Note 1 "I shall vote in favour of a directive which gives consumers"

Are you aware that " The vast majority of people believe that labelling of GM food is essential and parents remain adamant they would prefer not to feed it to their children." "when it came to labelling, 76% backed the EU position that consumers should be told products contained GM ingredients and only 6% supported the US position that labelling should not be compulsory, with 20% having no preference either way."
[Paul Brown, environment correspondent for The Guardian - Monday May 06 2002]

Can you tell me how many "consumers" wrote to you in support of the 1% contamination.?

Note 2 "information that is verifiable"

How can anyone verify the quantity or type of GM material in authorised products and moreso where the existance is an unauthorised contamination. Clearly the GM producer is unlikely to co-operate in a market where "parents remain adamant they would prefer not to feed it to their children". Further, wholesalers, retailers and consumers are unlikely to be able to undertake suitable analysis. Likewise the Government, probably won't do it "given the extent of the EU's international trade in food and feed"; and given the amount of U-turns I have witnessed the present Labour and earlier Conservative led Parliaments make, I doubt any elector will seriously trust either. So unless electors do have a continuous, fully informed choice, unfetered by the WTO the USA and TRIPS we are doomed to a business driven morality that has no care for electors' or individuals' concerns.

We may as well come clean and admit we have a fascist regime where 'might is right'.

Note 3 "and meaningful"

In your letter you say "I am in favour of a rule which would require labelling for products containing more that 1% GM material."

This is a major example of the type of language that shows at best concern, as you put it, for international trade "a level which is likely to be more internationally acceptable than any lower level" and a quagmire for any relatively inteligent analyst.

The problem focuses on the value "1%" and the variable "material".

Your statement that "I am in favour of a rule which would require labelling for products containing more that 1% GM material. I regard this as a level which expert advice has shown to reflect the possibilities of modern technology," seems contrary to the Commissions assertion that 0.5% is a measurable content, how else could they promote such a level? Further if the bio-tech engineers can select individual genes and transplant them they can obviously detect individual genes. The claim that single genes cannot be detected is clearly a lie. What you are saying is that the creators of these new life forms do not wish to be responsible for them. See Percy Scmizter and *****. More worrying is that 'Politicians' are in concert with such lack of accountability and support it with misrepresentations, knowingly or otherwise.

Lets consider the use of the word 'material' in your context in an example of tomatoes.

The material content of 100g of tomato is 100g, yet the total protien is less than 1%. Given your recomendations of "a rule which would require labelling for products containing more that 1% GM material. As the inserted, alien gene is only a small percentage of the protien and the total protien is less than 1%, there will be no requirement to label GM tomatoes.

With the knowledge that the GM gene is only a small part of the proteinn even 0.5% would have absolutely no control over labelling of tomatoes and many other products.

It's bad enough that the GM would be present and consumers wouldn't know, but in the example of tomatoes, as they are built with fish genes the bodies and minds of strict vegetarians, for religious or other reasons, will violated and abused. Do you really think this is reasonable for the sake of international trade?

My earlier correspondence clearly pointed this out, but you have failed to address this obvious lack of concern by the legisaltors.

So where is the meaninfullness in such 'aventitious' allowances?

Pop goes the precautionary principal!!!

Note 4 "The European Union should not"

Surely you mean you don't want the European Union to have certain objectives. To say they "should not" implies you have little regard for the what the citizens(consumers) want. Assuming the European Union's objectives are to promote the citizens wishes rather than that of the bio-tech dictators to keep their hold on the positions of power they dwell on I would expect you to support their Directives in this 'Might is Right' so called democracy.

Note 5 "The idea of a labelling system to indicate that GM material may have been used in the production of a product which does not contain GM material in it's final form is wholly disproportionate, and an open invitation to fraud."

The issue here is again consumer information and choice. There are two clear views. That of the WTO (the USA) which bans boycotes of products for ethical, religious etc. and consumer choice to buy products not just on the basis of enjoyment of the end product 'The ends justifies the means' but enjoyment of the method. "enjoy the walk not the destination". Surely with growing concern for the environment the second is becoming the acknowledged option.

So why is it disproportionate for the comsumer to want to know how, why and where and what effect their purchases have. I have no idea what problem you imagine by 'fraud'. There's always fraud.

Monsanto, one of the great GM supporters have been found guilty of " “Malicious Outrage”. That charge according to the former Attorney General of Alabama is reserved for crimes that “are incomprehensible for a civilized being to commit”" see Appendix 1 posted on www.monsantowatch.org.uk/usa/anniston/ <Anniston>. With Monsanto getting support from many quaters who do you think is going to commit any fraud to compare.

Anyway the legislation isn't designed to stop fraud and contamination but to give authority to check, compensate, clean-up and fine the perputrators when caught.

Why do have a problem with full accountability?

Note 6 "I am in favour of a rule which would require labelling for products containing more that 1% GM material. I regard this as a level which expert advice has shown to reflect the possibilities of modern technology,"

Please see Note 3 para.2 Your statement that "I am in favour of....."

Note 7 "It is also a level which is likely to be more internationally acceptable than any lower level, and this is an important consideration given the extent of the EU's international trade in food and feed."

Please see Note 2

Note 8 "I oppose the idea that there should be a requirement for the labelling of products from animals fed GM feed. This too would be unenforceable."

No rule of law is enforceable, we have many violent crimes and so it will always be open to the bio-tech pushers to break the law - they already do - do I have to detail the amount of times they already have.

The purpose of the legislation is that the polluter pays. I.e where it can be shown that there is contaminantion of foodstuffs or any other part of the environment then the creator of the GMO should be responsible for compensation and effective clean-up.

It is no use asking a farmer to compensate his neighbour for GM drift if the Government has chosen to use the excuse that the GMO manufactures and so called independent sceientists have said such drift couldn't happen. It does and it will increase exponentially. I want a law that will draw account from the creators of such bio-contamination. The Government will never pay for such contamination, even if they are responsible for passing legislation that permits it. Why should they? After all the Government funds are the electors, and I don't want to pay for Monsanto's genetic disasters.

To call this a bio-war is not outrageous, for comapanies like Monasnto are out to change the face of not just agriculture - a biological business - but the consumers choice in food and environment, wether the electors want it or not. Who's going to stop them or control their onslaught. Cleary not the elected Government if your proposals are anything to go by - not that the 0.5% camp will make much difference unless they further try and reduce the acceptable level to zero..

To think that consumers are not intersted in what their animals have been fed is unreasonable and likely to be an error. The main issue is that it becomes an other area of genetic exploitation that has no monitoring. The genes will pass to ohter animals and animal products. The fact that there is little evidence to say so is due to lack of looking. The genes do not just disapear into thin air.

I read in newpapers, some months ago, that gene transfer had happened between animals - I shall try and find the report.

Note 9 "While defending the need for consumers"

This statement shows how out of touch you may be with the consumers, most don't want GMOs at all. You clearly don't support their wishes yet presume to know what they need. As an elected person I would hope you represent the electors not presume that you can lead them to your own desires. The electors do not claim to need GMO's let alone defending their need for your ideas of international trade beased levels of compromise'. They just don't want GMO's.

It appears that you are defending the GMO proliferators - a minoirty of power-heads.

At this point I must clarify that it is not the GM architects that are causing any problem but the application of the sceince in a profit only concern. Such people think the ends justify the means and will do whatever they can to reach their goal. I would like them stopped - now.

The issue of global contamination is being side-stepped by the argument over how much contamination to allow (see Insert 1 below). It's contaminantion that causes the problem. Although contamination via 'food and feed' is likely to be small compared to that of drift etc.

See Percy etc.

Accountability for small things is the way forward - 'look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves'. If we can get accountablity for contamination of GM material in food and feed, we may be able to control the spread of GM material. If we cant do that we can't stop a continual increase in contamination and bio-warfare by stealth. "adventitious or technically unavoidable" contamination should still be the responsibility of the producer not the public or Governement. There is the technology to avoid contamination. To say it's technologically impossible is to say there is not the will to control the spread of unwanted GM material. The public have the desire and the bio-tech companies have the technology, why do you not see they can work together?

At this point I shall digress and exploit the Euro-Monetary issue - partly for light relief.

My main argument against accepting the Euro is not the idea of a co-operative monetary system but the notes. They are ugly.

Each note has a bridge on it, some great symbolism of joining together no doubt. Yet look at the bridges. The smaller the notes the older the bridges. The 5€ having a pretty old stone simple arched bridge with the 500€ having all straight lines of some undefined technological engineering.

This equates, if money has such value, that more money means more technology means more good.

Wrong! More does not mean good.

In comparison our UK notes all have three or four or more differnce living beings on them, the Euros have none they are dead. We already have Scottish, and had Irish, notes. Using those other notes gave me a feelijng of being part of co-operative Soverign States. The pictorial deatils on the national notes reminding me of the tolerance needed to co-operate and the variety of cultures of the peoples in that co-operation.

If we do decide to join the Euro lets just have parity and keep the notes. It must be cheaper to tell the rest of Europeans that UK notes are valid tender than to withdraw them and produce another load. I'm sure there are other excuses for the new notes but it would be nice to see Francs, Drachmas, Deutchmarks, and Lire etc. Handling is like playing monopoly with Mickey Mouse Money.

We might as well have the real dollar in Europe not some Euro-Disney currency.

Ah well, back to the facist games of the destruction of our bio-sphere and gene pool, based on the same 'big busines wants to rule the world mentality'.

Note 10 "There is no evidence from those countries where GM food and feed are allowed of any danger to human or animal health."

There are many claims contrary to your assertions, that they have not been accepted yet by the scientific comminity does not mean they won't in due course as has been , DDT, PCB's Agent Orange etc. all produced by Monsanto with government scientist backing. Not surprising as Monsanto executives are intricatly woven into the fabric of the USA governement. See Appendix 2

Note 11 "I have confidence in the scientific assessment for safety purposes of such products. "

Please explain to me why in this case you have such confidence in the "scientific assesssment" when not only have Monsanto been repeatedly wrong but we have Thalidomide and BJC in the UK for ecample: only a small example of the plethora of misrepresentaion by British scientist.

Note 12 "Mankind eats and has eaten foods from animals and plants which are constantly evolving."

Whereas your statement is a matter of fact, it is inappropriate to use such an obvious argument. People have been poisoned by plants and animal products since the first consumpion of an apple, aledgedly. And true we continue to evolve and mutate and most surive the ever-changing environment. The worst we have presently are political boundaries that obstruct the hungry from migrating to areas where they could grow food. There is plenty of land, it is just uneconomcally used and fenced with aggresion.

The high rate of mutation/evolotion inspired by fear, power and greed, forced upon the whole environment, irrespective of political boudaries, via enhanced plants that already destroy indeginous species is not the same slow constant evolution we are used to. We can hardly control introduced plants such as Giant Hogweed, Japanesse Knotweed and Himalyan Balsam, how do you propose we control plants that are imune to glyphoste, the one obnoxious chemical that is used against these invasive plants, if they are designed to survive it. Even more tradition herbicides are proving less effective aginst the new GM strains.

Note 13 "GM technology is another man-driven and science-facilitated, step in this process."
Hardly a step compared to the preceding 'evolotion'. We are not witnessing here the the breath of another child being born but the immenent storms from the belching of the a Monster incomparable to anything the human species has witnessed. Even the storms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will seem like summer hot spots if the biosphere is polluted by the bad breath of the bio-tech dictators. Nuclear polltion does not replicate itself each disaster is localized in part, part to the immediate blast area and then to the air we breath but it stops there or it would if we stop tesing and nucelar power, but there's no stoping the spread of GM pollen etc. GM contamination of the environment is not a step but a slide in the destruction of bio-diversity.

Note 14 "I believe that GM food and feed could have significant advantages in the European context"
I am aware that you work for Europe and it's masters, elected and unelected but I am sure you will agree that is is only planetary concern that should be addressed here. What use is supporting the Europen branch of humaninty if the truck is neglected and dies from pollution, starvation and disease. The proliferation of GM materials and the asscocuated patents are stopping many from growing their chosen produce. See percy and India etc.

Note 15 "offering us the chance to develop less environmentally damaging forms of agriculture, with less use of pesticides and herbicides, and less use of artificial fertilisers."
This does not appear to be the case please see Appendix 3.

Note 16 "and still avoid consuming them if they wish so"
How do you come to that conclusion, when by your own words you say that a certain amount of contamination is acceptable for business reasons (1%). There will be fraudulent claims of freedom from GM materail and no legislation to make the polluter accountable. Then there is bound to be a general increase in pollutin and legisaltion wil follow the money and greater contaminantion levels will be permitted. I don't want it and it seems the public in general don't want it so where's the choice. The only choice is to swallow the poison or choke on complaining. Thanks a lot!

Already fish genes are in GE tomatoes so, as a strict vegetarian I avoid tomatoes unless they are from an accredited organic source, and even that has it's limits according to the catch all 1% above. It is of no comfort that not all tomatoes are effected or infected yet, as it is human nature to make errors in the pursuit of profit and more errors in the endeavour to make more profit. The competitiveness in the need to be richer and more powerful obviously ignores the wishes of those who have little ability to be heard. They are just stepped on and pushed aside with all the concern of a bull in a china shop.Time and time again people, and especially big businesses, show little or no regard for absolute integrity. Profit based businesses are only concerned with what a consumer will purchase, and so further 'legal', 'covert legal' and illegal contamination of foodstuffs is inevitable.

Unlike DDT, Agent Orange and other non GE pesticide contaminants GE contaminants will breed from one plant to another and in time will effect all wild examples of compatible species. Cultivated species presently rely on cross breeding with wild 'cousins' for evolution and variety. The future is one of less and less indegionous wild varieties to provide a versatile proven gene pool. Proven not by some sceintist few years of half-baked observations and experiments but by millenia of slow tolerance by other species.

There is also cross species contamination. A small number of cows have already been found to contain genes that although producing no obvious detriment are nonetheless sheep genes. Cross kingdom contamination already exists in the placement of animal genes into vegetation and so it just a matter of time before we experience the first 'accident' of cross kingdom transfer.

In our pursuit for person comfort and profit each of accepts that accidents will occur and sometimes these are fatal. With the exceptions of wars and plagues each of tolerates the risk of illness and death as a consequence of another's actions. However an interested party my ask for justice and compensation where a person or body can be shown to be responsible. How can multinational companies, who more financial power that many countries be held accountable not only for personal injury but global disruption of the ecosystem.

The present field trials and the actual results of wind blown and animal transported pollen do not agree. There is clear evidence that contamination does occur and can only increase with the current controls.

We cannot rely of companies like Monsanto to provide truthful or accurate information about the current contamination or future prospects as this would ruin their GM business. Note that Monsanto have recently been found guilty of the 'Worst PCB contamination in the World' . see www.monsantowatch.org.uk Add to that, that it was done in a populated area and that they hid the facts, known to them for decades, you can see that it is your 'job' to support the general pubic against such criminal activities.