Cambridge foe

Following the success of the Bridge Street Road closure, the rest of the traffic reducing core scheme has got the thumbs up from the County Council. There will now be a period of extensive consultation with residents. Emmanuel Road is planned to be closed to through traffic - a move which will massively reduce the traffic in Parker Steet and Parkside. Silver Street will be closed too later. Public transport and bikes will still be able to get through the closure. Other traffic may come into the area but will have to exit by the same route.

Years of campaigning

Residents have been campaigning for traffic reduction measures for over twenty years. The core scheme was first included in the draft local plan in 1992, at the urging of Cllr Andy Lake. It was vetoed by the then County Council. Ironically it is the same council which is now promoting the scheme. Your local councillors have promoted the core scheme consistently and look forward to seeing its beneficial effects for the City centre environment.

Consultation

The details of the scheme are still to be finalised, and your views and objections are sought for this. A number of residents have contacted us already voicing their concerns about possible increases in traffic in Maids Causeway and Park Terrace. Our view is that these closures will not simply divert traffic onto adjacent roads, but also reduce the number of motorists attempting to cross town altogether, as happened when Parker Street was closed for sewer repairs. Even so, there are issues to address in terms of signs, landscaping and perhaps even direction of traffic flow (eg for the Emmanuel Street/Park Terrace loop). There are also issues about buses, which for many residents are seen as a problem rather than part of the solution. Andy Lake is investigating what can be done to make them more environmentally friendly. And there is also the key issue of access for residents of the Kite area. In the Bridge Street/Park Street area there was close collaboration between council officers, residents and councillors in finalising the design. We hope that the same can be achieved in this new phase.

Reasons for traffic reduction

The Parker Street/Emmanuel Road area has been suffering from some of the highest levels of air pollution in the country. Silver Street has a poor accident record, particularly with injuries to cyclists, and a number of fatalities in recent years. With further University development in West Cambridge, cycling is expected to increase on this route. Both closures are in the conservation area, in streets not designed for current levels of traffic. Reducing traffic opens the way for restoration work and landscaping to improve the environment.

Timetable

December to Mid February - Public consultation period

April/May - Formal advertisement of traffic regulation orders

June - Further consultation and final meetings to consider objections

5 July - Cambridge Joint Area Committee makes final decision

August to October - Closure and other construction work

Cllr. Andy Lake

This article has been reproduced from the Liberal Democrats City Centre Circular 1998, No. 6.

A14 DEVELOPMENTS

This article is based on an article appearing in the latest edition of the Transport 2000 Newsletter

Recently an accident on the A14 demolished the filling station west of Bar Hill, and led to closure of part of the road for several hours. This filling station was coincidentally the location chosen by BBC Look East for a feature on "Black Friday" (23 October) when gridlock was predicted on many roads, though it didn't seem to materialise on the A14. Predictably, the accident led to the renewal of calls to "improve" the road. If this refers to minor safety improvements, we certainly have no objection - for example, should filling stations really be allowed so near to speeding traffic? However we would strongly oppose any "solution" based on road widening which will only worsen problems on other parts of the road network in the Cambridge and Huntingdon areas.

The County Council's bid for the Rural Transport Challenge Fund, for which 5m pounds is available country-wide for innovative transport projects, is based on the idea of "mini-stations" or "mini-interchanges", i.e. high quality bus stops with the facilities one normally associates with rail stations (e.g. cycle parking). The Council appears to be thinking of three corridors in particular -- from Cambridge to Huntingdon, Haverhill and Burwell. Noting that the first two are covered by our proposed Haverhill to Rugby express service, we have produced a draft version of a document called "A14 Express" based on extending the concept to villages throughout the corridor, though we would not expect "all mod cons" for facilities serving the smaller villages. This document can be obtained from the Coordinator by sending a stamped addressed envelope (or by email; we hope to put it on our website in due course).

The Highways Agency organised a workshop on the A14 in Cambridge on 6-7 October. (See report on A14 workshop). Just before the workshop, the Highways Agency produced its preferred scheme for grade separation on the Brampton to Thrapston section of the A14. Though we are prepared to support grade separation in principle, we have criticised it on two grounds: it plans to close public rights of way where it is not prepared to provide a grade separated crossing, and there is no provision for the "add-on" proposal of bus stops on the A14 to serve the villages en route. When we later obtained their detailed proposals, we worked out an alternative which would require just three more bridges than the HA preferred scheme (together with the relocation of one of their proposed bridges); this would be enough to provide all the crossings we believe are needed for access to both our proposed bus stops and the rights of way network.

We had previously proposed to National Express the idea of a "Rugby Coachway" interchange at the A14/M1/M6 junction, so that coaches from the Cambridge area could connect directly into the National Express network which would make them much more viable. Unfortunately the existing road layout there does not permit such an interchange (as coaches from the London area can't leave the motorway), so this proposal would be dependent on appropriate implementation of one of the ideas of the workshop (provide link from A14 to M1 south). However, we have now proposed two other locations: M6 junction 1 (which is possible with the current road network, but is some way off the coach route from London to the East Midlands and North-East); and near where the M6 crosses the A5 and former Great Central Railway (which would need a new motorway exit, but which would fit in well with the proposals to restore the railway, primarily as a "piggy-back" route for freight, as there would be potential for a multi-modal passenger interchange).

Unfortunately Cambridge Coach Services has announced that it plans to withdraw its existing "A14 Express" service, route 71 between Cambridge and Worcester. This will leave just 1-2 journeys per day on National Express 314. We have submitted proposals to Cambridgeshire County Council for a replacement service between Over and Rugby (connecting at Fenstanton to/from Cambridge, and at Rugby station to/from Birmingham) which would leave the A14 to serve some of the relevant villages (Ellington, Spaldwick and Bythorn). This would also provide 5 extra buses for Fen Drayton, which lost most of its buses when Cambus revised the 155 last year. Journey time between Cambridge and Birmingham would be just over 3 hours - not uncompetitive with existing times by train. Our proposals incorporate existing schools service 835 (Grafham-Spaldwick) and we have revised our "Proposals for Buses in West Hunts" document (part of our bus strategy document) to include this scheme. Again, copies can be obtained from the Coordinator by sending a stamped addressed envelope, or by email or (eventually) from our website.

Simon Norton

REPORT ON THE A14 WORKSHOP

This is an edited version of the report on the A14 workshop, by Simon Norton. A fuller version of the report is presented in the relevant article in the latest edition of the Transport 2000 Newsletter.

The workshop, held in the Holiday Inn, Cambridge on 6-7 October, was attended by myself on behalf of Cambridge FOE, David Dufty of the Ipswich/Suffolk Branch of Transport 2000, on behalf of his organisation, and a variety of other organisations, including local and national government representatives, transport operators, private transport interests and environmental groups. This was a get-together for the last time before the STEER meeting on 3 October, when our strategy was discussed. The workshop gave us a welcome opportunity to interact with the other interests mentioned above. Also, the knowledge of David Dufty with respect to the eastern half of the route was nicely complemented by mine at the western half.

The workshop was divided into three sections which dealt with identification of goals, compilation of ideas, and evaluation of these ideas. The first section was based on the five elements of the Government's Integrated Transport strategy: Economy, Environment, Safety, Accessibility and Integration. In the second section everyone submitted ideas for implementing each of the identified goals.

The third section started with a quick run-through of the ideas, to eliminate repetition and throw aside the ideas considered beyond the remit of the conference. Then we went through the ideas, identifying the problems they were intended to solve, their contribution to each of the five aims of the Integrated Transport strategy, financial costs, timescale, stakeholders responsible for implementation, and other factors. Based on all of this a decision was made on whether to keep or throw out the idea. The workshop concluded with an initial evaluation of the results of the third section. Unfortunately, the third section was severely limited by time and because of this, I don't feel that the results of our discussions had a high level of significance.

Prior to the workshop I circulated the Highways Agency and the other environmental groups with copies of an A14 strategy (not exclusively the policy of Transport 2000 or FOE). Here are all the proposals in an updated version of this document, together with the ideas associated with them produced in the workshop's second section. Whether the ideas were kept for further study or abandoned, is also indicated. However, the decisions of the workshop are not to be binding -- in the case of the A428 dualling, that's a pity --so we'll still be pursuing the A14 bus stops proposal.

1. A rejection of major road widening. The two relevant ideas were "extra lanes": accepted; and "dual A428": rejected.

2. Park & Ride sites at Bar Hill and Fenstanton, to be served mainly by existing buses on routes to Cambridge from Huntingdon and Willingham. A more general version was accepted.

3. Express bus links between Haverhill and Rugby connecting with trains at Cambridge, Huntingdon, Kettering and Rugby. This was covered by "fast bus links to rail and bus stations": accepted.

4. Bus stops on A14 linked to villages by safe walking routes: rejected. As stated in A14 Developments we still plan to pursue this idea in order to reduce car dependence among villagers on sections such as Thrapston to Huntingdon, that can't support a good local service but which would be near our proposed "A14 express" route.

5. Reopen Cambridge-Huntingdon as part of east-west rail link, including double tracking of (part of) Cambridge to Kennett and stopping Inter-City trains at Huntingdon. This came across as "new rail links such as Cambridge-Huntingdon" and "more double track and passing loops": both accepted. A separate idea, "construct new east-west railway" (accepted), was interpreted as referring to the current East-West Consortium proposals which do not include the Cambridge-Huntingdon section.

6. Maintain and improve rights of way crossings, including new bridges at Milton and Histon for cyclists and pedestrians, and possibly buses. This came across as the construction of bridges for pedestrians and cyclists; and busways by-passing major junctions: both accepted; though the proposal was also intended to cover the non-closure of footpaths crossing the A14 on the Thrapston to Brampton section (and other 2 times 2 lane sections) at locations where no bridge is to be provided under the Highways Agency's preferred scheme.

7. Provide cycleway and guided busway between Cambridge, Bar Hill and Cambourne (a planned new settlement on the A428). The former came out as "provide cycle tracks". The latter (intended to be linked with the building of Cambourne): both accepted. It might need new slip roads at the Girton interchange and could be linked with any future major refurbishment there. (The improvement of Girton was considered separately. The related idea was accepted.

8. Tunnel under Huntingdon to relieve the severe environmental problems of the existing A14 and allow the space to be reallocated to the Cambridge to Huntingdon railway and a new slip road which would obviate the need for traffic between the Cambridge direction and Huntingdon centre to go via Godmanchester. This was not evaluated.

9. New spurs at Peterborough linking the East Coast ports with the proposed Alconbury development. This was not evaluated.

10. Upgrade Felixstowe-Peterborough railway for freight, with possible electrification. The first part was accepted. The second part was not considered relevant to the workshop.

11. Trans-shipment depots for freight to serve the main towns on the route, and possibly also the surrounding rural areas: accepted.

12. Protect a possible fast east-west rail link along the corridor linking Cambridge, Huntingdon, Wellingborough and Northampton. This came through as "maintain options for future": accepted.

Here are some other ideas put forward (the first four by me), with their fates: Traffic reduction targets. As traffic reduction targets have been a major Friends of the Earth campaign we took the opportunity to put this forward. However, we are unaware of its fate.

Multi-modal transport interchanges. Our group considered that this was covered by other ideas.

Develop Karlsruhe model of trams using conventional rail tracks: rejected.

Renumber the Spittals (A141) to Alconbury section which branches off the A14 at the former, but is still called the A14: accepted.

Close crossovers: accepted. This could cause problems for buses. Our group gave it a minus score, but decided to pass it because of its safety advantages. My support is conditional on adequate provision for buses. This is discussed further in a separate article in the same Transport 2000 Newsletter.

Encourage bike hire, especially at rail stations. A good idea popular in many parts of continental Europe (fate not known).

Simon Norton

SCHOOL CLOSURE WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC CHAOS

No doubt you have read about pending secondary school closures in Cambridge. These could result in huge increases in the length of school journeys and, consequently, use of cars for the "school run". Cambridge FOE believe that the ruling Conservative Group on the County Council favour the closure of Coleridge and Manor Community Colleges with the transfer of both sets of pupils to a new school on the Manor site. They seem determined to close Coleridge but fear that moving its pupils to another school in the south of the city (for instance, Netherhall or Parkside) will provoke a backlash amongst middle-class parents at such schools.

Pupils from areas such as Coleridge, Romsey and Abbey therefore face long and difficult journeys to the north of the City. The school they will be leaving is not just the only one in Cambridge to have been honoured in the league tables for the "value added" in GCSE results - it is also one of the pioneers of the "Safe Routes to School" initiative. It encourages pupils to walk or cycle and has bid for funding to help them do so in safety. Of all the Cambridgeshire schools surveyed for this project, Coleridge had the lowest proportion (just 9%) of its pupils being brought to school by car. We must expect that to increase dramatically if they are transferred to Manor.

The County Council has said that we face an enormous increase in housing demand in the Cambridge area. FOE believes that allocations of land for new houses should be within the existing built-up area, not the Green Belt. The Council should be ensuring that people are attracted to such housing, and encouraged to live a car-free life there, by providing excellent new local facilities - instead they seem determined to close down those that already exist!

If you feel strongly about this, please write immediately to the Director of Education, Libraries and Heritage, Cambridgeshire County Council, Shire Hall, Cambridge, CB3 0AP. Please write also to Anne Campbell, MP for Cambridge, at Alex Wood Hall, Norfolk Street, Cambridge, CB1 2LD, suggesting that she asks the Government to stop any reorganisation that would result in longer journeys to school and more traffic chaos.

John Ratcliffe

BIODIVERSITY

WILDLIFE ACT AND THE CHAIN OF PROTECTION

You may remenber that last April (Saturday 25th to be precise) Cambridge Friends of the Earth took part in a Local Group FOE Day of Action to highlight the lack of legal protection for our wildlife (Biodiversity Campaign - Wildlife Charter, Cambridge FOE Newsletter, July 1998). We had a stand outside the Guildhall where we invited the public to sign cardboard 'daisies' to show their support for a change in the law. 140 daisies were signed in under 2 hours! As a follow-up to this Day of Action, on Friday, 16th May, we took our daisies along to Anne Campbell's surgery in Stretten Avenue. She is extremely supportive of the aims of Early Day Motion 559 to press for changes to the Wildlife laws. She accepted our daisies and wrote to all the signatories to show her support.

On the Day of Action itself, 20,000 daisies were signed nationwide.

Following this Day of Action, the Chain of Protection is being massively expanded. FOE daisies have been distributed in both Earth Matters and BBC WIldlife Magazine (distribution 100,000), not to mention the newsletters of numerous local groups and other organisations.

The Daisy Chain is a vital part of the FOE campaign to get stronger legal protection for wildlife, especially for the nation's most important wildlife areas, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI's). The Labour General Election Manifesto included a commitment to give 'greater protection to wildlife'. To this same end, FOE are launching a new Wildlife Bill sponsored by David Lepper MP. With pressure already being applied to MPs (almost 300 have signed EDM 559 supporting the general principles outlined in the Wildlife Charter), it is time to make sure the Government, and particularly Number 10, were made aware of how strong public feeling is on this issue, and how popular strong new laws would be. Getting the enclosed cards signed is an important step towards demonstrating this. These new daisy chains are not the same as those distributed in April, which were primarily aimed at your locaL MP, so people who signed the earlier version can sign these new ones too.

James Murray

APPLE DAY GOES PEAR-SHAPED

The Campaign for Real Food

If you were brave enough - or foolish enough -to face the cold, dull, wet, windy Saturday morning of 24th October to go in to the city centre, you may have been greeted by a peculiar spectacle. The wicked Queen was trying to tempt Snow White with a poisoned (well, it was pretty unhealthy-looking) apple, on the doorstep of the Guildhall. What were they up to, you may well ask (it wasn't really an assassination attempt on Snow White). It was Cambridge FOE up to another of their little stunts. Unfortunately the weather was so bad, that everyone was too anxious to get their shopping done and get home, to stop to talk to us. I doubt if we would have got any attention even if we had the seven dwarves in tow. To top it all, the ever-dependable Cambridge Evening News team didn't even turn up (what a surprise). Anyway, if you were one of the afore-mentioned anxious shoppers (or even if you weren't), you can sit back in the comfort of your own home now and read all about it. I must warn you, it makes depressing reading.

The stunt was our contributon to Apple Day. Our main objectives were to highlight the use of pesticides on apple crops and the lack of information available to consumers.

Other objectives were:

to highlight the lack of consumer choice and loss of varieties in the UK;

to highlight the loss of orchards in the UK due to EU common Agricultural Policy.

Pesticides

In March 1997, the Government's Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Jeremy Metter, reiterated the long standing advice that "consumers should wash fruit before eating it, and while peeling fruit is a matter of choice, it is a sensible additional precaution when preparing fruit for small children" (MAFF Food Safety Information Bulletin, March 1997). None of the major supermarkets tell the consumers this advise - there is no legal obligation to do so. The internationally agreed standard for pesticide residue levels in fruit is the Maximum Residue Level (MRL). These standards are used primarily to ensure that pesticides are used in the approved manner. The MRL are well above what is considered to be safe. Also, the effects of levels of single pesticides in isolation only are considered, and the effects of different cocktails of pesticides is not assessed.

Recent research reveals that pesticide residues in individual items are variable and can go over safety levels for children. Testing methods used give an average result for bulk samples which can mask high results for individual fruits. Also, the number of samples taken is small (in 1995, 73 samples were taken of all apples. Individual children may eat hundreds of apples every year.

Limitations of Safety Tests

Pesticide safety testing is based on dose related responses in test animals. However, it is well known that different species react differently to a specific compound. Many products have not been tested for their ability to disrupt hormone function in humans or wildlife, which can take place at concentrations well below the current MRL's. Also, pesticides can still be present at concentrations below the level of detection, and can still be biologically active at these levels.

Use of Pesticides

The main pesticides sprayed on UK apples are fungicides and insecticides. The insecticides include lindane, organophosphates, (OPs), and carbamates. In 1992, lindane was sprayed on 8% of dessert apples. In 1995: 62% of UK grown apples contained pesticide residues; 13% of UK apples had carbamate residues;

8% of UK apples contained residues of 3 different pesticides; one sample of UK apples had chlorpyrifos at the MRL level; 80% of imported apples contained pesticide residues; 21% of imported apples contained OP residues; one imported sample had residues of 5 different pesticides including 3 OPs. In 1996, lindane was being sprayed on all types of apples. Fungicides were extensively used to prevent scab which only effects the appearance of the apple. 24% of fungicides applied to the Cox crop and 29% of fungicides applied to Bramleys were for this purpose.

Risks to Health

A number of dithiocarbamate fungicides, used on UK grown apples, have been shown to be possible carcinogens. Both OPs and carbamates are nerve poisons. The evidence from sheep farmers exposed to OPs in sheep dips suggests that exposure to very low levels over a period of time can result in damage to the nervous system. Lindane has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies. The environment Agency has listed it as a hormone disrupting chemical. Organic apples are hard to find. There are only 510 hectares of top fruit (ie. apples, pears, plums and cherries) registered as organic in the UK.

Loss of varieties

In the past, Britain has grown over 6,000 varieties of apples. However, breeders of new varieties have concentrated on keeping quality and yields instead of taste and nutrition (eg the modern Golden Delicious has a greatly diminished vitamin C content compared with the original variety). Supermarkets have created a demand for uniform blemish-free apples that keep well under strong instore lighting. Apple growers comply with these demands and grow a limited range of 9 varieties which meet them.

The UK has also lost a third of its orchards since the 1960's. Agricultural subsidies under the EU Common Agricultural Policy has made arable crops more profitable than orchards, and has supported removing them.

Conclusions

The result of these policies is that we have a limited choice of home grown apples, and a fair proportion of these contain residues. The same is true for imported apples.

Apple Day

The aim of Apple Day was to inform the public of what is in their food, and to start the debate about how food should be grown. We have to challenge the belief that there is no other way to farm besides using chemicals.

In the long term we want to see all pesticides banned from farming so that water and food are free of contamination and the biodiversity of soil and farmland is maintained and enhanced. Our immediate target is for a ban on Lindane.

So what can you do?

Write to your local supermarket manager.

Ask why they are hiding Government advice from customers. Tell them you want all their produce to be pesticide free.

Write to your MP.

Ask why the Governmemt has failed to make its advice public. Demand a programme of action to eliminate pesticide residues.

Buy locally grown organic apples.

If your shop does not sell affordable local organic food, then insist they do.

For more information write to the Campaign for Real Food at National Friends of the Earth.

James Murray

SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Guided tour

In July this year the Biodiversity Campaign Group visited Fulbourn Fen Nature Reserve where they were given a fascinating guided tour by Don Davies, the Reserves Manager of the Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust. The Wildlife Trust have managed this reserve for 30 years on behalf of the Townley Family. Although it is privately owned it is open to the public during daylight hours. It is the most varied SSSI in South Cambridgeshire and one of the largest - 20 acres. It consists of a mixture of woodland - a small part of this is ancient woodland, ancient grassland, and wet marshland:

Ansett's Wood. The rather unattractively named 'stinking iris' is one of the inhabitants of parts of this woodland and is an indicator of the remains of ancient woodland. Apart from this there is a variety of plants and trees typical of secondary woodland - sycamore, beech, oak, elder, hazel, dogwood and spruce. I was excited to learn that there are also some elm saplings - trying to make a comeback since Dutch Elm Disease all but wiped them out in the seventies. The Reserve volunteers do some coppicing here; the hazel is used for thatching pins.

Ancient Grassland. The indication that some of the grassland is unimproved, calcareous grassland lies in the types of plants that it supports - these include agrimony, selfheal and dwarf thistle. There are also 7 different kinds of grasses and a delicate yellow flower with a pretty name - ladies' bedstraw.

Ox Meadow. A local farmer pays for the grazing rights here. Grazing allows certain plants to grow: e.g. ploughman's spikenard and marsh orchid. For these to succeed the grazier must be willing to agree to put his cattle on the land at the right time i.e. after the seeds have set, towards the end of June.

Marsh Land. There are two low-lying marshy fields, East Fen and Long Fen. East Fen is the wetter - even though it is not as wet as it used to be, thanks to the ever-increasing demand for water. Whereas there used to be 6,000 marsh orchids, the number is now down to 400. You can also find marsh thistle, knapweed, meadow sweet, and yellow wort.

The Pond. Dug 20 years ago, this pond contains both great crested and smooth newts. It gets recharged 4 times a day by Anglian Water.

4 Acre Field. More unimproved grassland - in need of scrub clearance (note: the Trust always needs volunteers for scrub clearance. Anyone interested should give them a call).

Postscript: In October the Trust won a grant of £4,500 to pay for an automatic pumping device which will allow the water which is pumped into the pond to be also routed onto the marshland. This should give a much-needed boost to the orchid population.

Christina Marshall

GMOS

GENE BEAST

Shoppers at the Coldham's Lane branch of Sainsbury's on Wednesday 11th November, got a lot more than they bargained for when they met the Gene Beast and friends outside the store. GB, otherwise known as 'Strawberry Head' visited Cambridge, on his nationwide tour of Sainsbury's stores, to highlight the views of shoppers concerned about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's).

A recent NOP survey, commissioned by National Friends of the Earth, showed that 54% of Sainsbury's customers do not want genetically modified food.

Inviting customers to sign our Concerned Shopper GMO slips, requesting Sainsbury's to remove foods derived from GMO's from their shelves, we encountered very little opposition to our presence, even from the Sainsbury's staff themselves. The stores manager greeted us, saying that we were welcome, as long as we didn't hassle the customers, this being hardly necessary since we managed to collect about one signature for every minute we were there!

A smaller group tackled shoppers in the city centre branch of Sainsbury's, in the afternoon, bringing our total number of signatures to 75.

The completed slips have been photocopied and sent to each of the Cambridge stores and also to Sainsbury's head office.

P.S. Lucy is standing down as GMO campaigner for CamFOE, from the end of December. Any takers for the job?

Lucy Agate

GENETIX FILES

Genetic Food Facing a Crisis in UK and Germany

Monsanto, the world's largest biotechnology company, is facing a public crisis of confidence in both Britain and Germany.

Documents leaked to Greenpeace, from within the company, show that the company is now considering crisis management strategies to deal with the public's perception of genetically modified food. In addition, Monsanto's latest polls show that an earlier collapse of support for GM food has now intensified, despite the £1 million newspaper advertising campaign the company ran earlier in the year.

Whilst many independent polls have shown the British public to be wary of the introduction of GM food, this is the first public sign that Monsanto is worried.

A company spokesman stated that although Monsanto "was not at the moment considering pulling out" of either country, it was concerned about the situation.

Futhermore, Monsanto's strategy in Britain is shown, in the documents, to have been to try to persuade the "socio-economic elite" of the benefits of the technology, so that they would in turn persuade others of the benefits of GM food. This may explain why the only groups in Britain to have shown growing support for GM food are senior civil servants and mostly Labour MPs, many of whom Monsanto is known to have met.

Ian Ralls

Ministry of Agriculture Chickens Out

The Ministry of Agriculture has finally bowed to pressure from the biotechnology industry and abandoned plans to insist on full-scale crop trials for genetically modified crops. New regulations are being rushed through Parliament to halve the number of trials needed to test new plant and seed varieties, drastically cutting the amount of information collected by the Ministry before the crops can go on sale to farmers. The introduction of these regulations follow the threat of legal action from the biotechnology industry - and are contrary to the Government's original intention to regulate the introduction of new varieties. Objections to government plans have been lodged by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Lincolnshire Seed Growers' Association and Friends of the Earth. But Lord Donoughue, parliamentary under-secretary at MAFF, has overruled complaints by tabling the regulations. The Liberal Democrats are to try to block the changes, and objections to the Government's new regulations are to be tabled by Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes. Mr Baker said yesterday: "There is a case for more tests on new genetically modified seeds, not fewer." The new rules abolish the need for seed trials to be replicated - causing concern in the NFU that new varieties could be grown in Britain based on foreign trials. Pete Riley, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "Genetic engineering is a new and still unpredictable technology. To halve the amount of data needed is not only weak but in total contempt of public concern."

This article was based on an article in the Guardian, 18th November.

Ian Ralls

GM Herbicide Resistance Problems - Sustainability Myth Shattered

A report concerning a new contact herbicide released by Zeneca in Canada earlier this year suggests that the claims of GM crops promoting more sustainable agriculture are somewhat misleading.

Zeneca is marketing this product as an effective way of controlling GM crop volunteers (unwanted plants growing from seed remaining in the field from the previous crop) which have been genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup and are therefore no longer controllable using glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup.

It is significant that this represents a formal acknowledgement by a biotechnology company that GM herbicide resistance has now become an agronomic problem for farmers. It is also a defacto admission that the introduction of GM herbicide resistant crops will necessitate the use of a wider range of chemicals in agriculture.

The need to use additional chemicals in order to control volunteers from harvested crops of its own glufosinate-ammonium tolerant "Liberty Link" varieties has also previously been acknowledged by Pierre-Louis Dupont, AgrEvo's European head of marketing. "However, in the case of Liberty Link products, farmers will be using a chemical which is not currently used for volunteer control."(Farmers Weekly 13th March 1998).

The issue of the sustainable use of chemicals in agriculture is not simply one of quantities used, but also one of the range utilised. The wider the range used, the wider the range of species potentially adversely affected. From this perspective it is difficult to see how biotechnology companies can justify their claim that the use of herbicide resistant GM crops provides a useful contribution towards sustainability.

This article was based on information provided by the Natural Law Party Wessex.

Ian Ralls

Top



E-mail:camfoe@telinco.co.uk		comfybadger

Home