|
|
Farm Scale Trials of GM crops - in depthIntroduction
|
|
The Farm-Scale Trials
The Government-sponsored farm-scale trials are being conducted on three
GM herbicide tolerant crops:
- Aventis glufosinate tolerant fodder maize
- Aventis glufosinate tolerant spring and winter oilseed rape
Parallel, industry sponsored trials, are being carried out on:
- Monsanto glyphosate tolerant sugar beet
The purpose of the trials is to test the following hypothesis: that
there is no significant difference between the biodiversity associated
with the management of GM winter/spring oilseed rape/maize tolerant
to herbicides and comparable non-GM crops at the farm-scale.
The trials started in spring 1999 but so far have only been used to work out which study methods will be used9. The farm-scale trials were not designed to study cross pollination with nearby crops, nor has any attempt been made to prevent this (other than a requirement for a 50 metre separation distance between GM and other oilseed rape and fodder maize crops). Pollen monitoring commissioned by FOE at a GM oilseed rape farm-scale trial near Watlington, Oxfordshire, found airborne pollen at more than nine times this distance and in beehives 4.5 km from the site10.
The farm-scale trials for fodder maize used a variety that was granted a full European Union marketing consent in August 1998. The UK Government's opinion, sent to the European Commission, was that the crop “does not pose a risk in terms of human health and environmental safety for the United Kingdom”11. Thus the Government and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment were content to give their full blessing to the growing of Aventis' GM fodder maize despite the fact that they now openly admit that its long-term impact on biodiversity was unknown and unstudied.
The Government has refused to use its power to revoke the Marketing Consent until the crop is proven to be safe. This means that the crop can be planted anywhere in the UK without the Government having any control -- even over where the crops are planted. Because of this, Friends of the Earth stands by its charge that the farm- scale trials are merely a front for “creeping commercialisation” 12.
To date, SCIMAC has had limited success in securing farms to take part in the trials. In spring 1999, seven sites were announced - three spring oilseed rape and four fodder maize. One oilseed rape site was destroyed by the host farmer after only a few weeks.
The search for winter oilseed rape sites faired as badly with only three plots being planted. One farmer in Nottinghamshire withdrew from the trials after consulting with neighbours and FOE. The status of the winter oilseed plots was further confused when the Government and Aventis conceded a legal challenge from FOE which showed that the consent given to grow the crop was in fact unlawful.
|
What's wrong with the farm-scale trials?
The farm- scale trials have been criticised by a number of organisations, (including The Soil Association, Genewatch UK and FOE) for failing to protect neighbouring farmers and beekeepers from contamination with GM pollen. The John Innes Centre reviewed the risk of cross pollination of organic crops on behalf of MAFF and confirmed that some contamination was inevitable14.
The British Beekeepers Association15 have recommended that their members should move their hives six miles from the trials to avoid any chance of honey being contaminated.
At the moment, companies or farmers planting GM crops do not have to consult with neighbouring beekeepers, or even tell them that there is a GM crop nearby. Even if the beekeeper finds out that there is a GM crop, it is up to them to test their honey for contamination. It is very possible that beekeepers have already unwittingly sold GM honey to the public.
The Scientific Steering Committee16 are aiming for 25 fields for each crop which they will select from a list submitted by SCIMAC. The consultants will examine key indicators of biodiversity, including the soil seed bank, vegetation and a range of invertebrates, including bees. The trials will be conducted on split fields - half GM crops and half conventional crops - of up to 10 hectares (25 acres).
The fact that farm-scale trials are taking place at a time when GM-crops are moving towards full commercial approval seriously undermines their credibility as regards scientific independence.
Other criticisms have been levelled at the way the trials have been designed and conducted.
The Lack of Baseline Data
A report by Pesticide Safety Directorate17, produced at the request of the Government, clearly illustrates a lack of basic knowledge concerning the biodiversity of the crops being evaluated in farm-scale trials. The report says: “Therefore it is not possible to make definitive statements as to the current biodiversity status of oilseed rape, sugar beet and maize fields.” The farm-scale trails have gone ahead without attempting to fill this knowledge gap. It would take several years of research to provide the level of information required, for example typical species present, typical population densities and factors which control population densities.
The Size Of Plot
The size of each trial plot depends of the size of field available.
The Scientific Steering Committee want the trials to take place in fields
representative of a typical UK field rather than a plot design to suit
the purposes of the research. Often this may mean that more GM crops
have been planted than are necessary for the research, thereby increasing
the risk of cross pollination.
Securing Sufficient Plots
The Scientific Steering Committee has stated that between 20 and 25
fields will be needed for each crop. To date only a handful of farmers
have volunteered. Farmers considering taking part will have to weigh-up
many factors such as the impact of GM crops on the value of their land
as well as impacts on their neighbours and local beekeepers. There is
doubt that Aventis will be able to recruit sufficient farmers to meet
the Steering Committee's requirements.
Controlling Variation Between the Trial Plots
Many different factors play a part in the diversity and abundance of
wildlife in arable crops, such as soil type, drainage, weather, previous
crops, types of cultivation used in the past, previous pesticide regimes,
and the pesticide regime used during the GM trials. Within a large field,
such as those being used in the trials, considerable variation in drainage
and soil type can occur. Often these very large fields would have been
several fields until recently and different crops would have beengrown
on different bits. All this means that there is likely to be a high
level of variation within the trail field and between them. With such
a large number of variables, analysis of the final results will also
be more tricky. These difficulties were highlighted in the Interim Report
from the consultants18.
The Interim Report also included discussion of the variability in intensity of the pesticide regime being used on the conventional crops. The Steering Committee will attempt to “classify farm management type”. This suggests that rather than a straight comparison between GM and conventional intensive methods there may be an intention to compare GM with several different conventional management approaches (eg high input and Integrated Crop Management). If this is the case then it brings into question whether 20 to 25 farms will provide a sufficient sample size for these different comparisons.
Long term Changes To Biodiversity
It is clear that both the consultants and Scientific Steering Committee
recognise that some changes in biodiversity take place over a longer
time scale than available to the farm-scale trials. It is likely therefore
that only major changes in biodiversity will be picked up during the
trials. If no significant differences are found in three years then
the crops will be given a clean bill of health. However, major changes
may not become apparent until GM herbicide tolerant crops have been
grown on the same farm over a prolonged period.
Timing of Herbicide Application
In a study of biodiversity differences between two herbicide regimes
on the same crop, the timing of the applications is crucial. In the
case of GM herbicide resistant crops, experience of growing them in
UK conditions is limited to smaller test plots and trials. The only
large scale growing of GM spring oilseed rape is in Canada where soils,
climate and types of weeds will be different. The BRIGHT project (Botanical
and Rotational Implications of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerance)
is designed to “provide farmers with practical guidance on the
appropriate management of herbicide tolerant crops” 19
. This project would appear to be well placed to independently advise
the Steering Committee about when to apply herbicides to GM crops in
the UK. The results of the BRIGHT project will not be available until
the Farm-Scale Trials are completed.
Difference between Herbicides not Being Studied
The current generation of GM-crops are tolerant to either Aventis'
glufosinate or Monsanto's glyphosate. The different herbicide have different
effects on plants, animals or invertebrates. For example, Monsanto's
Round Up has been shown to be toxic to earthworms20
but the farm-scale trial for oilseed and fodder maize do not include
any Round Up Ready Crops at present. In fact, the Scientific Steering
Group have decided to exclude earthworms from the study although “This
does not mean that they are unimportant, rather that there are more
suitable experimental approaches which would address the issue of whether
management of GM-modified(Sic) herbicide resistant crops affect earthworm
diversity and soil functioning in general”.
Testing of all varieties to allow for the different toxicology of both
herbicides to plants and animals would require double the number of
farm-scale trials. It is possible that the Scientific Steering Committee
have not addressed this issue in public, perhaps due to the adverse
reaction it is likely to create.
Trials are not part of normal crop rotation
Maize is commonly grown year after year on the same field. However, the farm-scale trials are not looking at the effect of growing herbicide tolerant maize in successive years, as would happen in a normal arable rotation.
Genetic engineers are currently working to develop herbicide tolerance
in all arable crops. The benefits of GM herbicide tolerant crops are
already being pushed by arable specialists, for example stating that
- “GMHT varieties.....could be extremely valuable where weed
problems exist” and pushing “their value in strategic
plan to minimise weed burdens across the whole rotation”21.
It is not clear that these trials will determine robust enough data
to prove whether GM herbicide tolerant crops are good or bad for biodiversity.
In the commercial future envisaged by the biotechnology industry the
UK would be “carpeted” 22
in GM crops and it is very doubtful that the Farm-Scale Trials will
be able to tell us what will happen to UK farmland wildlife in these
circumstances.
Summary
The farm-scale trails are not designed to prevent pollen escaping into
neighbouring crops or the local environment and should be abandoned.
The development of GM crops which will contaminate other crops is not
economically or environmentally sustainable. The biotechnology industry
should therefore return to the lab to develop sustainable uses of their
knowledge of plant genetics.
The results of the farm-scale trials will improve our knowledge of arable crop wildlife but not be robust enough to predict the long-term cumulative impact of GM herbicide tolerant crops grown year after year over vast areas of the UK.
Friends of the Earth is calling for a minimum Five Year Freeze of
the commercial growing and testing of all GM crops to allow a full debate
on the need and justification for GM crops.
During the Five Year Freeze the following must be developed:
- a system which allows people to exercise their right to choose products free of genetic engineering;
- public involvement in decisions on the need for, and the regulation of, genetic engineering;
- prevention of genetic pollution of the environment;
- strict legal liability for adverse effects on people or the environment from the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms;
- independent assessment of the implications of patenting genetic resources;
- independent assessment of the social and economic impact of genetic engineering on farmers.
December 1999
The Real Food Campaign
Friends of the Earth
26-28, Underwood Street
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Email - info@foe.co.uk
Website - www.foe.co.uk
References
return to text
1. Department of Environment Transport and the Regions, 1999, News
Release 107, 5th November 1999
return to text
2.Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1997. Weed Control
on the Farm: Management of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops,
July 1997.
return to text
3.Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 1997, Weed Control on
the Farm: Management of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops,
Comments by the RSPB, September 1997
return to text
4.English Nature, 1997. Weed Control on the Farm: Management of Genetically
Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops, Response from the Conservation Agencies,
September 1997
return to text
5.Genewatch/MORI, 1998, Opinion poll results July 1998
return to text
6.House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, 1998.
EC Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture. Evidence
from Jeff Rooker and Michael Meacher, Questions 603-619, HMSO, London
1998
return to text
7.Pesticide Safety Directorate, 1998. Scientific Review of the Impact
of Herbicide Use on genetically Modified Crops, PSD December 1999.
return to text
8.Friends of the Earth, 1999. The SCIMAC Code of Practice for Genetically
Modified Crops: A critique by Friends of the Earth, FOE Ltd April
1999.
return to text
9.Firbank.L, et al, 1999, Farm Scale Evaluations of GM Crops: Effects
on the management of field scale releases of GM Herbicide -Tolerant
crops on the abundance and diversity of farmland wildlife. Interim Report.
1st October 1999 DETR.
return to text
10.Friends of the Earth 1999, Pollen Management and Transport from
a Genetically Modified Oilseed ape Farm-Scale Trial near Watlington,
Oxfordshire Summer 1999, FOE December 1999.
return to text
11.DETR , Biotechnology Unit, 1996. Notification for consent to market
from a member state, 20th June 1999
return to text
12. Friends of the Earth. Press release 21 May 1999. GM food crisis:
commercial planting is here already
return to text
13. Farmer Review, January 1999.
return to text
14. Moyes,C.L. and Dale P.J.1999, Organic Farming and gene transfer
from genetically modified crops, John Innes Centre, Norwich.
return to text
15.British Beekeepers Association. 18 October 1999. Policy Statement
on Genetically Modified Crops
return to text
16.The Farm-Scale Evaluations Scientific Steering Committee consists
of six members from RSPB, Imperial College, Game Conservancy Trust,
Morley Research Centre and English Nature chaired by Professor Chris
Pollock of the Institute of Grassland and Environment Research.
return to text
17. Pesticide Safety Directorate, 1998, op cit.
return to text
18. Firbank L.. 1999. Op cit.
return to text
19.MAFF, 1998. Press release 14 October 1998.
return to text
20. See Cox C, 1995, Glyphosate Part2: Human Exposure and Ecological
Effects, J.Pesticide Reform 15(4) 14-20.
return to text
21.National Institute for Agricultural Botany, 1999. GM Crops a reality,
Landmark The Journal of the NIAB January 1999 p.1.
return to text
22. May, Sir R, 1999, Quote from Sunday Express 14th November
1999,
|
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
|
December 1999 Last modified: June 2001 |