When the government announced on Wednesday that they were aiming to amend the Hunting Act, there was understandable outcry.

Hidden in the language of ‘flushing to guns’ and ‘a minor amendment’ was basically a cynical attempt to make it easier for hunts to chase and kill foxes. It would also make it harder for hunts to be convicted when they break the law.

Now we have seen the full details of what the government are proposing. And it’s a whole lot worse than we thought.

The changes to the Hunting Act are not minor or subtle, they are massive. This is not a ‘tweak’ to facilitate pest control, this is nothing short of repeal.

All of the exemptions to the Act have been altered to allow an unlimited number of dogs, not just the flushing exemption. So a full pack could be used to:

• Retrieve an injured or diseased animal
• Carry out research and observation
• Flush a mammal to waiting guns

What this means is that any hunt can go out with a full pack of dogs and just pick the exemption that suits them best on the day. They’ll never even have to have a gun present, they can claim to be carrying out observation. Or that they spotted a diseased fox or hare, or even deer, and were retrieving it to be shot, but, uh oh, the hounds killed it first.

What all this means is that prosecution under the Hunting Act will be extremely difficult, or even impossible.

The myth of ‘pest control’

They are also relaxing the exemption for terrier work, allowing it to be used to protect livestock as well as birds reared for shooting, and not requiring the perpetrators to carry written permission from landowners.

What is terrier work? This is the despicable practice of sending terrier dogs down under the ground to do battle with foxes who have escaped. You can only imagine the fear and the damage inflicted on both animals. This should be outlawed, full stop, but through this amendment the Government will make it legal.

For the record, do the arguments about ‘pest’ or ‘fox control’ have any substance? The main argument being used to justify this change is that farmers who need to kill foxes to protect their livestock cannot do it by only using two dogs to ‘flush to guns’ – that means chase the foxes from cover into a waiting shotgun.

In Scotland they can use an unlimited number of dogs, and this is what the amendment in England and Wales is claiming to try and achieve.

All this might sound reasonable until you look into it a bit deeper. Yes, foxes do kill lambs – but by no means to the extent that is implied by the pro-hunt lobby. Evidence and the Government’s own figures show that a tiny proportion of lamb deaths can be attributed to foxes.

One study attributed only 1% of lamb deaths to foxes, the other 99% are due to inclement weather and failures of husbandry. We’ve had farmers come to us to say that lethal fox control is completely unnecessary.

What it’s really all about – the fun of killing

But the point is, this is actually nothing to do with flushing to guns or pest control. This is not about hunting foxes for pest control, it’s about hunting foxes for fun. Let’s get real – hunts talk about the ‘thrill of the chase’ – they don’t talk about the ‘thrill of surrounding some trees so the fox can get shot’.

And if fox hunting has anything to do with pest control, why would hunts, or closely connected individuals, be feeding up foxes with offal piles in the woods and even ‘farming’ fox cubs – as revealed in The Ecologist?

Hunting has been illegal for ten years, but in many places it has continued. There have been over 400 convictions under the Hunting Act making it very successful, but hunts have also found many ways to jump through loopholes. The new amendments being suggested will turn those loopholes into one massive blackhole.

If amended in this way it will run a coach and horses through the legislation and will allow hunts to get away with chasing wild animals across the countryside to allow the hounds to rip them apart.

And remember: these are the people who spent years arguing that the Hunting Act was a bad and ineffective law, when the real problem was that it worked all too well. Now, with this amendment, they are trying to make sure that it’s a bad and ineffective law.

MPs’ decision time

The question is, will MPs let this happen? We know that eight out of ten people in this country are opposed to hunting. We know that the majority of opposition MPs are opposed to hunting – including those of the Scottish National Party, whose participation in the vote is not yet guaranteed.

We also know that at least 40 Conservative MPs are opposed to hunting, along with seven out of ten Conservative voters are opposed to hunting. So could this actually go through? The sad truth is yes, if MPs allow it.

Our somewhat archaic Parliamentary system means that only people attending the session can vote, so we need to ensure that everyone opposed to fox hunting is present. All it will take to bring back hunting is for anti-hunting MPs not to turn up.

The government is being canny by proceeding this way, however. The initial manifesto pledge was for a free vote on ‘repeal of the Hunting Act’. Over the last few weeks they have obviously seen how much opposition there would be to that, and realised they wouldn’t win.

We then heard rumours of a so-called ‘middle way’ option – something that would potentially have the same impact as repeal, but would somehow be more appealing to wavering or nervous Conservative MPs and voters. And this is it.

So we need to ensure that every MP understands that this ‘amendment’ is nothing less than repeal by the back door – and to make sure that they vote against it!

Robbie Marsland is Director of the League Against Cruel Sports.

Contact your MP at www.league.org.uk/savetheact. Please do this before anything else as it will be far more effective than signing a petition!

Action: The League Against Cruel Sports will be joining Team Fox for a rally against the amendments at Old Palace Yard, SW1, on Tuesday, starting 11am.

Twitter: #keeptheban

Petitions

Please sign either or both of these petitions – but only after you have contacted your MP!

• ‘Don’t make any changes to the Fox Hunting ban!‘ – by 38 Degrees.
• ‘URGENT: Ask SNP to vote against fox hunting next week!‘ by Care2.

When the government announced on Wednesday that they were aiming to amend the Hunting Act, there was understandable outcry.

Hidden in the language of ‘flushing to guns’ and ‘a minor amendment’ was basically a cynical attempt to make it easier for hunts to chase and kill foxes. It would also make it harder for hunts to be convicted when they break the law.

Now we have seen the full details of what the government are proposing. And it’s a whole lot worse than we thought.

The changes to the Hunting Act are not minor or subtle, they are massive. This is not a ‘tweak’ to facilitate pest control, this is nothing short of repeal.

All of the exemptions to the Act have been altered to allow an unlimited number of dogs, not just the flushing exemption. So a full pack could be used to:

• Retrieve an injured or diseased animal
• Carry out research and observation
• Flush a mammal to waiting guns

What this means is that any hunt can go out with a full pack of dogs and just pick the exemption that suits them best on the day. They’ll never even have to have a gun present, they can claim to be carrying out observation. Or that they spotted a diseased fox or hare, or even deer, and were retrieving it to be shot, but, uh oh, the hounds killed it first.

What all this means is that prosecution under the Hunting Act will be extremely difficult, or even impossible.

The myth of ‘pest control’

They are also relaxing the exemption for terrier work, allowing it to be used to protect livestock as well as birds reared for shooting, and not requiring the perpetrators to carry written permission from landowners.

What is terrier work? This is the despicable practice of sending terrier dogs down under the ground to do battle with foxes who have escaped. You can only imagine the fear and the damage inflicted on both animals. This should be outlawed, full stop, but through this amendment the Government will make it legal.

For the record, do the arguments about ‘pest’ or ‘fox control’ have any substance? The main argument being used to justify this change is that farmers who need to kill foxes to protect their livestock cannot do it by only using two dogs to ‘flush to guns’ – that means chase the foxes from cover into a waiting shotgun.

In Scotland they can use an unlimited number of dogs, and this is what the amendment in England and Wales is claiming to try and achieve.

All this might sound reasonable until you look into it a bit deeper. Yes, foxes do kill lambs – but by no means to the extent that is implied by the pro-hunt lobby. Evidence and the Government’s own figures show that a tiny proportion of lamb deaths can be attributed to foxes.

One study attributed only 1% of lamb deaths to foxes, the other 99% are due to inclement weather and failures of husbandry. We’ve had farmers come to us to say that lethal fox control is completely unnecessary.

What it’s really all about – the fun of killing

But the point is, this is actually nothing to do with flushing to guns or pest control. This is not about hunting foxes for pest control, it’s about hunting foxes for fun. Let’s get real – hunts talk about the ‘thrill of the chase’ – they don’t talk about the ‘thrill of surrounding some trees so the fox can get shot’.

And if fox hunting has anything to do with pest control, why would hunts, or closely connected individuals, be feeding up foxes with offal piles in the woods and even ‘farming’ fox cubs – as revealed in The Ecologist?

Hunting has been illegal for ten years, but in many places it has continued. There have been over 400 convictions under the Hunting Act making it very successful, but hunts have also found many ways to jump through loopholes. The new amendments being suggested will turn those loopholes into one massive blackhole.

If amended in this way it will run a coach and horses through the legislation and will allow hunts to get away with chasing wild animals across the countryside to allow the hounds to rip them apart.

And remember: these are the people who spent years arguing that the Hunting Act was a bad and ineffective law, when the real problem was that it worked all too well. Now, with this amendment, they are trying to make sure that it’s a bad and ineffective law.

MPs’ decision time

The question is, will MPs let this happen? We know that eight out of ten people in this country are opposed to hunting. We know that the majority of opposition MPs are opposed to hunting – including those of the Scottish National Party, whose participation in the vote is not yet guaranteed.

We also know that at least 40 Conservative MPs are opposed to hunting, along with seven out of ten Conservative voters are opposed to hunting. So could this actually go through? The sad truth is yes, if MPs allow it.

Our somewhat archaic Parliamentary system means that only people attending the session can vote, so we need to ensure that everyone opposed to fox hunting is present. All it will take to bring back hunting is for anti-hunting MPs not to turn up.

The government is being canny by proceeding this way, however. The initial manifesto pledge was for a free vote on ‘repeal of the Hunting Act’. Over the last few weeks they have obviously seen how much opposition there would be to that, and realised they wouldn’t win.

We then heard rumours of a so-called ‘middle way’ option – something that would potentially have the same impact as repeal, but would somehow be more appealing to wavering or nervous Conservative MPs and voters. And this is it.

So we need to ensure that every MP understands that this ‘amendment’ is nothing less than repeal by the back door – and to make sure that they vote against it!

Robbie Marsland is Director of the League Against Cruel Sports.

Contact your MP at www.league.org.uk/savetheact. Please do this before anything else as it will be far more effective than signing a petition!

Action: The League Against Cruel Sports will be joining Team Fox for a rally against the amendments at Old Palace Yard, SW1, on Tuesday, starting 11am.

Twitter: #keeptheban

Petitions

Please sign either or both of these petitions – but only after you have contacted your MP!

• ‘Don’t make any changes to the Fox Hunting ban!‘ – by 38 Degrees.
• ‘URGENT: Ask SNP to vote against fox hunting next week!‘ by Care2.

On 6th July 2015, in Arusha, Tanzania, a Diplomatic Conference held under the auspices of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) adopted a harmonised regional legal framework for the protection of plant breeders’ rights.

The Arusha Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (‘Arusha PVP Protocol’) is a slightly revised version of a previous Draft ARIPO Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (the ‘ARIPO PVP Protocol’).

The previous Draft has come under consistent and severe attack by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) because it is based on a Convention known as UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) 1991 – a restrictive and inflexible international legal precept, totally unsuitable for Africa.

Crucially, the ARIPO PVP Protocol proposed extremely strong intellectual property rights to breeders while restricting the age-old practices of African farmers freely to save, use, share and sell seeds and/or propagating material.

These practices are the backbone of agricultural systems in Sub-Saharan Africa; they have ensured the production and maintenance of a diverse pool of genetic resources by farmers themselves, and have safeguarded food and nutrition for tens of millions of Africans in the ARIPO region.

Traditional farming sacrificed to seed monopolists

The Arusha PVP Protocol is part of the broader thrust in Africa to ensure regionally seamless and expedited trade in commercially bred seed varieties for the benefit, mainly, of the foreign seed industry. Multinational seed companies intend to lay claim to seed varieties as their private possessions and to prevent others from using these varieties without the payment of royalties.

Germplasm developed by farming households over centuries is increasingly under threat of privatisation; and ecologically embedded farming practices risk being destabilised and dislodged.

The broader modernisation thrust of which the Arusha PVP Protocol is an intrinsic part, is designed to facilitate the transformation of African agriculture from peasant-based production to inherently inequitable, inappropriate and ecologically damaging Green Revolution/industrial agriculture.

Such a transformation will lead to many farming households being threatened with marginalisation or extinction, without alternative options for survival.

It is worthwhile to note that a 2002 Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Bank study, the ‘International Assessment of Knowledge, Science and Technology‘ (IAASTD), strongly recommended a complete shift away from the Green Revolution’s industrial agriculture to agroecology.

Exclusion of African civil society

Despite AFSA’s well-established track record of constructive engagement with ARIPO on the Draft ARIPO PVP Protocol, and despite it being a Pan African network of African regional farmers and NGOs, working with millions of African farmers and consumers, AFSA was purposely excluded from the Arusha deliberations.

This restriction stands in sharp contrast to inclusion in the deliberations of the UPOV Secretariat, and other foreign entities, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) the European Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) and the French National Seed and Seedling Association (GNIS). The commercial seed industry (e.g. the African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA)) was particularly well represented.

The Arusha PVP Protocol has major implications for national decision-making. AFSA’s exclusion is a violation of the right of farmers to participate in decision-making on matters related to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (Article 9.2(c ) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA).

Least Developed Countries and sui generis options

Upon adoption, the Arusha PVP Protocol was immediately signed by representatives of the governments of Ghana, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, and the Gambia. Ironically, Mozambique, the Gambia and Sao Tome and Principe are defined as Least Developed Countries (LDCs), along with a further 10 of the 19 members of ARIPO – some of the poorest countries in the world.

LDCs are currently not under any international obligation to provide any form of plant variety protection until 2021, let alone one based on UPOV 1991! In any event, all countries have an option to develop sui generis (i.e. unique) plant variety protection systems that cater for their specific conditions.

Acceptance of the Arusha PVP Protocol will eliminate this option. Smaller countries are bullied into accepting their subordination to regional bodies that are dominated by more powerful foreign countries and multinational corporate interests.

The countries involved as ARIPO members are Botswana, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda Zambia and Zimbabwe.

National sovereignty and slight changes

During the deliberations in Arusha, several delegations raised serious concerns that the Draft ARIPO PVP Protocol eroded national sovereignty because of the extensive decision-making powers vested in the ARIPO Plant Breeders Rights Office (PBRO), which operates at a regional level.

The government of Malawi, in particular, said that this would “have a demeaning and nullifying effect”. Consequently, after long hours of negotiation, changes were made that now give Contracting States an explicit right to object to any Plant Breeders’ Right (PBR) – as granted by the ARIPO PBRO, regionally – in which event the PBR will not be awarded national protection.

Further, Contracting States and not the ARIPO PBRO will have the right to issue compulsory licenses in the public interest.

Notwithstanding these changes, a centralised regional PVP approval system will be established and the ARIPO PBRO will have full authority to grant and administer breeders’ rights on behalf of all Contracting States (e.g. to decide whether or not to grant protection, nullify or cancel PBRs, etc).

These regionally granted PBRs will have a uniform effect in all Contracting States. Expediently, Contracting States will be required to put scarce public resources at the disposal of breeders to enforce breeders’ rights at the national level.

Joining UPOV 1991 – and shirking ITPGRFA-guaranteed farmers’ rights

The Arusha PVP Protocol will come into force when four member states of ARIPO ratify it. In April 2014 the UPOV Council, at the cost of breaking its own rules, verified that the Draft ARIPO PVP Protocol conformed to the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, allowing ARIPO itself as well as ARIPO Members that ratify the Protocol, to become Parties to the 1991 UPOV Convention.

With the new changes, to become a member of UPOV 1991, ARIPO will have to re-submit the Arusha PVP Protocol to the UPOV Council, to reassess its conformity with the 1991 Act.

Hence AFSA calls on UPOV members to reject the Arusha PVP Protocol. On numerous occasions AFSA has challenged the legitimacy of the whole process-leading up to and culminating in the adoption of the Arusha PVP Protocol.

AFSA has also indicated, in many public statements during discussions on the Protocol, that UPOV 1991 restricts farmers’ rights to save, exchange and sell farm-saved-seed and/or the propagating material of protected varieties in their possession.

Farmers’ rights are recognised in the ITPGRFA yet this has been ignored by the 14 member states of ARIPO that are also Parties to the ITPGRFA. By adopting the Arusha PVP Protocol these countries have placed the rights of plant breeders ahead of farmers’ rights.

AFSA vows to continue struggle for seed sovereignty

AFSA is vehemently opposed to the Arusha PVP Protocol. This Protocol’s underlying imperatives are to increase corporate seed imports, reduce breeding activity at the national level, and facilitate the monopoly by foreign companies of local seed systems and the disruption of traditional farming systems.

AFSA remains committed to ensuring that farmers, as breeders and users, remain at the centre of localised seed production systems and continue to exercise their rights freely to save, use, exchange, replant, improve, distribute and sell all the seed in their seed systems.

This article presents a Statement issued by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), 8 July 2015.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Seed Freedom! A last chance to thwart the great African seed grab‘ by Ali-Masmadi Jehu-Appiah.

More information on AFSA’s detailed position on the Draft ARIPO PVP Protocol.

Chancellor George Osborne chose his first budget yesterday to raid renewable energy generators income, removing the ‘Climate Change Levy exemption’ they have enjoyed since 2001.

At a stroke the renewable industry just lost an important revenue stream typically accounting for 5-10% of their income, expected to add up to £3.9 billion over the lifetime of this parliament.

Greenpeace policy director Doug Parr said removing the climate change levy exemption on renewables was “taxing clean power as if it were a fossil fuel.”

RenewableUK’s Director of Policy, Dr Gordon Edge, described the abrupt termination of the scheme as “a punitive measure for the clean energy sector” thsat would cost renewable energy producers “vital financial support”.

“The Chancellor says the removal of the exemption will earn the Treasury £450 million in 2015/16, rising to £910 million in 2020/21”, he said. However that gain to the Treasury was loss to renewable power generators:

“We’re suddenly looking at a substantial amount of lost income for clean energy companies which was totally unexpected. For example, Levy Exemption Certificates account for just over 6% of onshore wind generators’ revenues.

“The Government had already announced an end to future financial support for onshore wind – even though it’s the most cost-effective form of clean energy we have. Now they’re imposing retrospective cuts on projects already up and running across the entire clean energy sector.”

Drax shares down 28%

One of the early losers is Drax, the power generator, which uses large volumes of biomass – mainly in the form of imported wood chips and pellets – in addition to coal. Shares in the company slumped around 25% yesterday in response to the budget.

As reported on The Ecologist Drax’s use of biomass is highly controversial owing to the impact on native forests in source countries. Last year renewable energy subsidies are estimated to have earned the company £340 million.

Dorothy Thompson, the company’s chief executive said she was “disappointed” by the government’s decision. Industry analysts have estimated that the end of the levy could reduce Drax’s revenues by £30m this year and double that in 2016.

But according to the budget statement, “This change will correct an imbalance in the tax system by preventing taxpayers’ money benefitting renewable electricity generated overseas, and by helping ensure support for low carbon generation provides better value for money for UK taxpayers.”

What is not clear, however, is why the Government could not simply make overseas renewable power generator ineligible for the benefit, rather than abolish the scheme altogether.

Paul Flynn MP attempted to table a question to the Chancellor, George Osborne, for answer on Monday, enquiring “what assessment he has made of the potential effect on UK (a) energy security and (b) plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of his policy to remove the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity?” However the question was blocked and he will receive no reply.

How it works, sorry, worked

Introduced in 2001, the CCL is an tax on energy delivered to business and other non-domestic UK energy users, and its purpose is to incentivise a switch to lower carbon forms of energy, and increase energy efficiency.

The CCL is raised at varying levels on fuels based on the carbon they embody, including electricity based on an averagfe carbon weighting. Energy users can exempt themselves from paying the tax by buying ‘Levy Exemption Certificates‘ that the energy regulator Ofgem issues to renewables generators.

But now the Treasury has announced the end of the scheme, it will be phased out over a ‘transition period’ that starts on 1st August and will continue over the summer.

According to an HMRC briefing note: “The government is committed to meeting its climate change objectives in a cost effective way. Without action the exemption would cost £3.9bn over this Parliament and one third of this value would go to supporting renewable electricity generated overseas …

“Removing the exemption will stabilise CCL revenues, contributing to fiscal consolidation. It will maintain the price signal necessary to incentivise energy efficiency. It will also bring a significant simplification to CCL. “

More austerity for renewables on the way

The immediate effect will be to reduce revenues to established renewable power generators, and to give the backers of ‘pipeline projects’ – conceived but not yet built – pause for thought as revenues will be smaller than planned for. The same applies to future projects receiving fixed price payments for power under feed-in tariffs (FITs). Inevitably a number of projects will not go forward.

With new schemes seeking finance under the ‘contracts for difference’ (CFD) system that will be use to finance many future projects, the move will force renewable generators to enter higher bids at CFD auctions. This will shift the cost of renewable energy away from the Treasury and into the ‘Levy Control Framework’ (LCF) financed by a supplement on all UK energy users bills, which is technically not a tax.

However tight cash limits on the LCF mean that higher CFD prices can only translate into a further reduction of new renewable power projects.

With the end of the CCL exemption coming on top of more bad news such as the exclusion of wind projects from the Renewables Obligation, it is increasingly clear that the UK will fail to meet its EU renewable energy target, that 15% of all its energy use should be renewable by 2020.

Dr Edge was surely speaking for many when he said: “Yet again the Government is moving the goalposts, pushing some marginal projects from profit into loss. It’s another example of this Government’s unfair, illogical and obsessive attacks on renewables.”

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Chancellor George Osborne chose his first budget yesterday to raid renewable energy generators income, removing the ‘Climate Change Levy exemption’ they have enjoyed since 2001.

At a stroke the renewable industry just lost an important revenue stream typically accounting for 5-10% of their income, expected to add up to £3.9 billion over the lifetime of this parliament.

Greenpeace policy director Doug Parr said removing the climate change levy exemption on renewables was “taxing clean power as if it were a fossil fuel.”

RenewableUK’s Director of Policy, Dr Gordon Edge, described the abrupt termination of the scheme as “a punitive measure for the clean energy sector” thsat would cost renewable energy producers “vital financial support”.

“The Chancellor says the removal of the exemption will earn the Treasury £450 million in 2015/16, rising to £910 million in 2020/21”, he said. However that gain to the Treasury was loss to renewable power generators:

“We’re suddenly looking at a substantial amount of lost income for clean energy companies which was totally unexpected. For example, Levy Exemption Certificates account for just over 6% of onshore wind generators’ revenues.

“The Government had already announced an end to future financial support for onshore wind – even though it’s the most cost-effective form of clean energy we have. Now they’re imposing retrospective cuts on projects already up and running across the entire clean energy sector.”

Drax shares down 28%

One of the early losers is Drax, the power generator, which uses large volumes of biomass – mainly in the form of imported wood chips and pellets – in addition to coal. Shares in the company slumped around 25% yesterday in response to the budget.

As reported on The Ecologist Drax’s use of biomass is highly controversial owing to the impact on native forests in source countries. Last year renewable energy subsidies are estimated to have earned the company £340 million.

Dorothy Thompson, the company’s chief executive said she was “disappointed” by the government’s decision. Industry analysts have estimated that the end of the levy could reduce Drax’s revenues by £30m this year and double that in 2016.

But according to the budget statement, “This change will correct an imbalance in the tax system by preventing taxpayers’ money benefitting renewable electricity generated overseas, and by helping ensure support for low carbon generation provides better value for money for UK taxpayers.”

What is not clear, however, is why the Government could not simply make overseas renewable power generator ineligible for the benefit, rather than abolish the scheme altogether.

Paul Flynn MP attempted to table a question to the Chancellor, George Osborne, for answer on Monday, enquiring “what assessment he has made of the potential effect on UK (a) energy security and (b) plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of his policy to remove the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity?” However the question was blocked and he will receive no reply.

How it works, sorry, worked

Introduced in 2001, the CCL is an tax on energy delivered to business and other non-domestic UK energy users, and its purpose is to incentivise a switch to lower carbon forms of energy, and increase energy efficiency.

The CCL is raised at varying levels on fuels based on the carbon they embody, including electricity based on an averagfe carbon weighting. Energy users can exempt themselves from paying the tax by buying ‘Levy Exemption Certificates‘ that the energy regulator Ofgem issues to renewables generators.

But now the Treasury has announced the end of the scheme, it will be phased out over a ‘transition period’ that starts on 1st August and will continue over the summer.

According to an HMRC briefing note: “The government is committed to meeting its climate change objectives in a cost effective way. Without action the exemption would cost £3.9bn over this Parliament and one third of this value would go to supporting renewable electricity generated overseas …

“Removing the exemption will stabilise CCL revenues, contributing to fiscal consolidation. It will maintain the price signal necessary to incentivise energy efficiency. It will also bring a significant simplification to CCL. “

More austerity for renewables on the way

The immediate effect will be to reduce revenues to established renewable power generators, and to give the backers of ‘pipeline projects’ – conceived but not yet built – pause for thought as revenues will be smaller than planned for. The same applies to future projects receiving fixed price payments for power under feed-in tariffs (FITs). Inevitably a number of projects will not go forward.

With new schemes seeking finance under the ‘contracts for difference’ (CFD) system that will be use to finance many future projects, the move will force renewable generators to enter higher bids at CFD auctions. This will shift the cost of renewable energy away from the Treasury and into the ‘Levy Control Framework’ (LCF) financed by a supplement on all UK energy users bills, which is technically not a tax.

However tight cash limits on the LCF mean that higher CFD prices can only translate into a further reduction of new renewable power projects.

With the end of the CCL exemption coming on top of more bad news such as the exclusion of wind projects from the Renewables Obligation, it is increasingly clear that the UK will fail to meet its EU renewable energy target, that 15% of all its energy use should be renewable by 2020.

Dr Edge was surely speaking for many when he said: “Yet again the Government is moving the goalposts, pushing some marginal projects from profit into loss. It’s another example of this Government’s unfair, illogical and obsessive attacks on renewables.”

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Chancellor George Osborne chose his first budget yesterday to raid renewable energy generators income, removing the ‘Climate Change Levy exemption’ they have enjoyed since 2001.

At a stroke the renewable industry just lost an important revenue stream typically accounting for 5-10% of their income, expected to add up to £3.9 billion over the lifetime of this parliament.

Greenpeace policy director Doug Parr said removing the climate change levy exemption on renewables was “taxing clean power as if it were a fossil fuel.”

RenewableUK’s Director of Policy, Dr Gordon Edge, described the abrupt termination of the scheme as “a punitive measure for the clean energy sector” thsat would cost renewable energy producers “vital financial support”.

“The Chancellor says the removal of the exemption will earn the Treasury £450 million in 2015/16, rising to £910 million in 2020/21”, he said. However that gain to the Treasury was loss to renewable power generators:

“We’re suddenly looking at a substantial amount of lost income for clean energy companies which was totally unexpected. For example, Levy Exemption Certificates account for just over 6% of onshore wind generators’ revenues.

“The Government had already announced an end to future financial support for onshore wind – even though it’s the most cost-effective form of clean energy we have. Now they’re imposing retrospective cuts on projects already up and running across the entire clean energy sector.”

Drax shares down 28%

One of the early losers is Drax, the power generator, which uses large volumes of biomass – mainly in the form of imported wood chips and pellets – in addition to coal. Shares in the company slumped around 25% yesterday in response to the budget.

As reported on The Ecologist Drax’s use of biomass is highly controversial owing to the impact on native forests in source countries. Last year renewable energy subsidies are estimated to have earned the company £340 million.

Dorothy Thompson, the company’s chief executive said she was “disappointed” by the government’s decision. Industry analysts have estimated that the end of the levy could reduce Drax’s revenues by £30m this year and double that in 2016.

But according to the budget statement, “This change will correct an imbalance in the tax system by preventing taxpayers’ money benefitting renewable electricity generated overseas, and by helping ensure support for low carbon generation provides better value for money for UK taxpayers.”

What is not clear, however, is why the Government could not simply make overseas renewable power generator ineligible for the benefit, rather than abolish the scheme altogether.

Paul Flynn MP attempted to table a question to the Chancellor, George Osborne, for answer on Monday, enquiring “what assessment he has made of the potential effect on UK (a) energy security and (b) plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of his policy to remove the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity?” However the question was blocked and he will receive no reply.

How it works, sorry, worked

Introduced in 2001, the CCL is an tax on energy delivered to business and other non-domestic UK energy users, and its purpose is to incentivise a switch to lower carbon forms of energy, and increase energy efficiency.

The CCL is raised at varying levels on fuels based on the carbon they embody, including electricity based on an averagfe carbon weighting. Energy users can exempt themselves from paying the tax by buying ‘Levy Exemption Certificates‘ that the energy regulator Ofgem issues to renewables generators.

But now the Treasury has announced the end of the scheme, it will be phased out over a ‘transition period’ that starts on 1st August and will continue over the summer.

According to an HMRC briefing note: “The government is committed to meeting its climate change objectives in a cost effective way. Without action the exemption would cost £3.9bn over this Parliament and one third of this value would go to supporting renewable electricity generated overseas …

“Removing the exemption will stabilise CCL revenues, contributing to fiscal consolidation. It will maintain the price signal necessary to incentivise energy efficiency. It will also bring a significant simplification to CCL. “

More austerity for renewables on the way

The immediate effect will be to reduce revenues to established renewable power generators, and to give the backers of ‘pipeline projects’ – conceived but not yet built – pause for thought as revenues will be smaller than planned for. The same applies to future projects receiving fixed price payments for power under feed-in tariffs (FITs). Inevitably a number of projects will not go forward.

With new schemes seeking finance under the ‘contracts for difference’ (CFD) system that will be use to finance many future projects, the move will force renewable generators to enter higher bids at CFD auctions. This will shift the cost of renewable energy away from the Treasury and into the ‘Levy Control Framework’ (LCF) financed by a supplement on all UK energy users bills, which is technically not a tax.

However tight cash limits on the LCF mean that higher CFD prices can only translate into a further reduction of new renewable power projects.

With the end of the CCL exemption coming on top of more bad news such as the exclusion of wind projects from the Renewables Obligation, it is increasingly clear that the UK will fail to meet its EU renewable energy target, that 15% of all its energy use should be renewable by 2020.

Dr Edge was surely speaking for many when he said: “Yet again the Government is moving the goalposts, pushing some marginal projects from profit into loss. It’s another example of this Government’s unfair, illogical and obsessive attacks on renewables.”

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Chancellor George Osborne chose his first budget yesterday to raid renewable energy generators income, removing the ‘Climate Change Levy exemption’ they have enjoyed since 2001.

At a stroke the renewable industry just lost an important revenue stream typically accounting for 5-10% of their income, expected to add up to £3.9 billion over the lifetime of this parliament.

Greenpeace policy director Doug Parr said removing the climate change levy exemption on renewables was “taxing clean power as if it were a fossil fuel.”

RenewableUK’s Director of Policy, Dr Gordon Edge, described the abrupt termination of the scheme as “a punitive measure for the clean energy sector” thsat would cost renewable energy producers “vital financial support”.

“The Chancellor says the removal of the exemption will earn the Treasury £450 million in 2015/16, rising to £910 million in 2020/21”, he said. However that gain to the Treasury was loss to renewable power generators:

“We’re suddenly looking at a substantial amount of lost income for clean energy companies which was totally unexpected. For example, Levy Exemption Certificates account for just over 6% of onshore wind generators’ revenues.

“The Government had already announced an end to future financial support for onshore wind – even though it’s the most cost-effective form of clean energy we have. Now they’re imposing retrospective cuts on projects already up and running across the entire clean energy sector.”

Drax shares down 28%

One of the early losers is Drax, the power generator, which uses large volumes of biomass – mainly in the form of imported wood chips and pellets – in addition to coal. Shares in the company slumped around 25% yesterday in response to the budget.

As reported on The Ecologist Drax’s use of biomass is highly controversial owing to the impact on native forests in source countries. Last year renewable energy subsidies are estimated to have earned the company £340 million.

Dorothy Thompson, the company’s chief executive said she was “disappointed” by the government’s decision. Industry analysts have estimated that the end of the levy could reduce Drax’s revenues by £30m this year and double that in 2016.

But according to the budget statement, “This change will correct an imbalance in the tax system by preventing taxpayers’ money benefitting renewable electricity generated overseas, and by helping ensure support for low carbon generation provides better value for money for UK taxpayers.”

What is not clear, however, is why the Government could not simply make overseas renewable power generator ineligible for the benefit, rather than abolish the scheme altogether.

Paul Flynn MP attempted to table a question to the Chancellor, George Osborne, for answer on Monday, enquiring “what assessment he has made of the potential effect on UK (a) energy security and (b) plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of his policy to remove the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity?” However the question was blocked and he will receive no reply.

How it works, sorry, worked

Introduced in 2001, the CCL is an tax on energy delivered to business and other non-domestic UK energy users, and its purpose is to incentivise a switch to lower carbon forms of energy, and increase energy efficiency.

The CCL is raised at varying levels on fuels based on the carbon they embody, including electricity based on an averagfe carbon weighting. Energy users can exempt themselves from paying the tax by buying ‘Levy Exemption Certificates‘ that the energy regulator Ofgem issues to renewables generators.

But now the Treasury has announced the end of the scheme, it will be phased out over a ‘transition period’ that starts on 1st August and will continue over the summer.

According to an HMRC briefing note: “The government is committed to meeting its climate change objectives in a cost effective way. Without action the exemption would cost £3.9bn over this Parliament and one third of this value would go to supporting renewable electricity generated overseas …

“Removing the exemption will stabilise CCL revenues, contributing to fiscal consolidation. It will maintain the price signal necessary to incentivise energy efficiency. It will also bring a significant simplification to CCL. “

More austerity for renewables on the way

The immediate effect will be to reduce revenues to established renewable power generators, and to give the backers of ‘pipeline projects’ – conceived but not yet built – pause for thought as revenues will be smaller than planned for. The same applies to future projects receiving fixed price payments for power under feed-in tariffs (FITs). Inevitably a number of projects will not go forward.

With new schemes seeking finance under the ‘contracts for difference’ (CFD) system that will be use to finance many future projects, the move will force renewable generators to enter higher bids at CFD auctions. This will shift the cost of renewable energy away from the Treasury and into the ‘Levy Control Framework’ (LCF) financed by a supplement on all UK energy users bills, which is technically not a tax.

However tight cash limits on the LCF mean that higher CFD prices can only translate into a further reduction of new renewable power projects.

With the end of the CCL exemption coming on top of more bad news such as the exclusion of wind projects from the Renewables Obligation, it is increasingly clear that the UK will fail to meet its EU renewable energy target, that 15% of all its energy use should be renewable by 2020.

Dr Edge was surely speaking for many when he said: “Yet again the Government is moving the goalposts, pushing some marginal projects from profit into loss. It’s another example of this Government’s unfair, illogical and obsessive attacks on renewables.”

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Chancellor George Osborne chose his first budget yesterday to raid renewable energy generators income, removing the ‘Climate Change Levy exemption’ they have enjoyed since 2001.

At a stroke the renewable industry just lost an important revenue stream typically accounting for 5-10% of their income, expected to add up to £3.9 billion over the lifetime of this parliament.

Greenpeace policy director Doug Parr said removing the climate change levy exemption on renewables was “taxing clean power as if it were a fossil fuel.”

RenewableUK’s Director of Policy, Dr Gordon Edge, described the abrupt termination of the scheme as “a punitive measure for the clean energy sector” thsat would cost renewable energy producers “vital financial support”.

“The Chancellor says the removal of the exemption will earn the Treasury £450 million in 2015/16, rising to £910 million in 2020/21”, he said. However that gain to the Treasury was loss to renewable power generators:

“We’re suddenly looking at a substantial amount of lost income for clean energy companies which was totally unexpected. For example, Levy Exemption Certificates account for just over 6% of onshore wind generators’ revenues.

“The Government had already announced an end to future financial support for onshore wind – even though it’s the most cost-effective form of clean energy we have. Now they’re imposing retrospective cuts on projects already up and running across the entire clean energy sector.”

Drax shares down 28%

One of the early losers is Drax, the power generator, which uses large volumes of biomass – mainly in the form of imported wood chips and pellets – in addition to coal. Shares in the company slumped around 25% yesterday in response to the budget.

As reported on The Ecologist Drax’s use of biomass is highly controversial owing to the impact on native forests in source countries. Last year renewable energy subsidies are estimated to have earned the company £340 million.

Dorothy Thompson, the company’s chief executive said she was “disappointed” by the government’s decision. Industry analysts have estimated that the end of the levy could reduce Drax’s revenues by £30m this year and double that in 2016.

But according to the budget statement, “This change will correct an imbalance in the tax system by preventing taxpayers’ money benefitting renewable electricity generated overseas, and by helping ensure support for low carbon generation provides better value for money for UK taxpayers.”

What is not clear, however, is why the Government could not simply make overseas renewable power generator ineligible for the benefit, rather than abolish the scheme altogether.

Paul Flynn MP attempted to table a question to the Chancellor, George Osborne, for answer on Monday, enquiring “what assessment he has made of the potential effect on UK (a) energy security and (b) plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of his policy to remove the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity?” However the question was blocked and he will receive no reply.

How it works, sorry, worked

Introduced in 2001, the CCL is an tax on energy delivered to business and other non-domestic UK energy users, and its purpose is to incentivise a switch to lower carbon forms of energy, and increase energy efficiency.

The CCL is raised at varying levels on fuels based on the carbon they embody, including electricity based on an averagfe carbon weighting. Energy users can exempt themselves from paying the tax by buying ‘Levy Exemption Certificates‘ that the energy regulator Ofgem issues to renewables generators.

But now the Treasury has announced the end of the scheme, it will be phased out over a ‘transition period’ that starts on 1st August and will continue over the summer.

According to an HMRC briefing note: “The government is committed to meeting its climate change objectives in a cost effective way. Without action the exemption would cost £3.9bn over this Parliament and one third of this value would go to supporting renewable electricity generated overseas …

“Removing the exemption will stabilise CCL revenues, contributing to fiscal consolidation. It will maintain the price signal necessary to incentivise energy efficiency. It will also bring a significant simplification to CCL. “

More austerity for renewables on the way

The immediate effect will be to reduce revenues to established renewable power generators, and to give the backers of ‘pipeline projects’ – conceived but not yet built – pause for thought as revenues will be smaller than planned for. The same applies to future projects receiving fixed price payments for power under feed-in tariffs (FITs). Inevitably a number of projects will not go forward.

With new schemes seeking finance under the ‘contracts for difference’ (CFD) system that will be use to finance many future projects, the move will force renewable generators to enter higher bids at CFD auctions. This will shift the cost of renewable energy away from the Treasury and into the ‘Levy Control Framework’ (LCF) financed by a supplement on all UK energy users bills, which is technically not a tax.

However tight cash limits on the LCF mean that higher CFD prices can only translate into a further reduction of new renewable power projects.

With the end of the CCL exemption coming on top of more bad news such as the exclusion of wind projects from the Renewables Obligation, it is increasingly clear that the UK will fail to meet its EU renewable energy target, that 15% of all its energy use should be renewable by 2020.

Dr Edge was surely speaking for many when he said: “Yet again the Government is moving the goalposts, pushing some marginal projects from profit into loss. It’s another example of this Government’s unfair, illogical and obsessive attacks on renewables.”

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Chancellor George Osborne chose his first budget yesterday to raid renewable energy generators income, removing the ‘Climate Change Levy exemption’ they have enjoyed since 2001.

At a stroke the renewable industry just lost an important revenue stream typically accounting for 5-10% of their income, expected to add up to £3.9 billion over the lifetime of this parliament.

Greenpeace policy director Doug Parr said removing the climate change levy exemption on renewables was “taxing clean power as if it were a fossil fuel.”

RenewableUK’s Director of Policy, Dr Gordon Edge, described the abrupt termination of the scheme as “a punitive measure for the clean energy sector” thsat would cost renewable energy producers “vital financial support”.

“The Chancellor says the removal of the exemption will earn the Treasury £450 million in 2015/16, rising to £910 million in 2020/21”, he said. However that gain to the Treasury was loss to renewable power generators:

“We’re suddenly looking at a substantial amount of lost income for clean energy companies which was totally unexpected. For example, Levy Exemption Certificates account for just over 6% of onshore wind generators’ revenues.

“The Government had already announced an end to future financial support for onshore wind – even though it’s the most cost-effective form of clean energy we have. Now they’re imposing retrospective cuts on projects already up and running across the entire clean energy sector.”

Drax shares down 28%

One of the early losers is Drax, the power generator, which uses large volumes of biomass – mainly in the form of imported wood chips and pellets – in addition to coal. Shares in the company slumped around 25% yesterday in response to the budget.

As reported on The Ecologist Drax’s use of biomass is highly controversial owing to the impact on native forests in source countries. Last year renewable energy subsidies are estimated to have earned the company £340 million.

Dorothy Thompson, the company’s chief executive said she was “disappointed” by the government’s decision. Industry analysts have estimated that the end of the levy could reduce Drax’s revenues by £30m this year and double that in 2016.

But according to the budget statement, “This change will correct an imbalance in the tax system by preventing taxpayers’ money benefitting renewable electricity generated overseas, and by helping ensure support for low carbon generation provides better value for money for UK taxpayers.”

What is not clear, however, is why the Government could not simply make overseas renewable power generator ineligible for the benefit, rather than abolish the scheme altogether.

Paul Flynn MP attempted to table a question to the Chancellor, George Osborne, for answer on Monday, enquiring “what assessment he has made of the potential effect on UK (a) energy security and (b) plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of his policy to remove the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity?” However the question was blocked and he will receive no reply.

How it works, sorry, worked

Introduced in 2001, the CCL is an tax on energy delivered to business and other non-domestic UK energy users, and its purpose is to incentivise a switch to lower carbon forms of energy, and increase energy efficiency.

The CCL is raised at varying levels on fuels based on the carbon they embody, including electricity based on an averagfe carbon weighting. Energy users can exempt themselves from paying the tax by buying ‘Levy Exemption Certificates‘ that the energy regulator Ofgem issues to renewables generators.

But now the Treasury has announced the end of the scheme, it will be phased out over a ‘transition period’ that starts on 1st August and will continue over the summer.

According to an HMRC briefing note: “The government is committed to meeting its climate change objectives in a cost effective way. Without action the exemption would cost £3.9bn over this Parliament and one third of this value would go to supporting renewable electricity generated overseas …

“Removing the exemption will stabilise CCL revenues, contributing to fiscal consolidation. It will maintain the price signal necessary to incentivise energy efficiency. It will also bring a significant simplification to CCL. “

More austerity for renewables on the way

The immediate effect will be to reduce revenues to established renewable power generators, and to give the backers of ‘pipeline projects’ – conceived but not yet built – pause for thought as revenues will be smaller than planned for. The same applies to future projects receiving fixed price payments for power under feed-in tariffs (FITs). Inevitably a number of projects will not go forward.

With new schemes seeking finance under the ‘contracts for difference’ (CFD) system that will be use to finance many future projects, the move will force renewable generators to enter higher bids at CFD auctions. This will shift the cost of renewable energy away from the Treasury and into the ‘Levy Control Framework’ (LCF) financed by a supplement on all UK energy users bills, which is technically not a tax.

However tight cash limits on the LCF mean that higher CFD prices can only translate into a further reduction of new renewable power projects.

With the end of the CCL exemption coming on top of more bad news such as the exclusion of wind projects from the Renewables Obligation, it is increasingly clear that the UK will fail to meet its EU renewable energy target, that 15% of all its energy use should be renewable by 2020.

Dr Edge was surely speaking for many when he said: “Yet again the Government is moving the goalposts, pushing some marginal projects from profit into loss. It’s another example of this Government’s unfair, illogical and obsessive attacks on renewables.”

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

In the face of uncertainty we often look to science to help us make sense of things.

This is particularly true in complex areas such as GMOs where adverse effects may be difficult to predict or may even be masked by other aspects of our lives and diets.

The potential link between GMOs and cancer is a good example. Do GMOs cause cancer? Many people believe they do, but cause and effect studies of this are rare.

Certainly some studies have shown a higher incidence of tumours (and tumours can be different from cancer) in animals fed GMOs and their associated herbicide glyphosate. Others have shown that the glyphosate, used widely on and absorbed by GMO crops, is an endocrine disrupter and thus can be a trigger for cancer.

Indeed the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, has recently concluded that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen‘.

But in the real world, lots of things are known cause cancer and so it is difficult to know how much or little GMOs contribute to the rising incidence of this disease. We can’t know because the tests aren’t being done, for example, to find out if, for example, glyphosate might combine in food or in our bodies with other chemicals we are commonly exposed to to promote cancer, or to make it more aggressive.

It’s important to remember that the absence of evidence of harm is not the same as proof of safety. For this and so many other reasons there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

Now, with the publication of a new study, we have even more cause to question the science of GMO safety and even the wider world of toxicological testing.

‘Doing’ science

Before we look at the results of the study let’s look at how we ‘do’ science.

Toxicity studies are most commonly conducted in rats. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of animal testing, many scientists believe that studying effects on rodent health has a reasonable predictive value for how a substance might affect human health.

But there are unique problems with ‘lab rats’ which scientists have been wrestling with for years.

The main problem is that they are so unhealthy to begin with.

Some of this is down to the fact that laboratory rats are sedentary and can develop all the same diseases that humans develop from being inactive. They can also be stressed and this too has an impact. Genetics also plays a part. The genetic manipulation used to produce strains of laboratory rats can leave them more vulnerable to disease than normal rats.

As a result, populations of laboratory rodents across the world develop high rates of so-called ‘spontaneous’ diseases. For instance, after two years the average incidences of mammary fibroadenomas and pituitary adenomas among certain kinds of Sprague Dawley rats can be up to 71% and 42% respectively.

When a scientist tests a toxic substance, for instance in the diet, he or she will generally divide a group of rodents into a control group, which eats a normal diet, and a test group, whose diet includes the toxic substance. Interpreting the results of the study requires that we make some assumptions about the health and ‘normalcy’ of the ‘control group’.

Such assumptions, however, have come under fire in a new study by French scientists which looks at the toxicity of the ‘normal’ diet of the lab rat.

A question mark

The scientists tested 13 samples of proprietary feed. All of the samples contained significant amounts of pesticides and other contaminants.

Traces of the herbicide glyphosate (both glyphosate itself and its breakdown product AMPA) were detected in 9 of the 13 diets; and 11 of the 13 diets contained ‘Roundup Ready’ GMOs that are grown with large amounts of glyphosate, the main active ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup formulation.

Traces of the insecticides pirimiphos methyl, deltamethrin, chlorpyrifos methyl and ethyl, and malathion were also found in the rats’ food along with significant traces of heavy metals (mostly lead and cadmium) and PCBs.

The study found that the contamination levels recorded in the food were high enough to cause serious diseases and disrupt the hormonal and nervous systems of the animals in control groups.

What this means is that instead of comparing a clean, healthy diet with a contaminated diet, scientists are comparing a contaminated diet with an even more contaminated diet.

The contamination of the ‘control diet’, which can make the rats sick, effectively masks the true toxic effect of the test diet – essentially making it seem less toxic than it actually is. This effect could be why we see so many studies showing ‘non-significant’ toxicity of some very highly toxic substances in animal trials.

This applies especially to ‘endocrine disruptor’ chemicals which are active at very low’trace’ levels of parts per billion. Tests that examine toxic effects at such very low concentrations would produce null results if the feed is already contaminated at comparable or higher levels.

Supporting evidence

This new study is not the only to determine that rat chow can be contaminated.

Last year some of the scientists involved in the current French study analysed the rat chow used in a conventional GMO canola feeding experiment and found that it contained 18% of the Roundup tolerant maize NK603, 14.9% of MON810 (a modified Bt insecticide producing GMO) and 110 ppb of glyphosate and 200 ppb of AMPA (the breakdown product of glyphosate).

They argued that such a level of contamination invalidated the authors’ conclusions about the safety of the variety studied and were a threat to sensible regulation of GMOs.

Earlier this year in the US Dr Anthony Samsel, an independent scientist and consultant, analysed the Purina diet routinely used in animal feeding experiments designed to test the safety of GMOs. His findings, showed that three of the standard Purina feeds formulated for rats, mice and other mammals contain both GMOs and glyphosate.

Scientists questioning the science

Rat chow manufacturers like Purina don’t routinely test for these contaminants, and make no guarantees for the purity of their feeds in this regard. Yet these feeds are used every day, in laboratories around the world in feeding experiments.

No certification regarding the purity of test feed is required by journal editors or by food safety regulators either in the EU of the US – and this has been going on for decades.

Scientists are now beginning to speak out about these problems and their implications for the regulation of toxic substances.

GRACE (GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence) is a publicly funded EU research project. The results of its work are guiding future methods and criteria that will be used in the EU to assess the risks of genetically engineered plants for cultivation or use in feed and food.

But a recent report from the group Testbiotech demonstrated contamination of the control group feed used in the GRACE Project study of MON810 maize and called for the study to be retracted.

Heroes … and villains

The scientists who are speaking out on this issue are heroes and should be congratulated. Instead they have been met with the full force of a well-financed sceptic army whose sole job is to detect and stamp out any criticism of GMO food and the science behind it.

But the lock-step, knee-jerk reactions of groups like the Genetic Literacy Project are looking increasingly dumb in the light of the rapidly changing landscape of GMO science.

There is no escaping that the problem of contaminated laboratory diets are a serious regulatory issue since all of our safety regulations for toxic substances are based on the results of this kind of animal testing.

It’s also human health issue – possibly predictive, but certainly reflective of our own toxic diets and the ‘background’ damage they do to our health, as well as how hard it is to determine cause and effect when it comes to the multiple toxins we are routinely exposed to.

It is also an animal welfare issue, particularly if scientists know that they are routinely feeding contaminated food to their animals and they keep on doing it anyway.

For all these reasons we must take a much harder look at the science of GMOs and the places it can lead – but also mislead – us.

Pat Thomas is a director of the campaigning group Beyond GM, founder of GM-free Me, and a former editor of The Ecologist. This article first appeared on the GM-free Me website.