Database

This initial hearing considered whether or not loss of ‘organic’ status and resulting clean-up costs as a result of GM seed infiltration was sufficient grounds for a civil claim. The judge found that there was no basis for a claim in negligence, trespass or Rylands v Fletcher. However, nuisance and state environmental protection law could be sufficiently meritorious to warrant a subsequent hearing. Evidence from: K Garforth et al. Journal of Environmental Law (2006) Vol.18(3) p 459 – 477 Hoffman v Monsanto Canada Inc. (Larry Hoffman, L.B. Hoffman Farms Inc. and Dale Beaudoin v Monsanto Canada Inc. and Bayer Cropscience Inc.) Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench 2005 SKQB 225 (CanLII); [2005] 7 W.W.R. 665; (2005), 264 Sask. R. 1 In our view, the claims lack evidence of physical harm and, whilst weeds can be a legitimate cause of loss in nuisance the claimant here would seem to be ‘particularly sensitive’ (i.e. other people would not regard this GM plant as a weed). Further detail: 6#7-8

Evidence from: Food Standards Agency. 5th October 2006. “Illegal GM Rice Update.” At least one consignment of long grain rice imported from the USA was found to be contaminated with GM rice, LLRICE601. US authorities had certified it was GM free. Positive identification was announced by the Dutch authorities on the 21st August but tests on UK imports have so far proved negative. The European Safety Authority pronounced that the low level contamination was ‘not likely to pose an imminent safety concern’. However, in response, the EU has now decided that all rice imports from the USA should be retested in the EU and official certificates should follow the supply down to the wholesale level. It is illegal to sell contaminated rice; some products should therefore be withdrawn from sale. However, if anyone has already purchased such a product they can continue to eat it. Comment The only way to test for contamination is to use the same techniques that have already provided incon

Evidence from: Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) Minutes of a meeting dated 28th September 2006 “Use of Nematodes for biological pest control” Introduction of a non-native non-GM nematode would be problematic if it were viable outside of the commercial setting e.g. glasshouse. A previous application to apply Steinernema Carpocapsae as an insecticide was postponed until information on UK persistence was presented. The information led ACRE to the view that it would the support the licensing of this nematode for use as a biological control agent. Comment If populations of Steinernema Carpocapsae did develop outside the glasshouse their range would be determined by soil type and humidity. Remediation should be possible, though it may be unnecessary as this nematode has been released previously, but was not successful, in the UK.

Evidence from: Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) Minutes of a meeting dated 28th September 2006 “RNA mediated Gene Silencing in GM Plants” Gene silencing is used to prevent the action of a given gene e.g. flowering or pollen formation. The technique can be used to reduce risks such as horizontal gene transfer or the expression of toxins. The technique is not limited to the control of GM crops. ACRE considered a report on the technique of RNA mediated gene silencing. RNA methods can be unstable in that gene silencing may be of variable efficacy in otherwise genetically identical plants and their offspring. ACRE considers that current risk assessment regimes, which include an assessment of stability and its implications, would be adequate. In any case, a pheno-typically unstable plant product would not be commercially viable. The silencing mechanism is not transferable to other organisms; specifically bacteria and nematodes. Direct harm to humans would

Of note is the view that 20m would be a sufficient separation distance to prevent cross pollination with non-GM potatoes. This parameter would be of value in determining fault in a fault based compensation system. Ensuring or restoring a 20m separation would have a cost. At present, the UK authorities have the view that fault based compensation systems for harm done by GM crops are unlikely to meet the needs of public policy. Evidence from: Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) Minutes of a meeting dated 28th September 2006 “Field Trials of GM Potato.” Further detail: 6#7-8 22

This is a revised and updated version of the 2001 circular to Local Authority health and safety Inspectors and is due for further review in 2008. Inspectors will expect duty holders to interpret their statutory obligations to protect the health and safety of call centre (or similar) employees, in the manner described in this guidance. Issues such as acoustic shock, verbal abuse, voice strain and work pace monitoring are more specific to call centre work; the rest of the guidance reflects general guidance on office work. Rest breaks and consultation are strongly emphasised. Call centre work employs around 3% of the UK workforce. The true scale of risks to health and safety and the accuracy and effectiveness of the proposed control measures remain highly uncertain. Evidence from: HSE LAC Number: 94/2 October 2006. “Advice regarding call centre working practices” Given that most of the risks are risks of perception rather than objective hazards and outcomes, cultural and comme