Claire Short was interviewed this morning on BBC concerning Aid and Famine in Africa. Claire Short said various things which impressed me in her growth in stature as a politician in the years she has been in her present job as Overseas Aid or whatever it is called now. Her attitude to overseas aid and African problems was much more informed. Why is it that, normally, as soon as Ministers become conversant with the problem they have to deal with they are replaced? or is that democracy at work? One thing she did do was condemn the refusal of food aid by the Africans because it was GM. Now that to me illustrates the responsiblity of debate and its needs for transparency and truth. Firstly the need to inform people like Claire Short correctly and not create smokescreens purely because we are opposed to something, whether for idealogical or self interest reasons. Secondly the responsibility that we have in our social conscience to deny people who are hungry food purely because scare stories have so misinformed their governments. I have already demonstrated in these forums how easy it is to create fear in an unimformed public like for instance the spreading of animal faeces on crops intended for human consumption. It can be effective in campaigning, but is it morally right? I intend to write to Claire Short, someone whose political views at one time I would disagree with, on her arrival in the real world to which we in the majority have to live. Jack Caley

This mornings radio programmes once again confirmed for me something I never thought I would think, that is Claire Shorts growth in stature as a politician of conscience within this government. I believe the furore over cricket in Zimbabwe is partly as a result of her initiative. Once again she has shown that she does dig out the truth, no matter how you view it. It thereforer must be a breakthrough for truth and debate that she recognised that the refusal of perfectly good food for starving people must a serious error on the part of people who have been misled and misinformed. Jack Caley

Dear Jack I was hoping not to have to reply to this one but if the Christmas spirit is to last until New Year I don't like to see you left talking to yourself. If I try to point out why some of us find what you have written here a bit offensive I hope you take it in the spirit it is sent, a bit like those old adverts for lifebuoy soap when it is your best friend who points out what you really need to be told. To celebrate staving people accepting GM food aid is perverse. No-one wants to see anyone go hungry and there has never been any campaign to encourage them to refuse it, it is offensive to imply that there has. We have however been asking that they are treated with dignity and their wishes respected and if that is not to be the case I suppose I must accept defeat. It may well be the case that in this country by this time next year another 20,000 farmers may be forced to live on handouts and although I do not want them to starve either I will also take that as a defeat rather than a breakthrough. Another "breakthrough" was announced on the day of your posting, that of the first human clone. While I sincerely hope the child lives to enjoy a normal life I find it a hard to celebrate however clever the science. If she does live to be normal and no different to the rest of us you may then ask why does it matter when we can not tell the difference. I find that a difficult question to answer in words that those engaged in this science would understand (and am not sure of your views on the subject) but to be honest I find them quite sick people trying to impose their sick vision of the future on the rest of us and I am sorry if that sounds like an irrational prejudice rather than reasoned argument. Of course we do not know for sure if she is a clone, just as I do not know for sure you were eating a GM tomato - since Flava Sava got withdrawn a couple of years ago I did not know there were any with consent in the EU but if you tell me it was I will take your word for it. There are however a few "facts" about the claims being made about the GM food aid that I refuse to accept. In his letter to the Guardian (December 13), US ambassador William Farish stated that "more than 95% of American maize is GM". This is wrong, while only 5% is GM-free the vast majority of the rest is conventionally grown that has been contaminated by GM due lack of segregation by those with a vested interest in making sure that was the case. Lee McClenny ( Office of public affairs, US Embassy - letters to the Guardian 19/12/02) claims that all that had been offered was actually grown in South Africa but reports from the region contradict this. From this distance it is hard to know what is going on, I have never even been to Africa, but my instincts are to trust those who have dedicated their lives working alongside the poor rather than those that have been making a good living at their expense so I will give the last word to them: "When Zambian scientists recently visited the US at the behest of the government, US agronomist Dr Charles Benbrook told them the US does have GM-free maize for African countries, but refuses to supply it. South African newspaper reports have confirmed ships in Durban harbour with US maize for famine victims. There have further been photos in our newspapers of starving people on the side of the road picking up kernels of "GM maize from the US" that have fallen from passing trucks. One of the greatest fears of African states is that GM maize will be planted instead of eaten, and this will contaminate and destroy Africa's GM-free export markets. Reports from Malawi in the last few days indicate that it has just run out of seed, which means Malawian farmers will turn to the black market and buy GM food aid to use as maize seed. Could the corporate-dominated US government be involved in a conspiracy to contaminate the world's crops with GM varieties, thereby preventing consumers having the choice of GM-free food?" Andrew Taynton KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa taynton@cdrive.co.za

Dear Tom, Thank you for commenting Tom and rejoining the effort to put out the transparency and truth. I had not wanted to talk to myself, nor use the the old campaigners ploy of accusing the opposing view as beinging offensive, even when they had instructed me what to write.I am a little concerned and worried though as I gave up using Lifebouy soap a long while ago. I am a little surprised you chose not to comment on the integrity of a woman of the stature of Claire Short other than call her perverse. I did not necessarily consider her contribution as a breakthrough for GM, just a move forward in the freedom of information. To be obsessed with the "contamination" by GM is a little late don,t you think, the tomato I ate was surely not as it would have been 30 years ago, it was bought 2 weeks before Christmas, still firm and eatable of a sort, and I am still alive today. That tomato joins the long list of foods published by the anti-GM website you gave me on another thread when we discussed cheese.I have still not heard of any problems arising from that huge long list. You have also asked, nay demanded points of agreement from me, well rejoice now because I do not consider the cloned baby to be a breakthrough, nor did I claim it to be one. I do not consider cloning babies like that to be ethical or desirable. However, if I were indeed being offensive, I might have wondered if the introduction of the subject of cloning babies was not a diversionary ploy. I would however like to see the breakthroughs in science that I have seen in my lifetime proceed with care and proper openness, especially that one day those breakthroughs will help to save someone I know seriously ill with cancer. I am interested to hear details of a conspiracy theory, especially as if we got together we might write a book like Tom Clancy, or make a film like Denzel Washington, think of the money we could make. Happy New Year, Jack Caley.

Tom, it's very public-spirited of you not to leave Jack talking to himself. I've given up on him. His comments about food aid in Africa are hugely offensive - but are based upon ignorance so are not worthy of a reply. Please don't confuse him with the facts. He's pocketed his blood money from the agribusiness lobby, so just let him be. Nobody takes his views seriously. Ben Gill may or may not be grateful for Jack's patronising support, and Clare Short doubtless will be on the edge of her seat waiting for Jack's letter to drop onto her door mat. Let the poor old sod retire in peace and self-satisfaction.

Tom you must be loiving in a dream world if you think only 5% of US maize is grown as a GM crop. If you look at their recommended lists it is now getting hard to find non modified varieties

Dear Stephen, Could you clarify please for a poor old sod, was that was Tom loving in a dream world, OR living in a dream world? Answers please to Martin living in his own little world. A smiling New Year, Jack Caley

Dear Martin, I am very hurt!!!!!! Do not criticise Ben Gill or Claire Short, they are not here to defend themslves. By all means criticise Italian pig feed technology. That way I can defend myself. I could say that I am proud of the fact that Caravaggi mill/mixers sold by Calamill Systems to pig, poultry and beef farmers produce more than 200,000 tonnes of feed in England, Scotland and Ireland. They save the farmers a minimum of £10.00 per tonne, so even to an old sod like me that works to more than £2m. Quite a substantial effort don,t you think? Keep smiling, Martin, Happy New Year, Jack Caley

Oh dear, I don't think my attempts at diplomacy work well, possibly more Prince Philip than Prince Charles. I'll quit this thread before I do anymore damage and if anyone wants to know if GM really can make a difference to world hunger I would ask them to read "Feeding or Fooling the world" at http://www.fiveyearfreeze.org/Feed_Fool_World.pdf and take up the issue with them. I thought I had said that only 5% of the maize in the US was GM-free. I understand that somewhere between 25% and 30% is GM depending who you talk to and farmers from the US have been complaining that it is getting increasingly hard to find non-GM varieties. Jack, I did not raise the issue of cloning to be offensive, I thought you views might not be too dissimilar to mine. I would invite you to write to those involved with these experiments and see if you can avoid getting accused of all the things you keep accusing me of. Then you might realise that we don't live in such different worlds after all. If you are still interested in collaborating in a film about the cover-up at DEFRA I will supply the facts if you put up the money. DEFRA's predecessors in the form of MAFF and DETR used to regularly publish information on their "What's New" web pages on the last day of the month knowing full well that the news would go into an archive folder the following day and would be more difficult to find. Examples include information about the location of trial sites for GM crops and the Interim Reports on farmscale trials. The first interim report on GM crop Farm-Scale Evaluations was dated on November 11th 1999 but was posted on the DETR web site on 23 December 1999 so this is getting to be something of a Christmas tradition, this time summery on Christmas Eve, full report on New Year's Eve. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/epg-1-5-84.htm I am not sure about your choice of casting, I would prefer Glen Close to play Margaret Beckett and Ken Dodd to play Ben Gill. If you study this report I think you must conclude that DEFRA should be advising farmers who are growing oilseed rape next to the field trials not to save seed. It they won't advise farmers not to do that then the NFU should. I will be writing to both but doubt if I will get any sense out of either. I am still curious about those tomatoes, where were they grown and how were they labelled?

Jack. PLEASE stop shooting yourself in the foot. It's getting embarrassing. How in the name of Allah could my observations about Ben Gill or Clare Short be interpreted as criticising them? It really would help your cause no end, Jack, if you actually READ what was written. I've no opinion whatsoever about Ben Gill - I was pleased to publish an article from him recently in LANDMARK, whether I agree with his views or not! Biased again, I guess. Ben Gill is if anything to be pitied rather than criticised, having by your own account been employed by you as a pig unit manager(not something that everybody would want on his/her CV...) and moved on to greater things as a result of the wisdom that you imparted to him. As for Clare Short, yes I do have opinions there, as I have worked in the field of overseas development for 26 years. But have I criticised her? No. Just published her views and let the readers make up their own minds. More bias. Have I criticised Italian pig feed technology? Certainly not. Don't know a damn thing about it, and don't wish to. I simply remarked, in the context of Buying British, that the material is Italian. No criticism of Italy, pigs or feed mills there. And I am sure that your noble efforts in support of the Italian balance of trade were inspired by the philanthropic urge to save money for non-failed pig farmers. My own little world? What would you know about it? And just to clarify one final point, old bean: do you not think that there is something odd, not to say surreal, about your stout defence of Ms Short and Mr Gill on the grounds that that are 'not there to defend themselves' (against criticism which I did not level), when my own participation in this forum would never have occurred if you had not taken the liberty of slagging me off when I was not 'there to defend myself' until Tom Rigby told me what you were up to!!! Get real, you sad old man. Stop shooting yourself in the foot, please.

I think we can all assume the Christmas spirit has now completely worn off if some of these replies are to be believed.Happy New Year!

Dear Tom, I thought Andrew accused the US government of conspiracy. You know that films are produced with American money, we would never get support for a film about DEFRA, unless it maybe was a comedy. Regards the tomatoes I think Safeway grew them in their store at Hedon. It said tomatoes on the wrapper, otherwise we might have had a little difficulty in recognising the product. Soon be 2003, Night night, Jack

Just getting the facts straight, old chap!

In a spirit of reconciliation and New Yearness, Jack, I would like to offer you this opportunity to apologise for slagging me off behind my back. There you go, old bean, now defend yourself! Stuff diplomacy, let's see if you're a big enough man to admit that you were entirely wrong. I'll accept your apology if offered. No hard feelings.

Martin, old chap, Thankyou for the New Year spirit, I am touched. Wherever I have been wrong I apologise. As a further token of my goodwill I would like to recommend a voluntary organisation which may be of help. It has a membership of very nice people, widely dispersed and very sincere and vocal in their efforts to be of assistance. It is called No Use of Totally Trumpedup Experimental Research. I will send you contact addresses if you wish, I think the secretary is an oriental lady. Happy New Year, Jack Caley

Martin, old chap, Thankyou for the New Year spirit, I am touched. Wherever I have been wrong I apologise. As a further token of my goodwill I would like to recommend a voluntary organisation which may be of help. It has a membership of very nice people, widely dispersed and very sincere and vocal in their efforts to be of assistance. It is called No Use of Totally Trumpedup Experimental Research. I will send you contact addresses if you wish, I think the secretary is an oriental lady. Happy New Year, Jack Caley

Oh dear, it does not seem to be getting any better! While the lady who is being insulted here despite her small stature is big-hearted enough not to feel intimidated, our continued enjoyment of these forums depends on coming to understanding about what is fair comment and what is just offensive. Sadly I am coming to believe that Martin is right, when a posting causes offensive it is better to ignore it or maybe reply with a [:(] rather than trying to explain why you find it offensive. Anyway a rather more light-hearted GM story from this mornings Times. While Jack will probably think it is another breakthrough I am begining to think it proves Dick Lindley is right, there is something dodgy about the Euro. ---------------------------------------------------------- The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-529172,00.html January 01, 2003 Euro notes are genetically modified, scientists reveal By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent SCEPTICS who derided the euro as an artificial currency have been right all along: its banknotes are printed on genetically modified cotton. Though the European Union has some of the toughest GM regulations in the world, it has ignored the transgenic fibres in its own currency. The engineered banknotes are not even labelled. Most modern banknotes are printed on cotton-based paper, as it is both highly durable and difficult to forge. Sterling uses a mixture of cotton and linen rag, while the euro is 100 per cent cotton. While the Bank of England imports its raw material mainly from Turkey, which does not grow GM cotton, one of the European Central Bank’s main suppliers is America, where three quarters of the cotton crop is now transgenic. American farmers and wholesalers do not separate conventional and GM cotton, and the ECB has no procedure for tracing the origin of the fibres it buys. As a result, GM cotton certainly finds its way into many banknotes, and may be present in them all. The biotechnology of the single currency has been revealed by Klaus Ammann, of the University of Berne in Switzerland, and Oliver Rautenberg, of the German company BioLinX, who have even designed an alternative 20-euro note that advertises its genetically engineered contents. “The central bank will not acknowledge it, but it is inconceivable that there is no GM cotton in the euro,” Dr Ammann said. “The single currency is genetically modified.” The ECB said that it could not say whether GM material was used. “We buy banknote paper of the highest quality, which is made from 100 per cent cotton, but we do not provide specifics on the ingredients,” a spokesman said. Most GM cotton is modified to produce a toxin called Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt, which kills the corn borer, a devastating pest. It is not harmful to human health and has reduced the need to spray pesticides, though some environmentalists are concerned that it could lead to growing resistance among insects. While the European Union requires GM foods to be labelled, fibres do not have to carry any warning. Dr Ammann said that the euro issue raised questions about the future of labelling, and that the policy was inconsistent and hypocritical. Green groups said that they were alarmed that people with concerns about GM crops would be forced to use them in their currency. Pete Riley, of Friends of the Earth, said it would be perfectly possible for the ECB to source non-GM cotton. “Many of the people who are concerned about GM crops are worried about the environmental impacts rather than food safety,” he said. “If the EU wanted to adopt a policy that would actually help southern cotton farmers, there are plenty of places in the world that would be only too willing and able to fulfil such a contract.”

Dear Tom, Re the Mickey Mouse Euro, I am so pleased that at least you have come to realise I have been right all the time, usually I am in a minority of one on this issue,at least on this forum. Happy new year to all our friends, even the Europhiles in our midst. Dick Lindley

Dear Tom, I keep telling you GM is everywhere it is a conspiracy!! The problem could easily be solved with Euronotes though, run a campaign to have them put in landfill as we do with oilseed rape, Back on the offensive in 2003 Jak Caley