genes within a genome react with each other to make proteins. These proteins then determine the resultant organisms make-up. A gene will react not only with one other gene, but with many others around it. When a gene is missing from the organism, then its interaction with other genes will be missing resulting in a chemical change within the organism. If a new gene is introduced into a genome in place of another, it not only removes the reactions caused by the original gene, but introduces a whole new set of reactions. Often only one of these alterations is desired i.e. the engineering of a frost proof strawberry. None of the other new possible interactions have been taken into account. A new interaction may result in a chemical alien to a particular species. This may then have untold consequences. These new chemicals may even be poisonous or result in properties that are undesirable. Every time a new gene is introduced into a genome whether it be foreign or displaced, then it is gambling without knowing the odds you bet. It has from that point on become unscientific and a risk is taken for which all of the possible outcomes can never be counted in terms of immediate reaction, reaction to other micro systems and the eventual reaction with macro systems. The 'experimental' has infinite possible outcomes other then those that are set out within the experimental aims. Surely this is bad science.

Some scientist would argue that cross breeding plants is the same as genetic engineering. This is not true. Despite changing the genome of the resultant child plant, the genomes involved remain intact. It is only the cross fertilisation that combines the two resulting in an average. By knowing what the traits of the individual plants are, they can be crossed to produce new strains with a combination of the traits of the parents. It is akin to the child of two parents from two different ethnic backgrounds. It is possible for nature to do this. Cross pollination is as much genetic engineering as a car is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

It is my view that scientist are trying to confuse the issue. When they speak, they speak in their own language which only they can fully understand. The audience is never given a completely truthful answer without being along the way with techno babble. It is our right to know what is going on. We should not be patronised, we should not be looked down upon as we are after all, a part of the same species. It is time for science to tell us the truth for once. That is if science knows what the truth is and is able to tell us.

These experiments as explained above have unknown outcomes. Surely it is best to keep these experiments in isolation. They are being conducted in the open where knock on effects may happen. If a plant is bred to be resistant to a certain weedkiller cross pollinates with a related plant (natural vertical gene transfer) then the resistant plant will obtain the properties of its 'parents'. There is a very real chance that the 'child' plants will also be resistant to the same weedkiller. The child plant will also have the same risks attached to it as the experimental plant, but with one fundamental difference. If it is in the wild, then it is far beyond the bounds of the original experiment. The new trait of resistance to weedkillers is then part of the wild plants. A wild plant that is not desirable in a specific place is called a weed. If the 'child' plants are not desirable, then does that does not mean that a weed has been created that cannot be killed with a weed killer? This raises the question of how to irradicate it as it will be a non-killable weed. If it can not be killed and is allowed to spread, it could overcome all of the other plants in an area and become dominant. This is a very real danger. Nothing is being done to prevent this happening. If experimental new plants are kept in isolation from an open eco system then the possibilities of this happening can be minimised to the best of sciences' ability. At present the predominant science seems to be more of chaos than reasoning or conservatism. It is my firm belief that the above is pollution of the worst possible kind. Pollution of the program that we are all made from. In this case it is Sharpes' Seeds who are committing the crime. A crime of ignorance and one with unforeseeable effects. Sharpes' seeds are committing the crime of genetic pollution and are as yet within the law to do so. The government has waived its responsibility towards the GM plants. The seed companies have yet to acknowledge their own responsibility for their actions. It therefore falls into the hands of the citizens to be responsible towards this very dangerous possibility.

'There are moments and issues in history where 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' Alan Simpson M.P.

As one of the citizens with responsibility (after all we all are), I have decided to act upon it. I will be taking part in an act of nonviolent civil responsibility. The umbrella for the mass action is the name genetiX snowball. Our action on 16th August will be the third in what will hopefully be many more across the country. My witness is an active expression of non violence. This means that any action I take will be done so in a completely responsible manner. I will ensure to my utmost that no violence results from my actions, and certainly will not be involved in any violence myself. As the GM crops are pollution, steps will be taken to ensure that I do not act as a carrier for pollution. I will therefore wear protective clothing when on the test site. The plant I pick will be put into a strong plastic bag and sealed with strong tape. The bag will then be marked with a biological hazard sign. On removal of the protective clothing, this also will be bagged and sealed with a biological hazard sign. Once the bags have been sealed and have biological hazard signs I (or a representative of my group) will call on the local Environment Agency to collect and safely dispose of the biological hazard.

I will not act in a way which could be construed as violence. All my actions will be open and I will be held fully accountable for them. It is my firm belief that a minor crime if committed to halt a major crime is justifiable. The major crime is one of contamination of the ecosystem with unknown consequences. Genetic pollution is a major crime.

I have made a commitment to nonviolence, safety and openness. I will try to create an atmosphere of calm and will treat everyone I encounter with respect. They in turn will do the same. The action I am committed to will only be over if it meets with no support, or our requests are realised.

As part of genetiX snowball, I am calling for a five year moratorium on the deliberate release of GM plants in Britain, except for government sponsored ecological health and safety tests (in enclosed systems); and the removal and safe disposal of all GM crops already in existence in open environments.

GenetiX snowball will cease when a moratorium has been declared.

GM is ignoring the rules of nature, the rules of the system from which it was born, and is trying to abuse the rules of the societies for which it is said to be benefiting. It is my firm belief that nature should rule over technology and not technology over nature.

Signed Christopher Paul Disley 15/8/98