Home > Resource > Briefing > Farm Scale Trials - a short critique

Search | Sitemap | Contact

Home ---------- Join ---------- Campaigns Biodiversity Campaign Express Climate Corporates Global Trade Policy/Research Real Food Transport Waste ---------- Local campaigns Cymru/Wales England Northern Ireland Community ---------- Press for change Jobs Volunteering ---------- About Us ---------- Contact Us ---------- Copyright ---------- FAQs ---------- Learning ---------- Links ---------- Living ---------- Publications ---------- Press Releases ---------- Search ---------- Sitemap

Making life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems

Farm Scale Trials - a short critique

Waste of money

Since the decision to have farm-scale trials the market for genetically modified (GM) foods has largely collapsed. Most large food manufacturers and retailers are removing GM ingredients as consumer concerns grow. Only one in ten land managers would currently advise farmers to grow GM crops. The costs of the farm-scale plantings is over £3 million and is funded by the tax-payer.

A risk to the environment

The farm scale trials have not been designed to prevent pollen escaping from the crop or to study pollen movement. As a result there is a high likelihood of cross- pollination of nearby crops or wild plants. Any nearby beekeepers may also find their honey contaminated with GM pollen.

A recent MAFF report from the John Innes Institute stated that cross pollination of crops would be “inevitable” and that the separation distances set out in industry guidelines drawn up by SCIMAC would not prevent this. For such large scale trials, with more proposed in future years, cross-pollination with either non-GM crops or wild plants would be inevitable. The plantings should be halted until Government and the industry can show that neighbouring farmers and wildlife are protected.

Farm Scale trials not needed

It is argued that large, farm size trials are necessary to provide accurate information about the impact of GM crops on the environment. But almost all of the test sites up to now looked at agronomic performance of GM crops, so it is little wonder that they didn't provide any useful information about environmental impacts. There has been no evaluation of properly designed small scale trials. This should have been done before leaping to uncontained farm size trials.

Nor has there been any attempt to establish what the gaps are in current data and if other means could be used to fill them. For example, current understanding of farmland ecology is extremely poor, as was accepted in a recent government report. Money should be spent researching the best methods for improving farming.

Research which would inform the farm scale trials is not yet complete. A MAFF funded project (BRIGHT) 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. Yet farm-scale trials will be managed by farmers.

Can the trials answer the questions anyway?

It is unlikely that the trials will reveal much about the impact of growing herbicide resistant crops. Over the short period proposed for the trials it is probable that effects of previous management will dominate differences observed. For example, the historical seed bank is likely to affect weed diversity as much as management over such a short time scale.

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.

The trials do not reflect the future of GM farming. It is almost certain that if GM oilseed, maize and sugar beet are approved, other herbicide tolerant crops will be developed. In a few years the typical arable crop rotation would be growing herbicide tolerant crops in most years. The impacts of this are not being assessed in the current trials.

It can be also questioned whether the results will matter anyway. A leaked memo from the Cabinet Office to Friends of the Earth stated that “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.)”

Who's liable for damage?

At present, the question of who would be liable for damage caused by growing GM crops has not been answered. Until it has been established who would be legally responsible for any damage caused to the environment or the livelihoods of nearby food producers, these trials should not go ahead.

Creeping Commercialisation

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, it is quite possible that the crops will enter the food chain in future years.

The Government has stated clearly that these trials are part of the “managed development” of GM crops. AgrEvo has stated that it wishes to increase the number of trials to 50 in 2000. It is becoming increasingly clear that these trials are a smokescreen for commercial growing.

Industry in control

It is questionable whether the Government is in control. Some trial sites have already commercial consents, basic research is not complete, and trials were started before the steering committee had even met. It is clear that the Government is under pressure from industry. Only within the context of a moratorium will the Government be able to conduct any meaningful research whilst carrying out a public debate on the future of farming and the countryside.