|
WHY WON'T PRESCOTT ANSWER OUR GM QUESTIONS? | |
| Nottingham |
The following letter was received from DETR in late July 1999, in response to Nottingham FOE's letters dated 18 March 1999 and 3 April 1999.
BIOTFCHNOLOGY SAFETY GROUP
CHEMICAL AND BIOTECHNOLOGY DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
3/H11 ASHDOWN HOUSE
123 VICTORIA STREET
LONDON
SW1P 6DE
DIRECT LINE: 0171 890 5278
DIVISIONAL ENQUIRIES: 0171 890 5277/5275
2 JULY 1999
Thank you for your letters of 18 March and 3 April, which have been passed to me for reply. I must apologise for the delay in answering but there has been considerable interest in biotechnology recently, which has lead to a great increase in the amount of correspondence. You are concerned about the experimental trials of genetically modified (GM) sugar beet being carried out by Monsanto in Nottingham (reference 98/R22/11 and 98/R22/12) and raise a number of points concerning the effect on local sugar beet farming, and about genetically modified crops generally. You also raised some questions about the public notice issued by Monsanto. I will try to address these points below.
Genetically modified sugar beet has been trialed in the UK for several years now and current risk management procedures have proved to be satisfactory. Applications 98/R22/11 and 98/R22/12 are for small-scale experimental releases for research and development purposes which were received by DETR and assessed for release in early 1998. For your convenience we have enclosed a copy of the information contained on the Public Register for both applications. We hope this will be helpful in answering some of your questions. You may also find it useful to visit the DETR website:
(www.environmentdetr.gov.uk/acre/index.htm)
which holds a lot of information concerning the release of genetically modified crops. Your local library will be able to provide access to the Intemet if you do not have access at home.
We must emphasise that the genetically modified sugar beet used in these releases will not be allowed to flower. This will be achieved by the removal of bolters (flowering shoots) immediately following their appearance. Removal of the bolters will prevent maturation and release of pollen thus preventing gene transfer, cross-contamination of other plants and seeding of volunteers. The treatment used at the end of the trial to remove the GM sugar beet will also further contribute to prevention of cross-contamination and growth of volunteers as will the restriction that no non-GM sugar beet will be grown on the release site for three years. The site will also be monitored, according to regulations, following removal of the GM sugar beet for the appearance volunteer GM sugar beet plants.
Genetically modified crops are thoroughly assessed for potential risk to public and environmental safety and will only be approved for release if they are detemined to be safe. The release of GM crops for small-scale experimental purposes is important for assessment of the usefulness of the specific genetic modification. Full safeguards are taken at all times and the management of release sites is monitored carefully.
You remarked on the behaviour of Monsanto and say that British Sugar does not want genetically modified sugar beet. We cannot comment on the attitude of individual companies and the matters you raise are for the market to resolve. Our paramount concern is the protection of human health and the environment. Under the UK and European regulatory framework that controls the release of GM crops Monsanto and other companies are entitled to conduct releases as long as they will do not harm the Environment.
You had a number of concerns that in one form or another centred on the public notice from Monsanto informing local people of the proposed release of GM sugar beet in the parish of Ruddington. The applications from Monsanto were received in early 1998 and the full statutory information regarding these releases has been in the public domain since January 1998 except for information specifying release locations for subsequent seasons. This is possible because these applications were approved under the first simplified procedure (FSP). The FSP allows companies or research organisations to apply for a planned programme of work lasting a few years (usually 3-5) in one single application. At the time of making the application is not always possible for the companies to know exactly where the GM crops will be released in future years so the FSP allows them to declare the new release sites to DETR for approval when they become known. All release sites must be declared effectively at least 19 days in advance of sowing the GM seeds and an advertisement must be placed in a local newspaper announcing the proposed release.
This is why the release sites for 1999 were not given in the full applications 98/R22/11 and 98/R22/12 received in 1998 and why the public notice mentioned that the programme of releases covers additional trials for which the dates are not yet known.
The public notice published by Monsanto in this case did conform to the legal requirements, but I accept that it could have been better, for example the website address was incorrect and it was possible to misinterpret the section regarding making comments to the Secretary of State. We shall be writing to Monsanto to inform them of this. We certainly do not rely simply upon the response to public notices but value all comments made concerning GM crops at any time.
I can assure you that all safeguards were in place for the Monsanto releases and all risk assessments completed before permission was granted for Monsanto to sow GM sugar beet in either 1998 or 1999. The GM plants described in the application will be subject to further assessment should additional information be obtained from current trials. They are also monitored as carefully as all other releases to the environment.
In response to your other concerns about GM crops generally:
No GM crops are being grown for food in this country. No GM sugar
beet will be permitted to enter the human food or animal feed
chains. Questions of food testing for allergens should be
addressed to the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at:
Additives and Novel Foods Division, Ergon House, 17 Smith Square,
London SWIP 3JR
Prions are not used in any genetic modifications of GM crops and it is therefore not necessary to test for them. All proteins derived from introduced genes are well characterised and their functions understood and therefore abnormal proteins should not arise from any of these genes.
Alternatives to the use of antibiotic markers are already being tested in the genetic modification of crops in order to release dependency on this method of selection. Indeed the GM sugar beet, which is the subject of your letter, is a prime example of the use of alternative selection strategies and is one of the reasons why the information provided by such small-scale releases will be of value.
In order for infection of plants to occur the complete Cauliflower Mosaic Virus must be present and this is not used in any genetic modifications of GM crops. Only disabled sections of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus DNA are used which cannot behave as a virus. Cauliflower Mosaic Virus is a naturally occurring plant virus which was widespread in plant populations before the inception of genetic modification and which causes no known harm to human health.
With regard to your enquiry concerning other sites in Nottinghamshire which have been the subject of a public notice relating to a consent for release of genetically modified organisms since the Environmental Act 1990, we would be happy to supply you with a copy of the GMO Public Register Index (an electronic copy can be made available should you prefer) for your information.
I do hope that this answers your concerns and if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact the Biotechnology Safety Unit.
Yours sincerely
M Rawlins