December 2001

Part I

Oakington and Waterbeach residents fear new developments will exacerbate problems

The process of choosing a site for a new settlement of at least 6,000 houses by 2016 in South Cambridgeshire is near an end - in theory anyway. The original contenders were: Great Abington, Six Mile Bottom, Wilburton, Childerley Gate, Teversham/Fulbourn, Waterbeach and Oakington/Longstanton. Now the choice has been narrowed down to Waterbeach and Oakington/Longstanton. However, at this point in time it is thought that Oakington/Longstanton is the favoured site. Both sites are on land owned by the Ministry of Defense.

South Cambridgeshire District Council has recommended that the site at Oakington and Longstanton should be used for the new settlement. Waterbeach also emerged as a likely choice based on criteria laid down by Cambridgeshire County Council, which will make a final decision on 18th December. The key criteria by which they will be judged include distance from main employment areas, existing road links and capacity to accommodate extra homes in the long term. Mark Vigor, County Council head of strategic planning, said, "Whichever site we choose, we could be looking for another 3,000 or 4,000 homes on top of the original 6,000 by 2016."

Developers: chosen sites not at risk of flooding

A report by Waterbeach Consultants claim the Ministry of Defence land at Waterbeach is the best place to put the settlement. The company are working on behalf of the group seeking to develop the land, St John's Waterbeach Consortium. According to the report, the site could easily accommodate the 6,000 houses needed for a new settlement, and had good transport links. It had the added benefit of being previously developed, obviating the need to build on countryside land. The development would also be served by both guided bus and shuttle train links with Cambridge, the guided bus link extending to Addenbroke's Hospital. Improvements to the A10 were also 'a fully recognised requirement' of Cambridgeshire County Council, the report said, and a shuttle train station could be built at Waterbeach. In addition, the site could be expanded to accommodate more homes if needed.

The report also said flooding would pose no major risk to a new settlement. Leonard Martin, Waterbeach Consultants spokesman, said only a very small proportion of the development land was at risk of flooding. "The Environment Agency agrees that just seven per cent of the land for 6,000 dwellings would need some form of mitigation," he said. "There is ample scope and opportunity to reduce the flood risk to one in 1,000 and beyond."

Oakington/Longstanton was described as close to Cambridge, handy for local employers, and with good public transport potential. Although Oakington and other nearby villages had been hit by flooding, the Environment Agency did not consider the Army site as being at risk of flooding. Development could be engineered so as not to trigger flooding nearby, the developer's report said.

I'm going to fight this to the bitter end

Oakington Action Group, a campaign group fighting plans for the settlement has challenged the decision and vowed to report the council to the Local Government Ombudsman for its handling of the issue. The group staged a public meeting last month, organised with the backing of Oakington parish council. Local councillors and MP Andrew Lansley, who represents Oakington, were invited to attend.

Andy Cave, the action group's spokesman, said, "We want to keep villagers informed, show them the presentations we made to the District Council and County Council, outlining our objections, and answer any questions people might have . We also aim to demonstrate the large amount of support we have and the serious concerns that pretty much all the residents have. Peter Stroude, South Cambridgeshire District Councillor for Longstanton, pledged to help campaigners in their struggle. "I will do everything I can," he said. "But if it is built here, I will work hard to make sure everyone gets the benefits from it." Jane Coston, County Councillor for Waterbeach, said, "I'm going to be out there fighting against this to the bitter end. It just cannot happen."

So what are residents really worried about? Well, apart from the usual concerns about the continual expansion of built up areas by new development, and the very dubious requirement for more houses (see p. ), there are two main concerns.

Serious flooding in Oakington and Waterbeach

The torrential rains of last October caused serious flooding in Oakington and Waterbeach, as well as other parts of south Cambridgeshire (see p. ). Jane Coston pointed to Environment Agency findings that warn the Waterbeach site is at risk of flooding.

Around 10 per cent of houses and 20 per cent of gardens in Oakington were flooded. At one home in Oakington, a couple predicted their clean up operation would go on for months after a foot of water swamped the entire ground floor of their house. The Davies' blame Oakington's drainage system for the thousands of pounds of damage caused to their home. Liz Davies said, "Our house may be uninsurable."

Residents fear the new development would exacerbate problems. Mechanical engineer Bill Treneman, a member of Oakington Action Group, said there was a risk that rainwater from the new settlement would trigger flooding at Oakington, and that it would take years to carry out remedial works to protect the village and the settlement.

Paul Long, the regional director of the Country Land and Business Association, who met the Environment Agency in the Eastern region to discuss flood protection last month,

has stated: "It is also vital that the issue of building in flood plains is taken seriously. We have the necessary planning guidance. We urge planners to take far greater account of it."

The A14 is the worst road in the UK

Oakington and surrounding villages are also concerned that more homes close to "the most congested road in the UK" will add to traffic problems. Andy Cave stated that "the A14 is the worst road in the UK at 156% overcapacity. If a new town was sited there, with all the other building work going on along the A14, it would introduce an extra 30,000 traffic movements per day, bringing the total traffic load to 230% over capacity." Simon Edwards, another spokesman for the group, said, "We want to ensure that Oakington, situated in the most congested part of Cambridgeshire, reliant on the A14, and at high risk of flooding, is dismissed as the worst possible site for the provision of such a major housing development."

Bill Treneman said it would be impossible to complete a new public transport system in time, nor improve the A14 nearby. He said the guided bus route planned for the former Cambridge-St Ives railway line would not be finished before 2009, and improvements to the A14 would not be carried out before 2012 "at the earliest" (see p. ).

Jane Coston raised the problems a scheme in Watebeach would pose for an already traffic-choked A10. "They talk about dualling the A10", she said, "but I've been told that it's too dangerous because the road is so winding. They argue that Waterbeach already has a railway station, but the Strategic Rail Authority doesn't want more trains stopping there because it would slow down other trains."

In the latest developments on the issue South Cambridgeshire MP Andrew Lansley called for the building of a single big town to be scrapped, and to build two smaller ones instead, during a county council meeting on Tuesday 11th December. The council favours Oakington, but the developers favour Waterbeach. Lansley said that none of the towns so far discussed are entirely suitable, as they suffer from either flooding or public transport problems. Councillor John Reynolds, cabinet member for planning, stated: "The county council will have to be guided by the Government Regional Planning Guidance which specifies one settlement." However Lansley is continuing to promote the two town option.

The Oakington Action Group urged people to register objections now, before Cambridgeshire County Council makes its decision on December 18.

This article was based on articles from the Cambridge Evening News

James Murray

CITY AND COUNTY HOUSING NEEDS QUESTIONED

Official forecasts of housing needs can (and must) be effectively challenged

Cambridge FOE has had an input to a number of recent meetings on plans for the vast amount of new houses said to be needed in the region. Optional sites for a new "settlement" led the County to convene "consultation" meetings at a number of villages that came under threat. At two of these - Hildersham and Great Abington -- we delivered a written brief to the chairmen, county officers and the local MP, Mr James Paice. Mr Paice had expressed doubts about government forecasts of housing needs and the necessity for large-scale rural development. Our housing brief also went to the city and county housing officials concerned. Here is the main part of it:

Direct effect on saving the countryside.

"At the meeting at Hildersham last Wednesday (18 July), County officers pointed out that local authorities had successfully argued for a reduction in Government housing quotas. While this will be greatly welcomed, at the same time it does show that official forecasts of housing needs can be effectively challenged. It also has the most direct effect on the core problem of saving the countryside.

I am sure people appreciate that local authorities and their officials are under a duty to implement quotas set by central government and that once set, cease to be open to argument at local level. Yet all must be aware that there is a growing body of informed opinion that rejects the validity of Government housing forecasts and the methods used in forming them. A Times leader has described them as "a crude and ignorant lie...there is no need (rather than want) for four million new homes in the English countryside, or one million in the South East, or anywhere else". This comment is among many that have unravelled the flaws in Whitehall's methods of forecasting.

Agreed need for affordable housing

There is an agreed need for affordable housing but in the past this has been used as a pretext for large-scale developments that turn out to be little more than spec-built executive housing estates. The driving force behind these is not an expression of need from the grassroots, but the fact that land freed for building rises in value several hundred-fold, coupled with eternal pressures from developers seeking building land.

It follows from this that it is hard for many of us to focus on details of infrastructure, traffic and the like, when we don't accept the premise of an enormous housing need nation-wide. Nor is it sense to push the threat on to neighbouring villages while most, if not all rural communities across the country are facing the same threat. The core of the problem is absurdly high housing targets. Our first action should be to support local authorities by bringing pressure, through our MPs, on Government to reduce these demands to realistic levels. Surely the most horrific thought for all of us is that the village life of many centuries should be destroyed by a set of unreliable statistics."

Concept of the Greenbelt "not immutable"

This message was also disseminated at residents' consultation meetings for the Brooklands Avenue government offices development site and at a discussion held at the University Centre by the City in June "to establish the case for Cambridge Growth and a proposed strategy for development". Addressed by consultants, it was attended by city and county officials and, amongst many others from industry and affected NGOs, Marshall Aerospace. It was clear that the most favoured area for expansion included the airport and the still open ground that separates Cherry Hinton and Fulbourn. Marshalls were not particularly keen to move unless an alternative site was on offer (this seems to have been underlined by its application for new terminal building permission last month). Ominously, Peter Studdert, City Director of Planning, believed that the concept of the Greenbelt was not immutable and "needed to be re-defined". How these plans will be affected by the city's selection of Oakington as the final "settlement" site for 10,000 new houses (see p. ), seems uncertain particularly as local residents have referred the decision to the local Ombudsman on the grounds that it had been taken improperly.

Provision of affordable housing remains neglected

Overall, it is encouraging that local authorities have themselves been able to break the taboo about the sanctity of Whitehall's inflated forecasts of need and to reduce central government demands to some extent. In the past, passive acceptance had been the rule of the day. We have been struck by the number of people whose job it is to meet and talk about planning and housing, who show shock at the heretical prospect of challenging these figures -- figures which in these times of immense uncertainty can be little more than a hunch. But some at last are beginning to wander into the suburbs of recognition. Meanwhile, the provision of affordable housing stock on which the logic of housing explosion pretends to ride, remains neglected in the doing of it all. There is more reality in the pages of spec-builders advertisements in the posh Sunday papers. Just one of these taken at random from hundreds of others, offers the luxury, peace and tranquillity of brand new 5-bedroom 2-garage Sussex residences built on virgin soil with spectacular views of Beachy Head, at around £290,000. Just what the government is asking for?

Patrick Forman

TRANSPORT

BUILD MORE ROADS

Conclusions of the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study

The main aim of the CHUMMS study as defined in the Final Report was "to recommend multi-modal transport plans, which address the most urgent transport problems in the corridor between Cambridge and Huntingdon, looking in particular at opportunities for modal shift from the car".

The study began with an identification of the present and future transport problems in the corridor. A number of different transport concepts were identified which could help to solve these problems. The concepts were then interpreted as specific transport projects based on the use of public transport or the private vehicle.

Combinations of these specific transport projects were then produced and presented as strategies at Public Exhibitions (what do you mean you never went.....!). Following this consultation modifications to the strategies, and additional strategies, were tested and appraised in accordance with GOMMMS, with what? GOMMMS I said. That's Guidance On Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies, not something out of Lord of the Rings.

Recommendations of the "Preferred Plan"

Following appraisal of these alternative strategies, a set of recommendations has been produced, also known as the Preferred Plan, the recommendations of which are:

1. A guided bus system should be provided in the disused Cambridge to St Ives railway corridor, with extensions to Trumpington and Addenbrooke's Hospital and to Godmanchester and Huntingdon;

2. The A14 should be widened to a dual 3-lane carriageway, where necessary, in its existing line between the junction for Horningsea/Fen Ditton and to a point to the east of Fenstanton. Also, a new dual 3-lane carriageway should be constructed to the south of Godmanchester, Huntingdon and Brampton to rejoin the A14 to the west of the A1;

3. Parallel local roads should be constructed alongside the widened section of the A14 between the east of Fenstanton and the Girton Interchange (Junction 14 of the M11), to assist local movements and improve public transport access. Extra links and slip-roads are recommended at M11 Junctions 13 and 14.

4. Improvements should be made to the junctions of the A14 with the B1049 (Histon) and the A10 (Milton), and measures put in place toenable public transport to cross the A14 Cambridge Northern Bypass;

5. Where the new off-line alignment leaves the existing A14, the road space which becomes available on the existing road should be used as a public transport corridor and for access to Huntingdon centre and railway station.

6. Longer term consideration should be given to an Eastern bypass for Huntingdon, to provide extra access to the north of the town from the east;

7. Full consideration should be given to the need of non-motorised travellers - walkers, cyclists and horse riders - in the design of the major road and public transport systems;

8. In the short term, the Highways Agency should proceed with plans to install traffic signals at the Brampton Hut (A1) and Spittals (A141) Interchanges. Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the District Councils, should proceed with the implementation of traffic calming measures in villages affected by traffic diverting off the A14;

9. To stabilise levels of traffic entering Cambridge and encourage the use of public transport, the current demand management measures in Cambridge should continue and further, more rigorous measures should be implemented in the future.

Build more roads

Though these are only recommendations, government reform of the planning system (see the article Hidden Agenda p. ) means that the results of this study look likely to form the basis of any government decision on what should be built and where. So what appears to be the main solution to increasing traffic congestion? That's right, build more roads. Non-motorised transport is reduced to a "give due consideration to" in the above paragraphs whereas loads of lovely tarmac could be splashed around if the recommendations are acted upon (bangs head on table).

Why is it so difficult to grasp the fact that building more roads and widening others may reduce congestion in the short term, but will also encourage more traffic, leading to an eventual increase in congestion back to the original levels or higher. Road accidents may fall at first (or may increase in severity due to the higher speed that can initially be obtained) but will also inevitably creep back up as the weight of traffic inevitably increases, the net result being nothing except more damage to the environment from building the new roads in the first place and from the increased traffic. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? It always has happened and always will happen....

MULTI modal nature shot down in flames

Of course one solution to both commuting traffic and traffic heading to and from the coast along the CHUMMS corridor would be railways, remember those? I'll admit that there would be rather more problems than there should be since the back legs have fallen off Britain's least favourite pantomime horse - Railtrack. But a re-instated, efficient, railway service along the route of the old Cambridge-St Ives line would make an immense difference to the volume of traffic in the CHUMMS corridor. People only drive on roads they know are going to be congested out of desperation, or through lack of alternatives. Provide something that takes them off the road and gets them to work on time and most people would jump at the chance. Railways don't suffer from congestion, ever, no matter how long ago since they were constructed. Sorry if this sounds obvious but the recommendations in the CHUMMS study rather shoot it's supposed MULTI modal nature down in flames (how is building more roads going to lead to a modal shift from the car?) with the only mode having any real money spent on it being road travel. Unless you count the guided busway, which a cynic could call a railway for the financially timid.

Why Cambridge for this phenomenal growth?

Anyhow, maybe all of this is missing the big picture. Why has Cambridge been singled out for this phenomenal growth? Surely the best way of reducing road traffic is to encourage job creation in other parts of the country that really need them, reducing the quart into a pint pot situation in this region. One of the biggest industries in Cambridge is computer software. Why do these companies, frequently telling us the benefits of the Internet and video conferencing, feel the need to all be located within a few miles of each other? Computer software companies can be located anywhere, is the CB post-code really so important?

For all the regional nature of the CHUMMS study, the problems it seeks to address are really national issues. The solutions suggested will, at best, lead to a temporary respite in the congestion, but eventually the same problems will resurface if growth in the region, at the expense of other, poorer, areas is allowed to continue.

Ian Ralls

A14 GETS THE GO-AHEAD

The Government announced on Thursday 13th December that it was backing the recommendations of the CHUMMS study. Local transport Minister Sally Keeble, did not give a start date for the road building part of the project, or details of funding, but she has asked the Highways Agency to "commence preparatory work". The public would also have to be consulted about the exact route. She has also asked the county council to carry out a full appraisal of how the guided bus system might work within six months.

The city council approved the guided bus system in princple on Wednesday 12th December, but said it would need to see the plans in more detail before backing it. Councillor Nicola Harrison said that nothing should be done until the council had drawn up a master plan for transport in the south of the city.

Based on Cambridge Evening News articles

James Murray

RUNNING BUSES ON WATER AND SUNSHINE

Hydrogen powered bus service planned for Cambridge

It was announced in early October that hydrogen-powered buses will run from 2003 between the University's yet to be completed West Cambridge site and the city centre, ferrying what will be predominately staff, students and local residents. Cambridge will be the first place in the world to benefit from this technology.

The hydrogen will be produced by photo voltaic (PV) cells using electricity generated from solar energy to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen will be used to run the buses, forgoing the need for climate altering fossil fuels. The only waste products of the fuel will be heat, as the oxygen released from the PV cells will ultimately recombine with the hydrogen as it is burned in the bus's engines to produce the same amount of water as it took to produce the hydrogen in the first place. The PV cells will cover a 350-metre colonnade at the West Cambridge site

Gotland, Sweden aiming for completely sustainable society by 2025.

The project has been proposed by a partnership between the University, Whitby Bird and Partners, the consulting engineers on the project, and the Municipality of Gotland. A similar project is proposed for the island of Gotland in Sweden. It is planned to mount an array of PV cells on municipal buildings there. The buses would operate in Visby, a medieval town where there is a demand for totaly clean transport. Gotland is aiming for a completely sustainable society by 2025. The project was recommend for maximum funding by the EU. Currently most PV generated electricity is sold to the Grid. These projects would supply electricity to the Grid as well as producing hydrogen for hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Cambridge and Swedish projects are pilot schemes for rest of world

The project is the pilot for a system that will hopefully be used all over the world, slowing the depletion of carbon rich fossil fuels and the rate of global warming. Colin Saunders, Project Manager for the University of Cambridge Estate Management and Building Service (EMBS) says that the purpose of the project is to "demonstrate the future hydrogen economy" in which the world's energy needs can be met through sustainable means. As it will produce its own fuel on the West Cambridge site, Cambridge is unique in terms of the overall project, though the scheme will see hydrogen powered buses in other city centres including London. Although in the long run this system will be potentially beneficial on a global scale, in the short term the costs are high. According to Ben Madden, also of Whitby Bird and Partners, the initial expense of the buses will be around seven times as much as the equivalent fossil fuel powered transport. The cost is expected to fall as the technology takes hold on a world-wide basis. The hope is that this will put Cambridge in the enviable position of being able to produce the cheapest and most sustainable transport long before anywhere else.

Cambridge 99.9% sure to get project

The European Commission intends to give the scheme the maximum research and development grant - 2 million Euros - enabling the project to go ahead. It has, says Colin Saunders, been "99.9 per cent" confirmed, but the final approval will not be announced until the end of 2001. This will cover the actual cost of the adapted buses, and at least some of the photo voltaic cells. The rest of the finance is expected to be through private investment and the British government. If the European Commission choice is, as is expected, Cambridge, both town and university might be, as Mr Saunders terms it "very lucky". One thing is certain, the scheme can only add to the university's reputation as a centre for pioneering scientific research.

What about hydrogen-powered cars? Nick Scheele, chairman of Ford Europe says: No one's going to have a Damascus moment about the environment here in Ford, but if you take it slowly and convince people of the business sense behind a greener company they will come round. .....The problem is time. Ford have invested $400 million in fuel cell vehicles (hydrogen-powered electric cars: I'm not going to discuss the technology here), but there will not be an affordable model on the road until the next decade.

If we rephrase that in the positive, and if I save my pennies, I should be able to buy a fuel cell car before I'm sixty!

Based on an article in Varsity Online

James Murray

GM AND FOOD

DAVID VS G(M)OLIATH

Monsanto goes to war with farmers after defeat of Schmeiser

After its battle with Percy Schmeiser, Monsanto is now prepared to take on a number of farmers in several regions of the Prairies to stop patent infringement of its Roundup ready canola (oil seed rape). "We did have a number of people waiting in the queue, but Schmeiser was the first case where we attempted to find out if the patent was valid," said Monsanto Canada spokesperson Trish Jordan. "You don't know how strong that patent really is until somebody violates it and it's upheld in a court of law." She acknowledged there is more than just a handful of legal cases ongoing. It looks as though, on the legal front anyway, Monsanto's gene genie is out of the bottle.

Percy Schmeiser, a farmer and implement agent living in Bruno, Saskatchewan, Canada, had been growing canola for 40 years, saving his own seed, and developing his own varieties Monsanto makes the popular herbicide Roundup and Roundup Ready canola which is resistant to Roundup. About half the canola planted in Saskatchewan this year is Roundup Ready. Farmers have to buy new seed from Monsanto each year, sign a contract promising to buy fresh seed, and let Monsanto inspect their fields. In order to protect its investment, Monsanto has been prosecuting farmers who cheat and save seed. Schmeiser has never purchased seed from Monsanto. Even so, he says that more than 320 hectares of his land is now "contaminated" by Roundup Ready canola (each canola plant can produce from 4000 to 10,000 plants).

Monsanto asked for exorbitant amounts to warn other producers

The case found its way into the courts in August 1998. In August 1999 the company took Schmeiser to court in Saskatoon claiming he illegally planted the firm's canola without paying a $37-per-hectare fee for the privilege. Schmeiser claimed that company seed could easily have blown on to his soil from passing trucks, and that he planted his 1997 crop with seed saved from 1996. In the statement of claim, Schmeiser said Monsanto libelled him by publicly accusing him of committing illegal acts, trespassing on his land in order to obtain seed samples, improperly obtaining samples of his seed from a local seed plant, "callous disregard" for the environment by introducing Roundup Ready into the area without proper controls, and of contaminating his crops. On August 11th, 1999 Schmeiser launched a $10 million lawsuit against Monsanto. The case against Schmeiser was heard June 5-20, 2000 in Federal Court in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The judge said he would issue a decision as early as August or as late as the end of December.

Monsanto outlined their request for patent infringement seeking damages totalling $400,000. Schmeiser felt that Monsanto had asked for exorbitant amounts to serve as a warning to other producers. He said he had received donations of about $12,000 from supporters to help his legal battle, and that he would pursue a second lawsuit he filed last Autumn against Monsanto for contaminating his seed.

Monsanto couldn't control how gene spread through countryside

The decision of the trial was issued on March 29, 2001. The Federal Court of Justice Andrew McKay upheld the validity of Monsanto's patent on Roundup Ready canola. Monsanto could not control how the gene was dispersed through the countryside. The judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen -- but he said this was not true in the case of genetically modified seed. Monsanto's claim was that it didn't matter how the genetically altered seed got there, they had a patent on the product and that since Schmeiser had the product in his field, he had to pay the use fee. Monsanto was seeking $105,000.

Schmeiser has filed an appeal in the case of Monsanto vs Schmeiser which addresses the farmer's legislated right to save and reuse his own seed and restates the fact that Monsanto had withdrawn their allegation that Schmeiser had illegally obtained canola seed from one of Monsanto's registered users.

Can't get rid of GM crop contamination

Since Schmeiser first discovered Round Up Ready canola on his land, he has been dogged with the problem of contamination with the GM crop. He had to purchase new canola seed for the 1999 crop year as his fields had become contaminated with the Roundup Ready canola and had destroyed the canola seed that he had developed over 40 years of farming. Since then, Roundup Ready canola volunteer plants are still growing on his land. Volunteer plants are plants which grow at the beginning of the growing season, from seed that remained in the ground after the harvest of the last crop. In the case of herbicide resistant plants, spraying with the relevant herbicide to kill weeds will obviously not kill volunteers. In Schmeiser's case he sprayed his land with Roundup and 2, 4-D to kill the Roundup Ready canola volunteers, but amazingly, they have survived this treatment.

Get the whole story on http://www.percyschmeiser.com

James Murray

MEXICO'S GM CORN SHOCKS SCIENTISTS

Native, natural maize variety growing in remote region is contaminated

One of the world's oldest varieties of maize has been "contaminated" by GM maize, say US researchers who have had their work confirmed by the Mexican government.

The group of researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, detected the contamination in October last year while working with a biological laboratory in the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca region. They compared native Mexican maize with samples known to be free from genetic engineering, as well as with genetically modified varieties.

Their results, published yesterday in the science journal Nature, showed that four out of six samples of native criollo maize contained a genetic "switch" commonly used in GM crops, and that two of the samples were found to have another DNA segment commonly used in genetic engineering.

The researchers alerted the Mexican government which did its own tests in 22 communities. They confirmed in September this year that transgenic DNA had been found in 13 of them, with contamination levels of between 3% and 10% within communities.

The results are surprising because Mexico, where maize originated, has banned the growing of GM maize since 1998, and the last known GM crops grown in the region were almost 60 miles from where the contaminated maize was found.

Debate over level of threat to area of biodiversity

It was not clear yesterday when the contamination took place, but the scientists speculated that it originated from GM maize bought from the US as food aid for the impoverished region in central Mexico, and had spread over time by pollination. It is not thought that the cross-pollination happened over long distances, because corn pollen is heavy and does not travel far on the wind.

"This is very serious," said Ignacio Chapela, assistant professor of microbial ecology at Berkeley's College of Natural Resources, "because the regions where our samples were taken are known for their diverse varieties of native corn, which is something that absolutely needs to be protected. We can't afford to lose that resource."

But Luis Solleiro, director of the Mexican biotechnology trade association, denied that the country's rich genetic diversity was threatened. "The data suggests that any transgenic corn is at a very low level," he said. "This level, or even greater presence, would not adversely affect the genetic diversity of native strains."

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other groups that oppose GM crops argued yesterday that even a low level of genetic contamination was highly significant in a region of diversity and origin of specific species.

Concerns that GM crops may be out of control

"The genetic contamination is likely to multiply through pollen flow and spread further to other traditional varieties and wild relatives growing in the area", Doreen Stabinsky, from Greenpeace USA, said.

"This is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, as plants in other parts of Mexico have not yet been investigated."

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation is concerned that GM crops may pollute the gene pool of conventional relatives in the same area or nearby, depending on wind and insects. "If there is no barrier to pollination, you get this potential hazard," said Ricardo Labrada Romero, the FAO's plant protection officer.

The research adds to concerns that GM crops may be out of control. More than 100m acres [33m hectares] of GM crops have been grown, mostly in the US and Canada. The Canadian government's agricultural department last month reported that stray pollen and seed from genetically modified oilseed rape crops was now so widespread that it was difficult to grow conventional or organic strains without them being contaminated. And Canada is the world's second largest country! Is the genetic pollution genie also out of the bottle?

Based on an article in the Guardian

James Murray

TRIUMPH FOR ORGANIC FARMING

GM crop trial next to organic farming research centre stopped

A precedent was set in May this year in terms of the recognition of the threat of genetic pollution to organic crops. A row broke out over a GM maize trial plot in Wolston, Warwickshire, which was situated two miles away from the Henry Doubleday Research Association Ryton Organic Garden, Europe's largest organic food organisation. The trial plot is part of the Government's three year programme designed to "allay public fears about GM crops"! (Paul Brown, Environmental correspondent, The Guardian). The main fear was that bees can carry pollen up to five miles and can therefore carry out cross pollination between GM, conventional, or organic crops. There are already existing cases where this has happened.

Requests to stop trial rejected

If this had happened in the case of the Henry Doubleday centre it would have lost its Soil Association accreditation and organic status. This and the ensuing outcry from the Green movement and the public would have been very bad press indeed for the Government and the GM industry. Our environmental Minister, Michael Meacher, therefore called on the scientific steering committee in charge of the Government programme, and SCIMAC, the GM industry body, to abandon the trial. There were also similar requests from the RSPB and the Soil Association. Roger Turner, a spokesman for SCIMAC, said it was under no obligation to stop the trial. Chris Pollock, from the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, and a member of the scientific steering committee, made his reply to Meacher on Friday, 11th May. He dismissed the appeal as "political" and "good public relations" rather than scientific. The Department of the Environment admitted that if Pollock continued to refuse to stop the trial there was nothing that Meacher could have done about it, as the maize had a licence to be commercially grown in the UK under an EU directive. However, if the trial had been abandoned there still would've been enough sites in other parts of the country to provide enough evidence to decide whether GM crops harmed wildlife on farmland more than conventional crops.

Biotech industry backs down

Alan Gear, chief executive of the Henry Doubleday centre, said Pollock's attitude was "scandalous". He continued, "This is not a political issue, it is a matter of protecting organic agriculture...... We cannot afford to lose our organic status and we will fight for it", meaning he was prepared to resort to a legal battle, if necessary.

The plot thickened when at least one other member of the steering committee, threatened to resign if Pollock continued to refuse to end the trial. The RSPB's conservation director, Mark Avery then threatened to withdraw the organisation's representative on the steering committee. The withdrawal of one or more members from the committee would have undermined the credibility of the trial programme because the committee members were chosen to represent all points of view. Withdrawal of the RSPB representative would have destroyed the credibility of the committee in the eyes of the Green movement, and the trial would probably have collapsed.

Over the following weekend, urgent consultations were held with the biotech industry, including Aventis, whose seeds would have been used for the trial. The result was that SCIMAC backed down, "bearing in mind the public outcry" which the trial would have caused. Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, was delighted.

During the row, a senior scientist involved in the issue said" This row has the potential to destroy the whole trial system. If the scientific steering committee fall out and start resigning the credibility of environmental trials will be lost."

James Murray

WHEN WILL WE BE REALLY GM FREE?

Farm animals are still being fed GM crops

Scientists still do not know if genetically modified (GM) food is safe for our health or the environment. Yet biotechnology companies are still trying to force us to eat those foods. Thanks to massive public pressure, all the major super markets have removed GM ingredients from their own brand products. But GM foods are now coming into the UK food chain through animal feed used to produce the meat, eggs, milk and other dairy products we all eat.

Why be concerned?

*GM maize produced for use in cattle feed was not tested on cows before it was given approval. In fact the only safety tests conducted were on rats and chickens which have completely different digestive systems from cows.

*Some GM animal feeds contain genes coding for antibiotic resistance. Such genes could be picked up by disease-causing bacteria, making them resistant to antibiotics. This will leave doctors and vets less able to fight infection in humans and animals.

Cambridge FOE have been campaigning on this issue through street stalls. (If you would like to help, or want further information, please contact Ursula Stubbings on 840882.) Marks and Spencers are now obtaining all their animal products from animals on a GM -free diet. Iceland, Waitrose and the Co-op are almost there. The 'Big Four', of which Tesco and Sainsbury's are represented in the Cambridge area, have partially succeeded. To spur them on their way please fill in the enclosed slip and return to Ursula at the FOE office, preferably by December 18th or as soon as possible after this date. We want to present a whole batch to the Sidney Street Sainsbury's manager so if you ever shop there, please put that address on the slip. If you have milk delivered to you, please ring Ursula on 840882, for another slip to give to your milkman. Please do this now before you forget in the Christmas rush.

Ursula Stubbings

LOCAL CAMPAIGNERS PROMOTE REAL FOOD AND FARMING

Papier mache cow joins fight against pesticides and GM crops

Our local anti-GM group, Cambridge Concerns, held a Day of Action on 23rd June this year to coincide with National FOE's "Put Your Foot Down For Farming" campaign, part of the ongoing Real Food and Farming campaign against potentially environmentally hostile practises in farming and food production. Ursula Stubbings led the action and was joined by Julie Crick and Tony Higgins. The group gathered on a Saturday morning outside the Guildhall equipped with a papier mache cow. They also had a giant card bearing the logo of the campaign - a giant boot print. The idea was that passers-by would sign the card to express their support for the campaign. Postcards calling for Tony Blair to back National FOE's Charter for Real Food and Farming, were also handed out and people were asked to sign them and send them to the aforementioned PM.

The group stayed in the Market Square until noon. Then Ursula headed down to Parker's Piece with the card to get more signatures from the protesters who had gathered there to continue their animals rights demonstration after a march through Cambridge's streets. A busy day for protesters! The giant card was afterwards sent to National FOE who later presented it to Tony Blair.

Charter for Real Food and Farming

There are still some postcards left in the office. Why not pick one up on your way past and send it off.? The office is open again on Fridays (see Notice Board). The Charter for Real Food and Farming calls "on the Government to launch a "real farming" action plan to support less intensive farming and protect the countryside. It also makes the following demands:

* Stop GM crops being planted in the UK until their safety and need are proven

* End pesticide residues in our food

* Ensure a third of farmland becomes organic by 2010

* Support local producers and markets

* Give a fair deal for farmers who safeguard our future

* Save food and farming from unfair global trade rules

Our cow visits South Cambridge MP

On Friday 13th July, the same papier mache cow went to visit South Cambridge MP Andrew Lansley at his surgery in Whittlesford Memorial Hall. The cow was accompanied by an escort consisting of Cambridge Concern members, Patrice Gladwin, Ursula Stubbings and Debbie Hayden, dressed as maize plants. The purpose of the visit was to highlight the issue of T25 maize, a type of GM maize which has been approved for the national seed list in this country, and would be used as a fodder crop if commercial growing was given the go-ahead. However, T25 maize has not undergone adequate safety tests. One example of this is that the maize was fed only to chickens and rats during animal feeding tests, but not cattle, which have a totally different digestive system to rats, chickens and humans. The group wanted the MP to back their call to have the maize banned, and to write to Tony Blair, asking him to use his powers under European directives to ban the maize. Mr Lansley stated: "I am not against GM crops in general but they shouldn't be available until the necessary tests have been done. I did some research into this type of maize last year. Ministers told me they were legally obliged to approve it as there is procedure laid down by law."

GM coffee anyone?

In October Julie Crick led a demonstration outside Starbuck's Café near Habitat to protest against GM coffee. And on Saturday 17 November, Ursula Stubbings organised a demonstration outside Sainsbury's in Sidney Street to protest about the issue of GM crops being used to feed animals which are used to produce the milk, meat and other animal products on sale in Sainsbury's and our other supermarkets, (see "When will we be really GM free?") but that's another story!

James Murray

PLANNING

HIDDEN AGENDA:

- to make the planning enquiry process more efficient (easier - for the Government).

The planning enquiry process, already weighted in favour of developers and other large vested interests is about to become even less accountable and inclusive. Under government plans to 'streamline' the planning system, the publics' democratic right to participate and influence the outcome will be severely curtailed and sidelined. The changes, supposedly making the planning system more 'efficient' have two major threads:

To speed up the decision making process

To develop regional agenda

To this end, measures announced by a government press release on the 20th of July this year include:

Government decides what needs building without reference to anyone

· Up-to-date statements of Government policy, which would normally have involved public consultation, to be in place before major projects are considered in the planning system. An up-to-date policy statement, on for example airports, would reduce the inquiry time devoted to a debate on what Government policy was on a particular subject;

Translation: Government ministers will decide what needs building where without reference to anyone else, except maybe construction industry lobby groups and other vested interests in the particular project under consideration. Or put another way, the government will be able to make up the rules as they go along to suit the needs of their business cronies/customers

Decisions taken by unelected appointees to regional boards

· An improved regional framework which will assist consideration of individual projects. New arrangements for regional planning guidance preparation have enhanced the openness and inclusiveness of the process, including improved consultation and the chance for people to have their say, with a public examination before an independent panel;

Translation: Many decisions, which would previously have been taken in public by elected local councillors, are taken remotely by frequently unelected appointees to regional planning and development boards, thus neatly sidestepping any local political issues. Any talk of openness and inclusiveness is a lie, there is very little public input because few details are given publicly, but more importantly the 'examinations in public' exclude the public, only invited parties are allowed to attend (which usually means only local authorities, industry, government agencies and maybe a totally outnumbered environmental campaigning group to give the whole thing a 'sustainable' air).

Parliamentary "debate" - toeing the party line

New Parliamentary procedures to enable the Secretary of State to put a project of national significance to Parliament for debate and agreement on the broad principles ahead of a more detailed inquiry. This would allow the issues to be debated in public. This will require primary legislation;

Translation: Ha bloody ha, What chance have we got to make her put our views across when we disagree with one of New Labour's pet projects?? If our local MP Anne Campbell is anything to go by (remember her backing of GM crops in the face of overwhelming local opposition?) the government line will be well and truly toed and the 'debate' will amount to no more than a rubber stamping of another government edict, thanks to New Labours autocratic style and large majority.

Window dressing of the already agreed project

· Improved public inquiry procedures, including strengthening the powers of inspectors, stricter time-tabling and more clearly focused terms of reference. These changes will come into operation as soon as practicable.

Translation: When a public enquiry is eventually held the 'terms of reference' will be narrowed to cover mere window dressing of the already agreed project - (how many trees would you like around your nuclear waste repository sir.... hurry up we haven't got all day).

In short, this removal of accountability by stealth must be stopped. The low profile way in which these new procedures have crept into the public domain suggests that the government knows it's up to no good. Cut though the smoke-screen and see these proposals for what they really are - an attempt to make life easier for New Labour and its cronies.

Don't believe a word of this or want to be scared some more? Try this lot for bed-time reading:

References:

Streamlining the processing of major infrastructure projects and other projects of national significance, DETR May 1999. Ref. 99PP0152.

Health And Safety Executive Nuclear Safety Directorate - Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Storage In The UK: A review by HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, November 1998

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in their report Management of Nuclear Waste, published on 24 March 1999

DETR, Modernising Planning - A Policy Statement by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, 1998.

Building Partnerships for Prosperity - Sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment in the English Regions (the White Paper on Regionalisation).

DETR December 1997. This defines the purposes of the Regional Development Agencies in detail

See the consultation papers The Future of Regional Planning Guidance, DETR January 1998, and Draft PPG11: Regional Planning Guidance, DETR January 1999

Ian Ralls

STATION ROAD TREES TO GO

Railtrack plans for Cambridge Railway Station include felling of trees

Cambridge Friends of the Earth have just learnt that the development plans for Cambridge Railway Station by Railtrack include the felling of we believe 18 of the lime trees in the Station Road approach (from beyond the first building after the junction with Tenison Road up to the current bus shelter on the north side of Station Road). We are very concerned at this as these maturing trees, estimated at 20 plus years old, are an attractive feature of Station Road and is a continuation of the avenue of older lime trees that stretches from the War Memorial roundabout in a beautiful double line to the station. For regular users of the station they are a welcome green avenue in a busy commuting atmosphere of traffic and a green backdrop to the current ugliness of offices and the flour mill. Visitors also seeing Cambridge for the first time by this route must find this a refreshing sight fitting a tourist city such as Cambridge. We are told this is a Conservation Designated Area and yet the felling of these trees is being allowed in the new plans. We are informed that the felling is to open the site for a new office building and for an area of "mixed use development". We understand from the Railtrack Development promotional flyer that "landscaping will ensure that the regenerated area forms an exciting new gateway to Cambridge and an appropriate setting for a listed station".

We consider the current trees an adequate existing landscape that other improvements will benefit without necessitating their total felling. A thinning maybe acceptable but new trees will take a considerably long time to reach any adequate cover and form and knowing the current trend in our city for vandalism may never reach that stage! The overall plan for Railtrack has been called in by the Secretary of State on other objections and we add ours to these now on the felling of these trees.

Cambridge Friends of the Earth oppose the wholesale felling of trees globally and locally and will be objecting to this plan formally and ask members of the public to express their concerns also to Cambridge City Council Planning Office and Railtrack!

Ken Richard

E-mail:camfoe@telinco.co.uk

comfybadger

Home