Statements

Philip Pritchard

I am pulling up 27 glufosinate-ammonium herbicide resistant genetically modified oilseed rape plants today as a prayer, a protest and a statement.

I pray that I can learn that there are more sensible, less greedy ways to live. I pray that I recognise my small part in the complicated cycles of life and that I can see value in my small role. I pray that by this small action I can touch the hearts and minds of those who need to hear of it.MO< It is a protest about several things:

• It's about safe, healthy, land, food and water - things which should become easier to find.
• It's against continuing the use of toxic chemicals on food producing land.
• It's about trying to give people the courage to act if they think something is wrong.
• It's about refusing to roll over and let bullying deceitful companies stomp all over me.

It's a statement of intent to carry on protecting this land which I believe is beautiful and precious.

I am 27 years old, I've spent most of those years soaking up and regurgitating what I was told, including three years studying Microbiology at Warwick University. I have an instinctive reaction against gene technology this is backed up by extensive reading on some current developments and a reasonably detailed understanding of the science involved. However, I am open to being convinced on a case by case basis that gene technology has a role in our future. There is increasing evidence to suggest that all is not quite as rosy as gene technology promoters may suggest. Here's some reasons for not co-operating

1. Antibiotic resistance marker genes which are in many of the more developed gene technology products will almost certainly exacerbate the problem of multiple resistance to medical antibiotics in pathogens.

2. Bacterial deoxyribo-nucleic acid (DNA) derived from Agrobacterium tumefaciens is present and expressed in every cell of GM crop plants. This is not a normal part of our diet. And may become problematic.

3. Companies like Monsanto and AgrEvo are using emotive arguments about feeding the world's hungry and saving the environment to push this technology through. I believe that famine and environmental damage is caused by greed, war, debt and politics. I don't trust these companies as they are out to make money, I don't think that they, as organisations, exist to care about hungry people or polluted rivers.

4. Dangers that are predicted in advance are not necessarily the most damaging in reality. There are several examples this century where new technologies or products were waved happily through by trusted scientists and politicians; DDT was safe; thalidomide was safe; nuclear power was safe.

5. Ecological webs are very complex, they include competition and co-operation, not all of nature is lovely or nice, and it is important not to over romanticise the harsh reality of our natural world. However it is clear to me that whether we like to believe it or not, we are part of this web of life and that single varieties of a species will not exist for long in isolation. The huge fields of virtually uniform plants proposed by the gene technology companies will be very easy pickings for pests. If our food supply becomes dependent on these plants we risk extreme food insecurity.

6. Food from GM crops has not been scientifically proven safe. Statements from people set to make profits from it that it is totally safe are dubious and unfounded.

7. Glyphosate (an ingredient of Roundup) and glufosinate ammonium, two of the main herbicides gene technologists are working with are not environmentally friendly or safe as is sometimes suggested. They both belong to the organo-phosphate (OP) group of chemicals, already notorious for problems amongst farmers over exposed to sheep dip and to some veterans of the Gulf War who had OP pesticides sprayed on their accommodation, clothes and bedding to kill parasitic insects who have now developed a condition known as Gulf War Syndrome. These are some extracts from research I carried out at Warwick University Library: "Literature of toxicological and ecotoxicological properties of glyphosate is extremely sparse considering its importance as a herbicide."- Neskovic et al, Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 56(2), pp295-302 (1996). "Glyphosate inhibits sperm motility." Yousef et al, J. Environ. Sci. Health 31(1) pp99-115 (1996). The same researcher studying rabbits demonstrated that treatment with glyphosate resulted in a decline in body weight, libido, ejaculate volume, sperm concentration and increased incidence of abnormal and dead sperm. "Roundup treated tadpoles showed significant DNA damage when exposed to roundup for a 24 hour period." Clements et al, Environ. Mol. Mutagen 29(3) pp277-88 (1997) "Glyphosate damages taste and smell receptors in gerbils" Schiffman et al Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 52(1) pp189-94 (1995) "Glyphosate-surfactant herbicide intoxication studies between October 1992 and June 1996 showed 36 out of 53 cases of significant laryngeal injury." Hung et al Hum. Exp. Toxicol 16(10) p596-9 (1997) "Maternal exposure to glufosinate ammonium during pregnancy induces functional abnormalities in the brain of the offspring if there is a single exposure at the time of neurogenesis." Fujii, Cancer Causes Control 8(3) pp524-8 (1997) "Glufosinate caused significant overall embryonic growth retardation and increased embryo lethality to 37.5%" Watanabe and Iwase, Teratog. Carcinog. Mutagen 16(6) pp287-99 (1996) "There were six fatalities in 34 cases of glufosinate -ammonium poisoning reported by the Japn Poison Information Centre." Tanaka et al, J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 33(6), pp691-4 (1994) I have included these examples as information. I am sad that this information was acquired using what I believe to be unjustifiable animal abuse. My protest today is also a tribute to those sentient beings tortured for "science".

8. Herbicide tolerance is not a desirable trait. It entrenches dependency of farmers on herbicides and extends the power of chemical and seed manufacturers. This does not improve food quality or consumer health.

9. Insect resistant crops such as Bt maize increase the selective pressure on those pests they aim to eliminate. Resistant individuals will evolve and will become plagues in GM fields.. There will always be pests, a better line of research may be to create food producing ecosystems which are not vulnerable to any individual insect, where predators for the pests are encouraged.

10. Justifying herbicide resistant crop plants with the familiar argument that it is just the first round of developments, after which more nutrition, health centred modifications will be introduced is I believe bullshit.

11. Killing insects with insect resistant maize will cause problems for birds and other predators who rely on them for food and for feeding to their young. This furthers the progression towards Rachel Carson's (RIP) predicted "Silent Spring".

12. Ladybirds (Adalia bipunctata) whose parents fed on peach-potato aphids which had in turn fed on GM potatoes showed reduced fertility and life expectancy. This shows a damaging secondary effect on a non-target organism which would normally be the farmers ally. An unpredicted negative impact of GM technology.

13. Microorganisms in the soil like mycorrhizal fungi and Acinetobacter will and are already picking up the newly introduced genes from transgenic plants. This is known as horizontal gene transfer and is the start of a totally unpredictable process which initially will lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria and herbicide tolerant weeds.

14. New plant breeding techniques like embryo rescue, cytogenetics and recombinant DNA technology which splices new genes from several species or specifically made sequences of DNA into plant cells, which are then given growth stimuli which causes root, stem and leaf formation from individual cells are not sensible. Plants have an complimentary role with us in our world, they produce the oxygen which we need to live and we produce the carbon dioxide which they need. We tamper with these relationships at our peril.

15. Oilseed rape is grown primarily as a source of oils for the processed food industry. Do we need so much oil in our diet? Would the land not be better turned over to temperate perennial crops from which we could obtain food, medicinal herbs, firewood, building timber, fibrous plants for textile manufacture and wild areas for non-human creatures to inhabit?

16. Pollen from oilseed rape(OSR) may already contribute to one of the most common allergies- hay fever. There is little research into potential new allergens created on pollen from GM oilseed rape. It is possible that introduction of new genes may disrupt genes creating new allergenic pollen coat proteins.

17. Quantitative analysis of gene flow from test field sites is inadequate. Few trials are designed to analyse ecological impact and these should be completed before other deliberate releases are made. Hybridisation between GM OSR and wild relatives like wild radish and turnip and other OSR crops is likely if not already demonstrated. This will lead to herbicide tolerant weeds and GM OSR volunteers becoming weeds in other farm crops. The end result of this will be requirement for extra herbicide application.

18. Real quality and yield improvements imparted to crops modified using gene technology are optimistic and promoted by proponents of the technology and I haven't seen any scientific evidence to back these claims up.

19. Scientists, politicians, scholars, philosophers, physicians, teachers, mothers, fathers and children should all be consulted before developing a technology with the potential impact of this one. It is being forced on us. We are the guinea pigs, our country is the laboratory. I am not prepared to sit by passively and watch.

20. Terminator genes as patented by Monsanto are designed to render seed from each years crop infertile. This stops farmers saving their own seed for planting the following year. A society whose food is not controlled by it's farmers but by international profiteers risks famine.

21. Unspecific insertion of multiple copies of new genes is the reality of gene technology, it is an imprecise science and we only understand a tiny amount about how genes interact. Disrupted sequences of DNA may lead to unpredictable new proteins with hazardous biological activity. Disruption of cell metabolism could cause build up of novel, toxic metabolic products hazardous to consumer health.

22. Viral DNA sequences used in gene technology introduce huge potential for unpredictable horizontal gene transfer. Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites which exist by invading cells, commandeering their organelles, replicating themselves and then spreading their offspring by splitting open their host cells and moving onto the next host. They change rapidly, pick up new fragments of DNA during each cycle and may transfer them to other species. The introduced DNA fragments created by gene technologists are unstable and likely to leap across species boundaries

23. Wariness expressed by the European public is being ignored by regulatory bodies and commercial companies. The British Government Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions has officers who promote gene technology. Our Foods Minister, Jeff Rooker MP has said there is nothing the Government can do to challenge GM crop releases.

24. Xenophobic fascistic governments are using this technology to develop biological weapons which target specific genetic traits in certain races.

25. Why is it needed?

26. Zoological effects are predicted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Bird populations feeding in the winter on seeds from agricultural weeds will suffer further declines in numbers if herbicide tolerant crops are widely grown because of the increase in area of monocultural cropping. There has already been a rapid decline in numbers of many native and migratory birds.

27. And another thing organic farmers, farmers who recognise that the soil is alive and needs to be cared for, not just a surface from which to grow money, may lose their status as GM crops cross pollinate with their crops. They are also likely to lose the organic Bt pesticide which will become useless as Bt resistant insects evolve. A new label for produce grown on farms; "Going organic" would be progress, shoppers could actively support farmers in the transition between inorganic agriculture and organic agriculture.

"The ethical imperatives of responsible citizens are to participate in decision making in an informed way. The problems emerge from the knowledge gained by science, but this knowledge can be utilised by people who may apply the respective technologies carelessly or in wrong ways." Galun and Breiman (1997)

I feel I have little option but to take the responsible action of pulling up these plants, nonviolently, safely and accountably. I will encourage others to do likewise until the genetiX snowball campaign demand 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 of all GM crops already existing", is met.

Yours sincerely

Philip Pritchard BSc (Hons)