Real Food News
1999
9 August
Farm-scale GM tests a “scientific farce”
Farm-scale trials of genetically modified (GM) crops are “a scientific
farce”, a new analysis by Friends of the Earth (FOE) has concluded.
FOE says that the trials amount to “creeping commercialisation”
and that they themselves pose an environmental threat.
The news undermines the Government's claim that the trials must continue
to inform political decisions about the future of GM products. FOE also
believes that key Ministers are determined to allow the first widespread
commercial growing of GM crops from next spring. Three quarters of the
existing trials are being grown on a commercial license.
At the start of the year, there were seven planned farm-scale trials
for the summer. An announcement for winter oilseed rape sites is expected
shortly. These are in addition to the 140 smaller trials already in
operation. The cost of the farm-scale trials is over £3 million,
funded by the tax-payer.
“Creeping Commercialisation”
- The Government is likely to allow the maize being trialed to be
sold commercially to farmers from next spring. The seeds could be
placed on the National Seed List by February next year.
- The GM maize on trial already has commercial marketing consent from
the European Union. Although the Government has an unwritten agreement
with industry that these crops will not go into the food chain this
year, the crops could enter the food chain in future years.
- The trials are part of the 'managed development' of GM crops. AgrEvo
has been given consent for a massive increase in oilseed rape trials,
from 1,250 acres now to 12,500 acres by 2000. The Government and its
officials have refused to rule out other large-scale plantings during
the trials.
Environmental Hazard
- The trials have not been designed to prevent pollen escaping from
the crop, or to study pollen movement. It is likely that cross-pollination
of nearby crops or wild plants will occur. Any nearby beekeepers may
also find their honey contaminated with GM pollen. A recent report
for the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF), from the
biotech research body the John Innes Centre, stated that cross pollination
of crops would be “inevitable” and that the separation distances
set out in industry guidelines would not prevent this.
- Small-scale trials have only concentrated on the agronomic performance
of GM crops - including yield and commercial value - rather than environmental
effects. There has been no evaluation of properly designed small-scale
trials.
- Farm scale trials have not been inspected by the Health and Safety
Executive.
- The Government has no clear policy on how to respond to any evidence
of environmental damage that may occur. A February Cabinet Office
memo leaked to FOE asked “What if environmental damage is shown
to occur, how much can we tolerate as a justifiable cost? Or do we
believe that any damage should justify a halt? (The latter is unlikely
to be true, but will be difficult in presentational terms.)”
- The trials are being governed by voluntary guidelines written up
by the industry itself. Former Agriculture Minister Jeff Rooker stated
that there was no parliamentary time to make these guidelines mandatory.
Scientific Farce
- Basic research into what wildlife exists on farmland before GM crops
are trialed has not been done. A report by the Government's Pesticide
Safety Directorate last year pointed out that very little is known
about wildlife in intensively run farms.
- Key research which should form the basis for any farm-scale trials
is not yet complete. A MAFF funded project to examine impacts on botanical
diversity and to “provide farmers with practical guidance on
the appropriate management of herbicide tolerant crops” only
started in April 1999 and will not be finished until 2003.
- The trials may not show much about the impact of growing herbicide
resistant crops. Without the relevant research into agricultural ecology,
it is likely that only gross differences between GM and non GM crops
will be detected. Subtle changes, which could have important long
term impacts, may be missed.
- It remains unclear what role the biotech giant AgrEvo, which supplies
the GM seed and chemicals, have to play. FOE have written to Michael
Meacher asking for the contracts to be made public. It is possible
that AgrEvo may control when spraying takes place - and therefore
the effects on biodiversity - thus making a mockery of the trials.
Policy Chaos
- The question of who would be liable for damage caused by growing
GM crops has not been answered. Legally responsibility for any damage
caused to the environment or the livelihoods of nearby food producers
should be established before these trials go ahead.
- The trials are funded by the taxpayer for over £3 million and
not the biotech industry who stand to make millions out of the seed
and chemical sales.
- There is no demand for GM produce in the UK. Most major retailers
and food manufacturers have now removed GM ingredients from their
products.
- The trials are looking at whether there is a difference in wildlife
between GM crops and conventional intensive crops - the so called
“null hypothesis”. Conventional farming is known to seriously
damage wildlife. Tests should be looking at all farming options to
see which one is best for the environment, rural economies and the
production of safe food.
Get these updates first
If you would like these news updates to be emailed to you as soon as
they come out, then join our real food mailing list.
Register
Here
News
