|
Newsletter
|
| Waitrose | 26 |
| Asda | 10 |
| Iceland |
9
|
| M&S | 12 |
| Coop | 29 |
| Radco |
2
|
| Sainsburys | 37 |
| Safeway | 14 |
| Somerfield | 14 |
| Tesco | 14 |
To date, I have had responses from only two companies - the Coop (which I do use) and Safeway (which I don't)
Terry
However, FOE and the alliance which includes Sustain will be putting pressure on MPs in the autumn to adopt this Bill again in the Private Members Bill Ballot.
On Saturday 21st October there will be an Organics Day of Action. Your help would be welcome on this day.
Terry
The three agencies that might be presumed to have the responsibility for GM food safety are the Food and Drug administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). But the mandates followed by these agencies are simply not set up for regulating transgenic crops.
The FDA oversees food safety but does not look at the safety of pesticides. It therefore does not consider itself responsible for the safety of foods which contain genetically engineered pesticides. Pesticides have traditionally been monitored by the EPA but the EPA only looks at the tolerance of humans for the seeds and for chemicals externally applied to plants and fields. Food from the plants has not been within their traditional scope. The USDA's responsibility is to protect the farmer by making sure that crops grow as advertised by the manufacturer. It does not take responsibility for the safety of the crops produced and passed on to the consumer.
Labelling of foods so that the consumer can make an informed choice has been widely advocated. According to the Center for Food Safety, polls show that 90% of consumers want labelling and tens of thousands of consumers have written to the FDA in recent months. But in a move away from taking a role responsive to popular concerns, the FDA announced a plan in May that does not include additional testing and will not require food companies to label food that contains genetically modified organisms. This decision was taken despite considerable pressure from the public based on the worry that there is not enough known about possible allergic reactions to the food or potential harm to other plants, insects and animals in the environment.
However popular concern has begun to have an effect via the market place. Several companies with huge consumer bases have decided to go GE-free and this in turn is influencing farmers to return to GE-free crops.
Recently McDonald's and Burger King told their potato suppliers that they do not want GE potatoes (GE potatoes are designed to combat the potato beetle by splicing the bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) into every cell). McDonald's hopes its popular french fries will be entirely GE-free by this autumn. J R Simple Co, which supplies nearly 80% of Mc Donald's french fries , is instructing its farmers to stop growing GE potatoes and states that virtually all the fast food chains have told them they prefer to take non- GM potatoes.
With food companies, supermarkets and restaurants throughout Europe having gone GM-free, added pressure has been placed on US companies and farmers who wish to export.
According to recent USDA statistics, plantings of engineered Bt corn will decline by 24% and plantings of GE Roundup Ready soybeans will decline by 9% this year. Given the lack of government responsiveness, maintained pressure from consumers is proving to be an effective force that is slowing down bio-engineered food production, helped to buy time to find out about its long- term effects on humans and the environment.
(Edited extract from Foundation for Global Community's Timeline July/August 2000)
Envolve, the Bath Environment Centre, is hoping to create two experimental Home Zones in Camden on Car free Day - in Belgrave Crescent and Dowding Road/Holland Road.
Bath FoE will be creating a similar Home Zone experiment on Saturday 23 September in Maple Grove, Bloomfield. For details contact Tony on 312961.
On 18th May, B&NES Planning, Transport and Environment Committee adopted a Road Safety Plan which included the following:-
"20mph zones and Home Zones will be trialled. A set of criteria will be developed in the light of these trials to establish the suitable sites and the most effective procedures".
A measure of some motorists' views on attempts to slow down traffic in residential areas is illustrated by the following gloriously breathtaking Bath Chronicle quote from a Camden resident commenting on recently introduced local traffic calming measures:-
"The consideration shown towards the pedestrian is beginning to be completely out of proportion with considerations for the safety of the motorist. Please don't make it any more precarious for us to drive these already dangerous roads".
Terry
Bath Car Share Club is now on its way to being established. Following a meeting on 1 August several potential members have been identified and a steering group is being set up. To find out more contact Barry Maunder at envolve - 01225 787911 - barrym@envolve.co.uk |
The number of speakers from the public at the full council meeting was evenly balanced between those for and those against the bus gate proposal. Dave Searby spoke up spiritedly for Bath FoE in support of the bus gate, generally making the points outlined in our last newsletter and in particular emphasising the fact that this busgate will be nothing new, Pulteney Bridge bus gate having been in force for many years, with beneficial reductions in city centre air pollution and traffic congestion.The main speaker against the bus gate listed numerous petition signatories in his support. I subsequently checked up on two of them. One small business quoted had in fact not signed the petition. Another, the Bath Consumer Group had signed but was not against the bus gate per se but wanted more consultation and monitoring. They are happy with the decision to proceed as now proposed.
I have not seen the petition, but if its wording was the same as that of the statement read out by the main speaker against the bus gate, it was indeed somewhat vague and many fence-sitters might have been persuaded that it was sufficiently innocuous to sign up to.
I quote: ".....We therefore ask this meeting of the Full Council not to rubber stamp the flawed decision of the PTE committee and request again that we be included in proper and meaningful consultation to work together for the benefit of Bath....."
The motion passed by the Full Council means that the bus-gate, or as it is officially designated - Priority Access Point (PAP), will be experimental for 18 months. Also, before it goes in, the following will have to be completed:-
27 June 2000(The Chronic published this on its letters page on 10 July)Councillor Malcolm Hanney
Spokesperson Conservative Group
Guildhall
BathDear Mr Hanney
B&NES WASTE INCINERATION OPTION
I would be grateful if you would say if B&NES Council's Conservative Group, which is currently in favour of keeping the incinerator option open for B&NES waste, will be reviewing its position following the Conservative Environment Spokesman, Damian Green's recent statement that:-
"We will introduce a moratorium on new incinerators until independent British scientific evidence proves they are safe"
Yours sincerely
Terry Coulson
Co-ordinator
cc The Editor, Bath Chronicle
7 August 2000Councillor Malcolm Hanney
Spokesperson Conservative Group
Guildhall
BathDear Mr Hanney
B&NES WASTE INCINERATION OPTION
I refer to my letter of 27 June (copied below), to which I have had no response.
On 27 July there was a by-election for Keynsham Town Council South, a previously strong Labour ward . It was won by the Liberal Democrats but there was also a big advance by the Conservatives who nearly pushed Labour into 3rd place. Labour said nothing about incineration. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives both distributed leaflets voicing opposition to the Waste Park Incinerator.
Keynsham Conservatives are in line with Conservative national policy in being opposed to waste incineration. I would be grateful if you would say if B&NES Conservatives remain in favour of keeping the incinerator option open for B&NES waste.
Yours sincerely
Terry Coulson
Co-ordinator
cc The Editor Bath Chronicle
Boo
Terry
In July the House of Commons International Development Committee in its report "ECGD, Developmental Issues and the Ilisu Dam" severely criticised the Government over its plan to give dam builders Balfour Beatty a $200 million export credit to build the Ilisu dam. It says:-
Terry
The maximum lorry road tax rate is £9,250 per year.
Terry
The first big change is that the proposed cinema has been removed. This follows planning permission being given for a cinema to go ahead on the Kingsmead Motors site. Instead of the cinema, the Southgate redevelopment plans have an enlarged health & fitness centre.
The second big change is that, following objections by English Heritage, no part of the railway station vaults or car park access ramp will be removed or altered. This greatly restricts the room available for the new bus station. The new plans attempt to squeeze the new bus station into the space now occupied by Churchill House. This is essentially how it was in the October 1998 plans, and we complained then that the bus station wouldn't be big enough.
The new plans have fewer stands in the bus station, fewer bus layover spaces, and fewer on-street bus stops than there are at present. That won't help the future expansion of public transport.
Once again, the developers have ignored our calls for them to carry out a proper impact assessment of the effect these changes will have on public transport in the future.
On the positive side, the currently very narrow pavement on the south side of Dorchester Street will be widened, and covered by a canopy. This will make it possible to walk from the railway station to the bus station entirely under cover. To accommodate this, Dorchester Street will be shifted 2m to the north.
The amount of housing has been increased by a tiny amount - from 68 to 70 homes. This is still a very small number. Unfortunately, the amount of overall car parking has also been increased: the new plans add 30 spaces to the current number, whereas the previous plans gave a reduction of 25 spaces. Definitely bad news.
When redevelopment plans were issued in 1998 and 1999, we saw things improve a little each time. With the 2000 plans, however, we see the rate of improvement slow right down, and some aspects even getting worse.
The Environmental Statement documentation produced by the developers is supposed to explain the details of the scheme, including the environmental impacts. A proper evaluation of the proposals is only possible if this document is accurate and up to date. But it isn't. There are some worrying errors. For example, in the past, they have told us that there will be an increase in cycle parking facilities. Yet, the Environmental Statement makes no mention of this. This probably represents sloppiness rather than a change of policy.
There are several examples where they have clearly forgotten to update the description of the scheme from that prepared for the 1998 submission. Such a lack of attention to detail hardly promotes confidence. If they've forgotten to add these sort of details, who
knows what else they might have forgotten to tell us about? How can anyone make a proper evaluation of the new scheme when the developers documentation hasn't been properly updated since the 1998 or 1999 submission?
We are still sifting through the small print of the revised proposals, and preparing our submission for the Council. It is expected that the Council will be considering the revised plans later this year - but don't hold your breath.
David Beasley.
Terry
I am still awaiting her response.
Terry
We've had some problems with the website. Just after things had got underway smoothly, there was a problem with the systems which route people to our site. Our site was still there, but nobody could reach it! I kept pestering the system administrators, but unfortunately it took them a month to sort things out. Things are back working ok now. So, if you've tried and failed to reach our website, try again now. Hopefully you'll be more successful! You can reach us at www.bath-foe.org.uk David Beasley |