Use your BACK button to return to article index.

Dear Secretary of State,

FORMAL COMPLAINT - CONDUCT: FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY

You will be aware of the unique hazards posed by Syngenta's Bt10 maize,
which 'inadvertently" entered the global food chain on a large scale
over a period of at least 4 years, culminating in public disclosure of 
the incident in the spring of 2005.

We have seen some of the material released to GM Freeze under the
Environmental Information Regulations, and the following points are
clear to us:

1. FSA did not initially put out a statement on the Bt10 incident
because it did not treat it as a high priority.

2. FSA and DEFRA both accepted (on the basis of evidence that we have
not seen) at a very early stage that Bt10 had already been imported
into the UK.

3. From the discussions on the wording of responses to my colleague Dr
Brian John, it is clear that both FSA and DEFRA accepted that Bt10
could be contained in both the human food chain and the animal feed
chain.

4. Both DEFRA and FSA accepted at an early stage that "the presence
of Bt10 in Bt11 should not have occurred as it has not been approved
for food/feed use, and the company responsible has clearly been
negligent."

5. Neither DEFRA nor FSA have disputed the essential facts relating to
Bt10, contained in our messages of 24th March and 30th March 2005. 
These facts include the presence of an ampicillin antibiotic marker
gene, a different promoter from that involved in Bt11, the inclusion of
lepidopteran toxin Cry1Ab, and genetic constructs designed to provide
resistance to Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) herbicide. In our book,
that gives Bt10 a very large potential for doing harm.

6. Neither DEFRA nor FSA has provided any evidence that the (highly
inadequate) characterization provided by Syngenta and used for the
design of the mysterious GeneScan Bt10 testing protocol was not
specifically designed to generate false negatives.

7. Neither of the government bodies concerned here has reacted to 
Syngenta's negligent and despicable behaviour from the beginning of
this incident, and there has been no mention of legal action or any
other attempt at the recovery of costs (which must amount to millions
of pounds) from Syngenta.

8. Neither DEFRA nor FSA has sought any evidence from Syngenta that
Bt10 has been stable and uniform over ten years (1).

In our dealings with the FSA and DEFRA we have been open, honest, and
quite straightforward, in continually communicating our concerns about
the unique threat to the human food chain posed by the possible
presence of illegal Bt10 maize. When we originally voiced our concerns
in March 2005 we were assured in press releases and in statements to
the media that the matter was fully under control and that there was no
cause for concern.

However, we now have evidence that, rather than acting in a responsible
manner regarding the exceptional (and internally recognized) 
hazard posed by Bt10, both FSA and DEFRA decided to diminish the 
significance of the incident and to craft carefully worded statements
in a "public reassurance exercise." We refer here to a wilful 
misrepresentation of the facts since FSA indeed believed in March 2005 
that Bt10 had been imported, and DEFRA knew this. Additionally, FSA 
very belatedly became involved in a public relations exercise, last 
autumn, by taking 19 samples throughout the UK which might be tested
for Bt10. This was of course far too late for any realistic chance of 
picking up Bt10 contamination in food or feed.

We trust that you will now instigate a full investigation into this
catalogue of deceptions, manipulations, and evasions of
responsibility, prior to the departure, in April, of Dr Jon Bell from his
post of
Chief Executive of the FSA . These actions (or lack of them)
have certainly placed the public at risk, and fall far short of the
standards we expect from our civil servants.

As you will see we have copied this letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman
for her infomation.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Panton
GMFree Cymru

Note: (1) We have frequently reminded FSA, EFSA and DEFRA that Bt10
was developed around 1995 by the Northrup-King Company, and that some
American scientists are convinced that it has changed character over
the course of ten years. In other words, we claim that it is
inherently unstable, and a "failed" variety. This is why it was not
"spotted" by Syngenta scientists until it was already well into the
food chain. If the Bt10 samples provided to the testing laboratory
were recent ones, and the test designed to pick up traces of this 
"modern" Bt10, it follows that "older" versions of Bt10 already in the 
food and feed marketplace would not be picked up no matter how much 
sampling and testing might be done. If Bt10 maize really is proved to be
unstable, that would be a matter of massive scientific and commercial 
significance, and that explains why the regulatory bodies prefer not to 
think about it, let alone protect us from its consequences.