Peter Melchett - arrested for removing GM crop
Owen Davies continued to question Peter Melchett throughout the morning: the
main areas covered were concerns that Peter Melchett and Greenpeace had
about (i) GM technology, (ii) field trials, (iii) the lead-up to the planning and
carrying out of the action itself.
(With reference to Ms Jordan's comments yesterday that Greenpeace had made
no submissions to AgrEvo about buffer zone reviews, Peter Melchett mentioned
a letter from a member of the Greenpeace GM team, Sarah North, which had
been sent to Glenda Townsend at MAFF, dated 27 June 2000, entitled "Re:
Review of separation distances").
Peter Melchett explained that since the objective of Greenpeace was to protect
the environment, it would want any new technology to be fully tested to see if
it was safe, before it was released into the environment. He told the jury that
this approach is referred to as the "precautionary principle". He added that for
those who believed that it was impossible to test fully whether GM crops and
food were safe, a term had been adopted in the US and Europe to describe the
situation where, if something is more or less the same as a food stuff or crop
we already have, there is no point in testing it since it is pretty much the same:
this was "substantial equivalence". Melchett explained that Greenpeace
disagreed with the latter idea in this case, since it is generally agreed that GM
is a revolutionary, new technology.
Earlier Greenpeace campaigns regarding GM were then described: Melchett
said that in 1995-96 the US was growing GM soya and maize, mixing it with
non-GM produce, and using it in over 60% of processed food, and Greenpeace
had highlighted the issue since this was done without consequent labelling, and
therefore without customer choice. This resulted in Iceland Frozen Foods
deciding to remove all GM material from their produce - and by the beginning
of 1999 all the big supermarkets had announced that they were starting to do
this too (including Sainsbury's, M&S and Tesco). Melchett said that it seemed
that if nobody wanted to buy or sell GM food, then farmers would not need to
grow it. Greenpeace had taken measures to discover what public opinion was
via local volunteer conversations with supermarket shoppers and managers.
Questioned about the introduction of the field trials, Melchett said that he had
first heard about them in late spring/early summer 1999, when Michael
Meacher had conformed to European rules and told people where the crops
were - Peter Melchett added that "that was after they had been planted". He
added that the Scientific Steering Committee was formed "definitely after the
crops of 1999 were planted" and that to his knowledge there had been no
scientific intervention in the planting of the GM maize at Walnut Tree Farm -the
contact was made simply between the agrochemical company and the
farmer. Melchett emphasised that these trials in general were not testing for
effects on human health, but, as Ms Jordan had said, were testing the effects of
a certain herbicide, "and that's all". The Steering Committee had said in 1999
that pollen flow and the gene flow aspects of GM technology were not being
researched either. But, Melchett added, the field trials came anyway, after
crisis meetings that the GM industry held with the Government following the
decision of major supermarkets not to sell any food containing GM produce.
In response to Davies's questions about the public meeting held at Lyng, Peter
Melchett told the jury that it had been organised by two local women, who
were neither subscribers nor members of Greenpeace and who had no previous
campaigning experience. He said the meeting had taken place on a beautiful
summer's evening in a hall that was "nevertheless full, over-flowing, with
people leaning in at the windows trying to hear what was happeningﾅ It was
astonishing."
He had been invited to speak alongside Mr Brigham, a representative from
AgrEvo, and Sue Mayer, an independent scientist. Melchett said at the meeting
that "I believed firmly and clearly that the crop should be destroyed and should
be destroyed immediately." He had learned new information from some of the
local people at Lyng at the meeting that the GM material might also be spread
by deer moving in and out of the crop, and that the local allotments and
smallholdings were also at risk of GM contamination. Melchett told the jury
that the meeting was "emotionalﾅ I felt disturbed, angry and upset by it." It
was after this that he had written to Mr Brigham, although he was aware that
the crop was the property of AgrEvo rather than the farmer himself.
About the action itself, Melchett told the jury that other options than direct
action had been explored, including an idea of covering up the crop to make
the area safe. It had been decided that due to the possibility of material
leaching into the soil, this would not in fact be a safe or practical option. It was
decided by both Jane Wildblood, Greenpeace's Campaign Programme Director,
and Peter Melchett that the removal of the crop, its bagging up, and its safe
delivery back to the company responsible for it (AgrEvo) would not be
attempted unless the whole field could be cleared, and so preparations had
been undertaken to acquire machinery and volunteers with the appropriate
ability to be capable of this. It was calculated with the machinery they had
that they would be able to remove the crop within a day. The Unimog mower
would be able to cut down the crop within one hour (it had in fact removed two
of the six acres in the ten minutes before it was stopped) leaving the rest of
the day for the removal and delivery of the crop.
Owen Davies then concentrated on the appearance of the Greenpeace logo on
the suits worn by the volunteers. The presence of a journalist at the site and
the video of the action. Peter Melchett explained that the white suits with the
Greenpeace logo on were worn for four main reasons: (i) so that everyone
knew it was Greenpeace; that Greenpeace was "absolutely openﾅ never hides
who it is"; ii) so that if police were to be called and could see the Greenpeace
sign, they would then know that the circumstances would be non-violent, so it
would be a way of "lowering the temperature"; (iii) so that if allegations were
to be made that someone had done something violent, Greenpeace would not
be implicated or wrongly accused if they were clearly identified whilst working
peacefully; (iv) as a safety precaution - the crop was over head height and the
suits made the volunteers clearly visible.
Peter Melchett was then cross-examined by the prosecution. Mr Farmer asked
Peter Melchett repeatedly whether these trials had given him "a wonderful
platform for Greenpeace's views". Peter Melchett replied, "I find the
experience of being charged with a serious offence disturbing and quite
frightening and don't find it a wonderful platform for anything." Farmer asked
whether the video and photographs taken on behalf of Greenpeace of the
events were released on the same day, and Melchett answered that they were
for reasons of security, record and protection.
Asked by Mr Farmer if he saw himself as a privileged person, Melchett replied,
"I certainly feel very privileged to work for Greenpeace and to do the job I do."
In response to Farmer's questions about whether he knew certain politicians
personally, Peter Melchett told the jury that he had never used personal
friendships to "pull strings". Farmer finally asked why Greenpeace had not
removed all of the crops from all the field-scale trials. Peter Melchett replied,
"If we weren't able to do everything, it didn't mean we should do nothing."
The trial continues tomorrow.
