Written evidence submitted by Miss Tessa Burrington (TSB0080)

I am a concerned individual. I would like to make a short comment regarding the forthcoming evidence giving session on Tuesday 15 September 2015. I would like to comment on funding for GM technologies in relation to funding for Agroecological research.

I would like to remind the Committee that significant numbers of the voting public are of the opinion that the “establishment” Science community is rushing too fast ahead in its unbalanced approach with respect to the perceived positives of GM technologies and giving bad advice to the Government in its haste.

With regard to the following document signed by Sir Mark Walport, I would like to express my concerns.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288823/cst-14-634-gm-technologies.pdf  November 2013

I would question the substance of this document and remind the Committee that there are numerous counter arguments and opposing opinions regarding the funding importance for GM technologies. I would propose therefore that Agricultural research in the UK is heading off on the wrong path and that this is of concern to the public and the tax payer.

Without a more balanced scientific and ethical approach, the dangers to the environment, such as cross contamination will not be acknowledged and understood by those researching a narrow field[1]. Also I would query the reference to “tolerance of specific weed killers”.

I would like to ask the Committee to look at the work of Miguel Altieri, Professor of Agroecology and consider the issues raised by Steven Druker[2] before deciding how to fund GM technologies. There are also curriculum considerations.

There are Food Sovereignty[3] issues to consider such as land grab, public opposition to the Trade Deals and geopolitical implications[4]. I think more questions need to be asked about the “Eight Great Technologies and fiscal incentive policies for research investment” detailed in this Inquiry’s terms of reference[5]. The democratic, ethical and sustainability implications still need to be debated.

Defence

With regard to the Science budget and defence, I would also like to ask the Committee to look at the work of Scientists for Global Responsibility[6] on Conflict Resolution funding.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

September 2015