Greenpeace 28 on trial
The re-trial of the Greenpeace 28 started today at Norwich Crown Court. Having been cleared of the charge of theft, the volunteers now stand trial for the charge of criminal damage. The morning having been spent selecting and nominating the jury, after lunch Mr John Farmer, acting on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, began the case for the prosecution.
Mr Farmer argued that the basic facts of this case are quite simple: that GM crops are grown in the UK, that there are now field-scale trials throughout the country, and that there are differing scientific opinions and research about the effects of these on adjacent lands.
Farmer told the jury that AgrEvo, now known as Aventis, provided seed, the farmer was responsible for raising the crop, the scientists were responsible for carrying out the research, and the farmer was paid a contract sum. He then mentioned that there were a number of people and organisations that were opposed to the field-scale trials, one of which was Greenpeace. Farmer told the jury that Peter Melchett, Executive Director of Greenpeace, had gone to speak at a meeting organised by people in Lyng and attended by "different persons of different persuasions" and that Melchett had then sent a letter to the farmer, Mr William Brigham, who was then growing AgrEvo's GM maize at Walnut Tree Farm in Lyng. Farmer quoted Melchett's statements in the letter that:
- a MORI poll had shown that 75% of the public don't want GM crops
- GM crops are a danger to organic and conventional farming
- wild deer could be passing on DNA in the GM pollen
- GM crops could significantly affect land values
This was described by Farmer as "the Greenpeace position". The letter concluded that "I do hope in all circumstances you will see the need for the crop to be removed before flowering".
Having described the action cursorily, Mr Farmer showed the jury some photographs of the site, the tipper truck, the bags meant for containing the contaminated crop, and said that the jury would later be shown a video of the action itself. He emphasised that the timing of the action was important because the GM maize was about to flower. Peter Melchett's statement on arrest was quoted: "The crop threatens a real and immediate danger to the environment".
Farmer's paraphrasing of the defence was that the defendants honestly believe that they were taking part in damaging the maize because there was property in need of immediate protection, and that taking part was a reasonable means of protecting other property. He described the case of the prosecution as "If you are losing the argument, to go round and destroy is not reasonable in a democratic society".
The first witness to be called was Ms Judith Jordan, Product Development Manager for Aventis (formerly AgrEvo). Ms Jordan described Aventis as "technology providers", and said that in her view genetic modification meant to infer herbicide tolerance to one specific herbicide within a plant. She said that AgrEvo - Aventis -produces the herbicide in question. Asked by the prosecution if the public were notified of the site locations for the field-scale trials, she said no, that forage maize fell under EU Directive 90-220 part C clearance; but it could be sold, so telling people about it was not necessary.
Owen Davies, QC, counsel for the defence, then questioned Ms Jordan. Asked if she was aware that certain countries such as Switzerland, Greece and Italy had banned the growth of GM crops, Ms Jordan said that she believed Switzerland simply did not have regulatory processes in place for such trials. Mr Davies asked whether the tests were carried out to find out the effects of eating the GM crops - Ms Jordan said no, that the safety tests had already been done, and that these trials were to investigate the effects of a herbicide. Davies asked Ms Jordan if she was aware that there was a concern that the growth of GM crops in the open environment might release into the environment GM organisms which might have an "unpredictable or deleterious" effect on naturally occurring plants. She conceded that this was a concern. Then asked if GM material found in honey could de-value the honey of an organic farmer, Ms Jordan said "I can't speculate about that".
Mr Davies asked Ms Jordan if any consultation had been carried out with the local community prior to the planting of AgrEvo's crop in Mr Brigham's field. She explained that some local farmers had been invited to discuss relevant issues, along with their wives and children, but that none of these had been organic farmers.
Asked whether the 50-metre buffer zone was nonsense, Ms Jordan said that pollen must land on a female part in order to fertilise the plant, and compared pollen to a sperm cell, explaining that there was a chance of becoming pregnant from sitting on a toilet seat, but that she was not going to stop sitting on toilet seats because of the tiny risk of this. Mr Davies asked whether she could really compare that scenario to the huge clouds of pollen emanating from forage maize during pollination.
Owen Davies questioned Ms Jordan as to whether she was aware of any tests or examinations made in relation to the effects of the release of pollen - she replied "We would not have expected there to be an effect". He then asked Jordan about the effect of information that had come to the attention of the Government, suggesting that the Canadian company Advanta's seed crop had been contaminated by GM pollen from rape owned by Monsanto which had travelled further than so-called safe distances. This meant that the Government were having to review the distance of buffer zones; the Canadians had been using a buffer zone of 800 metres when the UK was using one of 200 metres.
