Really - Left Behind On GM?

Vicki Hird

28 February 2013

This week's comments on GM crops by Environment Secretary Owen Patterson at the National Farmers Union Conference were astonishing, if not predictable. It's depressing to hear yet again how deeply our Government has bought into the rhetoric that UK farmers are somehow missing out by not being able to adopt GM crops.

In an attempt to cheer ourselves up, we can only conclude that Mr Patterson has been receiving some rather one-sided briefings. If he had been advised on the extent of the problems GM crops are causing farmers worldwide he wouldn't be seriously suggesting the UK heads down that rocky road.

There may be trouble ahead

Those GM crops that the US, Brazil and others are "ploughing ahead" with are not the miracle crops we've been promised for decades; crops that will tolerate drought, salty soils and fix their own nitrogen. No, those crops are still in the research pipeline, a pipedream draining vast amounts of funding in the hope that they will one day deliver for food security.

I'm sure Mr Patterson knows that the GM crops grown commercially in the US and Brazil are predominantly Monsanto's GM herbicide resistant soy and maize, grown on a vast scale for animal feed, biofuels and some processed food ingredients. But he forgot to mention to farmers that the over-use of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) on these crops has led to a crisis of resistant 'superweeds' - 11 species and counting in the US alone.  Farmers there have no choice but to spray more and more herbicide to control the resistant weeds, swelling their production costs, not to mention the impacts on the environment and people's health.

US farmers are also reportedly considering returning to conventional crops after increased pest resistance and crop failures caused smaller yields in GM crops.

It's all about the money

Mr Patterson and British farmers should also be alert to the costly dispute their Brazilian counterparts are embroiled in with Monsanto over seed royalties on the company's patented soy crop. Last year a judge ordered Monsanto to repay farmers royalties wrongly claimed since its GM soy patent expired in 2010. Nearly a year later, it seems that Monsanto still hasn't reimbursed up to five million farmers in Brazil the equivalent of over 6 billion euros.

And back in the US, some essential reading for Mr Patterson's Easter holidays is a new report  revealing how the patent regime has allowed Monsanto and other corporations to first of all sue farmers - 144 lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 states - and secondly, concentrate the seed industry to the extent where over 50 per cent of the global seed market is owned by just three companies. And this market dominance has led to exponential seed price increases. Still good for farmers?

Rose-tinted or blinkered?

The industry has also painted a misleading picture of the extent of GM crops grown around the world, implying that it is only a matter of time before the UK has to become a GM Nation. But globally GM crops still only account for 3.4% of farmed land and only a handful of crops, notably soy, maize, oilseed rape and cotton, dominate. In Europe only six out of 27 member states are growing a GM crop (a Monsanto maize, for animal feed), and in four of those, the area declined over the last year.

It doesn't have to be this way

If Mr Patterson is serious about boosting the farming economy (his stated no. 1 priority), he should see that the GM crops on offer would be a disaster for British farmers. Instead there is a clear business opportunity for in supplying the strong market for GM-free food and differentiating themselves on quality produce, supplying local markets.

Far from being left behind, the UK is in fact in an incredibly strong position because we haven't adopted GM crops. Now we just need Owen Patterson to remove those blinkers.

follow Clare Oxborrow on @clareyox and vicki Hird on @vickihird