At 08:51 AM 2003-09-28 +1200, I wrote to LIM and GV-NZ: "democracy measures; GM Organisms"{at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/11771 or a similar one at: http://www.topica.com/lists/positive-futures@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?mid=807397243&sort=d&start=18259 }: At 07:38 AM 2003-09-26 +1200, I sent (in: D.M's latest 4 posts to PF): > >"'GM crops? No thanks' say the British - *The Independent* newspaper": http://tinyurl.com/ooa7 > · I started that Positive Futures post with: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I have done science research (for my degree); I have from the beginning been horrified that any government should allow non-recallable release into the environment (because the plants etc. are self-propagating), without _knowing_, by extensive research taking _many_ years, that the _risks_ to people and the other life on the planet are _manageable_. Most British (and other Europeans and New Zealanders) are with me on this. D.M. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=446787 is: GM crops? No thanks ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · That Independent article had: The unprecedented test of public opinion, which over six weeks this summer involved 675 public meetings and elicited more than 36,000 written responses, revealed a deep hostility to GM technology across the population. ... Even special focus groups, deliberately selected from people who were uncommitted one way or another, to tease out the views of the "silent majority", and whose members were initially prepared to admit the technology might have benefits, opposed GM technology more the more they learnt about it, the report discloses. The extent and the unequivocal nature of the hostility revealed by "GM Nation?" will represent a substantial political hurdle to those who wish to bring the technology to Britain as soon as possible - led by Tony Blair - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · and finished with: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The general mood, the report said, "ranged from caution to doubt, through suspicion and scepticism, to hostility and rejection." The chairman of the debate, Professor Malcolm Grant said: "I now look forward to the Government's responding to the points raised in the debate, and taking these into account in the future formulation of policy on GM." "GM NATION?", BY NUMBERS * 20,000 people attended 675 meetings across Britain * The public sent in 1200 letters and e-mails * The website received 2.9 million hits in just six weeks * 70,000 feeback forms were downloaded; 36,557 were returned * 93% of respondents believed GM technology was driven by profit rather than public interest * 85% thought GM crops would benefit producers, rather than ordinary people * 84% believed they would cause "unacceptable interference" with nature * 54% never want to see GM crops grown in Britain * 86% were unhappy with the idea of eating GM food * 93% said too little was known about health effects * 2% were happy with GM foods in all circumstances - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · Insurance companies similarly: "Big insurer refuses GMO farm cover": http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3525771 in the NZ Herald: {farmers would not be covered for personal injury or damage to property directly or indirectly caused by: * "The presence on any premises of, or the production of or supply of any GMO [genetically modified organism] or any other material that has been genetically modified where liability may be directly or indirectly attributed to the genetic characteristics of such organism or material."} · In the UK there's one more report to come (due to be published on 16 Oct. and "will be the crucial document in the debate"), but it's now clear that the UK government is finding it's trying to lead the public in a way the people don't want to go - more GM crops and foods. -=##=- · But my main point is that _that_ government _is_ doing the democracy thing and _is_ taking steps to inform itself of public opinion. · In contrast, the _US_ government has so little interest in public opinion (perhaps because it is so easily manipulated) that they don't even think of doing a public consultation. {Like Gary's epithet: "My way or the highway".} · NZ (and probably other old-British-Empire countries) does go through well- publicised consultation rounds; currently eleven *hui* in Maori marae, on the question of who controls the seabed and foreshore, Maori or The Crown, and while the government is free to ignore any and all consultation, the Ministers of The Crown who were there (usually including the Deputy-PM Michael Cullen - the Finance Minister), heard first-hand from people with well-researched and/or deeply-held opinions. I Commonwealth Countries, we still believe in the public-service aspect of Members of Parliament (sometimes a lot less than we'd wish, but definitely there), so I expect some sort of agreement between the Treaty-of-Waitangi partners (Maori and The Crown) to come out of this. · That is, representative democracy is working as well as it's likely to, in NZ (and hopefully in the UK). · I believe the degree of democracy can be measured, and such consultations as the "GM Nation?" one in the UK and the "seabed and foreshore" hui in NZ, contribute to whether one can say: "we have active, real democracy here", or "we are a democratic nation", or "we call ourselves democratic, would like to believe it, but aren't really", or: "I vote every 2-to-4 years, that's more than enough democracy for me". David.