www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Sensible co-existence measures for genetically modified and non-GM crops
would avoid European farming becoming a technological backwater and
international laughing stock, April 2006 by Fordyce Maxwell Rural Affairs
Editor.

The claim came from the Supply Cham Initiative on Modified Agricultural
Crops (SCIMAC), representing farmers and the agricultural supply trade, when
lt published a ten-point plan for co-existence on the eve of an
international conference in Vienna this week.

Bob Fiddaman, chairman of SCIMAC and a farmer in Hertfordshire, said:
"Co-existence is about choice, not prejudice, and we will argue strongly at
the conference for practical arrangements grounded in reality.

Safety regulation and thresholds for GM crops were the Job of scientists and
politicians, he said, but SCIMAC represented parts of the supply cham, from
plant breeders and seed merchants through to farmers and grain handlers, who
will deal with GM and non-GM crop co-existence in practice.

He went on: Although the UK has yet to consult on co- existence, we have
watched with a mixture of disbelief and dismay as other member states have
blatantly sought to use the issue as a political barrier to the development
of GM crop technology."

That had included bans and threats of taxes and subsidy cuts for farmers
tempted to grow GM crops, he said, adding: With GM crops now grown on more
than 90 million hectares in 21 different countries, its hard to square that
progress with predictions that the technology would be history by 2004.

"Denying fair access to the same tools as our overseas competitors is like
asking us to compete with one hand tied behind our back. What was needed was
a chance for farmers to choose if they wanted to grow conventional, organic
or GM crops, he said. lt should not be treated, as it has been, as simply
pro-GM or anti-GM. Jim McLaren, union vice- president, said yesterday "At
last weve seen some common sense in a process which at times has been a
complete farce.

"Farmers were being asked to make commitments about their future water use
without knowing what future costs or rules would be."

But the struggle must go on to get some sense back into "a regulatory system
out of control, he added.

McLaren said: We have serious questions on why we have such a widespread and
complicated set of controls on water use when Scotland generaily does not
have a shortage of water. And where is the cost-benefit analysis on the
whole scheme? There seemed to be an unswerving presumption in favour of
regulation, followed by an attempt to find evidence to justify it - usually,
he said, evidence conspicuous by its absence.

[www.scotsman.com]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail