This briefing is intended to help farmers assess whether or not to grow
genetically modified (GM) crops and to highlight the risks of GM animal
feeds.
The crops most likely to come onto the market in the next three to
five years are GM oilseed rape (winter and spring), sugar beet, fodder
beet and fodder maize, all of which have been modified to resist broad
spectrum herbicides.
Concerns about the introduction of these crops have been expressed by
a range of conservation organisations, consumer groups and other groups,
such as the Women's Institute and the British Medical Association.
Genetic modification is a technology which allows scientists to take
genes from one organism and put them into another. This changes the
way the organism develops, making new types of plants and animals.
It is often claimed that genetic modification is just an extension
of the plant and animal breeding that has been going on for hundreds
of years1. This
is not true. Traditional breeding techniques are restricted by natural
barriers that stop unrelated organisms (such as a rat and acotton plant)
from breeding with each other. Genetic modification is entirely different.
It allows genes to be crossed between organisms that could never breed
naturally. A gene from a fish, for example, has been put into a sweetcorn.
Genetic modification is not a precise operation. Scientists do not
fully understand what happens when they fuse genes into the DNA of another
organism2.
More than one copy of the gene may be inserted3,
other genes may get switched off4
or the genes vary in how they work5.
Understanding of how DNA and genes work is still very poor - for most
plants and animals no one even knows what the vast majority of the genes
do or how they interact6.
The fact is, genetic modification is using haphazard methods to play
with something of which we understand very little.
A two-year study by the US government suggests that genetically modified crops produce no better yields and require the use of no less pesticide than non-GM crops.7 Yet growing GM crops may in fact mean more work for the farmer! The Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC) has produced a set of guidelines for growing GM herbicide resistant crops which has been endorsed by the Government8 The guidelines want farmers to undertake a large number of extra jobs including: .
In addition, farmers will be expected to demonstrate the required levels
of training and competence before being allowed to buy GM seeds. If
this hurdle is overcome, farmers will have to register and agree to
up to two annual inspections. They will not be allowed to save seed,
and the increasing control of farms by large corporations will continue.
To justify these extra costs farmers will need either large savings in production costs or a premium for GM produce. At present there is little room for either.
The safety of GM foods cannot be guaranteed. The Government has stated
that GM foods such as soya, maize and tomatoes are rigorously tested
and on the basis of extensive scientific knowledge, they are considered
safe for all sections of the population9.
In fact, records of the Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods
and Processes shows that testing is limited to short-term animal feeding
trials, and data is submitted by the companies themselves. Longer-term
studies would provide a clearer picture of any unforeseen consequences.
If these products were drugs they would be tested for far longer and
would include tests on human volunteers.
Many GM foods and crops contain genes which provide resistance to a range of antibiotics including ones very commonly used in both human and veterinary medicine. There is concern that these genes could be passed to bacteria in the guts of humans or animals. The British Medical Association has stated “The BMA believes that the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes in GM foodstuffs is a completely unacceptable risk, however slight, to human health10.”
GM ingredients are being used widely in animal feeds. The following
products may be from GM crops: soya protein, maize products (including
gluten) and possibly some feed additives11.
At present there is no legal requirement to label GM ingredients in
animal feed. In fact until this year there was no formal mechanism to
assess the safety of GM foods for livestock. At the moment farmers have
no way of knowing if they are feeding GM ingredients to their livestock
and no guarantee that there will not be long-term animal health implications.
This situation is reminiscent of the situation prior to the BSE crisis.
One of the main difficulties which farmers will encounter when growing
GM crops is that there is no way to effectively contain pollen movement.
In the case of oilseed rape, researchers have found that its pollen
can travel up to 4km and can escape from fields even if there are barriers
to prevent this. 12,,
13
In the case of maize, cross pollination has been predicted to occur at distances of over 500m14. GM-free or organic crops are a rapidly expanding market for farmers. Contamination from GM crops could result in these crops being rejected and so cause loss of income for the farmer. The long distances that viable pollen can travel mean that the isolation distances between GM and other crops would have to be very large to be effective. In the case of oilseed rape, the Governments own advisors have stated that complete genetic isolation of transgenic oilseed rape, were it needed, would have to be on a regional basis15.
In the case of sugar beet and fodder beet, one of the main concerns is that cross pollination from GM crops will lead to the rapid development of herbicide-tolerant weed beet. A study in France found that after one season of growing GM sugar beet, weed beet plants in a nearby field were producing herbicide tolerant seeds16. Once the herbicide resistant genes have escaped, the ability of herbicide tolerant crops to control weed beet will be rapidly compromised. Sugar beet pollen can travel over 3km so farmers in a large area could be affected by pollen produced from bolting crop plants. The only way to prevent this would be to ensure every bolter is destroyed before flowering.
The separation distances between GM, non-GM and organic crops set down in the SCIMAC guidelines are inadequate because they do not reflect research findings on how far viable pollen can travel. Resolution of disputes between neighbours over separation distances will be left to farmers to sort out and could lead to court action.
Herbicide tolerant crops are designed to resist the herbicides, Round
Up (glyphosate) and Challenge (glufosinate ammonium). Developments have
concentrated on broad leafed crops such as oilseed rape and sugar beet,
in which weed control has been less effective than in cereal crops.
Farmers may view this as a potential advantage, but concerns have been
expressed about the possible impact on wildlife. Most farmers are aware
of the decline in farmland wildlife that has accompanied the increasing
intensification of agriculture. For example, plants which were considered
to be arable weeds forty years ago are now listed as rare or scarce
and some are endangered species17.
Similarly a range of bird species including tree sparrows, grey partridges
and song thrushes have shown drastic declines in numbers in the same
period.18
There is concern that herbicide tolerant crops will further the decline
of farmland species because their use could lead to the removal of weeds
from all crops in the normal arable rotation. This will put further
pressure on wild plants and reduce the food supply for insects and birds.
These concerns have led English Nature to state that the “untested
introduction of GM crops could be the final blow for such species as
the skylark, corn bunting and the linnet, as the seeds and insects on
which they feed disappear.”19
The SCIMAC guidelines aim to ensure best practice as regards agriculture and the environment but they provide no advice to farmers on how to protect wildlife. Baroness Young, Chairman of English Nature, has shown little confidence in the guidelines, pointing out that “Farmers could follow the code to the letter, but using these new crops could still remove all wildlife using their fields.”20
The financial implications of growing GM crops have yet to be fully
calculated. Companies may attempt to promote them as a cheaper, more
profitable option, possibly reducing the amount of herbicides that need
to be bought and the number of sprayings applied. However, thefollowing
points should be considered.
Friends of the Earth's research has shown that there is hardly anywhere
in the UK that GM crops could be grown without the risk of cross pollination
with other crops.21
This would not only affect organic crops but also conventional 'GM free'
crops. As the law currently stands, farmers may well find themselves
footing the bill for the contamination of a neighbouring farm's crop.
The general public will be exposed to GM food either directly or by
consuming animals fed on GM feed. If a crop proves to have an adverse
health effect, it is not clear who would be liable, but farmers are
obvious candidates.
If there is a GM health scare, the resulting loss of consumer faith
in the UK's agricultural produce could have disastrous financial consequences
for UK farmers.
A Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' survey carried out in April
1999 found that 58% of land managers believed that growing GM crops
could affect the value of the land. In addition, 43% thought that growing
GM crops could affect the value of neighbouring land. Only one in ten
said that they would advise their clients to grow GM crops22.
The possible reduction in the number of herbicide applications may
look like a tempting way of lowering labour costs. But it is worth comparing
this with the cost of carrying out the extra jobs that the SCIMAC Code
of Practice requires.
Once GM foods have been grown, the field contains seeds which will
produce GM volunteers. These can remain in the soil for years, appearing
in following crops. Farmers wishing to revert to GM free crops or convert
to organic may find it difficult to gain approval because of the presence
of these volunteers.
Friends of the Earth believes that the introduction of herbicide resistant
crops provides no benefits for UK farmers whilst at the same time posing
a real threat to our environment and wildlife.
Friends of the Earth is calling for a moratorium on the growing of genetically modified crops until the implications have been fully evaluated and necessary action taken to avoid environmental damage and any unnecessary risks to human health.
Necessary research into the health and environmental impacts of GM foods and crops has neither been completed nor fully identified by the government. Friends of the Earth believes that introduction of this uncertain technology should be delayed until the necessary research has been identified, completed and fully analysed.
Friends of the Earth believes that the biotechnology industry, and nobody else, should accept strict legal liability for GM crop and food safety. We therefore support the GM Food Safety and Producer Liability Bill recently introduced into Parliament, which would do just that and provide indemnities for farmers.
Friends of the Earth believes that genetic modification of crop plants is an expensive diversion in the search for farming techniques that deliver high quality food and a high quality rural environment. We are calling for publicly-funded research into agricultural systems and methods which will reduce inputs, protect the environment, provide high quality food and boost rural jobs and economies.
Friends of the Earth,
26-28 Underwood Street,
London N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax:020 7490 0881
Email:info@foe.co.uk
Web:www.foe.co.uk
21 July 1999
return to text
1. Monsanto, 1998. This strawberry tastes just like a strawberry
Advertisement,Guardian, 4 July 1998.
return to text
2. Maessen, GDF. 1997. Genomic stability and stability of expression
in GM plants Acta Bot. Neer. Vol 46(1) pp
return to text
3. Delores, SC and RC Gardner. 1988. Expression and inheritance of
kanamycin resistance in a large number transgenic petunias generated
by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Plant Mol. Biol. Vol 11 pp
355-364
return to text
4. Maessen, GDF. Op cit 2
return to text
5. Mannerlof, M and P Tenning. 1997. Variability of gene expression
in transgenic tobacco Euphytica Vol 98 pp. 133-139
return to text
6. Wan-Ho, M. 1998. Genetic Engineering - Dreams or Nightmares
return to text
7. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
July 1999. "Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management"
availableat www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/biotech
return to text
8.SCIMAC. 1999. Guidelines for growing newly developed herbicide
tolerant crops. SCIMAC, Ely, Cambs.
return to text
9. Factsheet on GM foods and crops, UK Government briefing to MPs,
18 February 1999, pp 3, para 4.
return to text
10. British Medical Association Board of Science and Education. 1999.
The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health-
An Interim Statement. BMA, London
return to text
11. NFU Biotechnology working Group. 1999. Genetically Modified Materials
in Animal Feedstuffs- the Issues NFU, London.
return to text
12. Thompson,CE, Squire,G, Mackay,GR, Bradshaw,JE, Crawford,J, Ramsey,G,
1999. Regional patterns of gene flow and its consequence for GM oilseed
rape in Gene Flow and Agriculture: Relevance for Transgenic Crops 1999
BCC Symposium Proceedings No.72 pp95-100
return to text
13. Simpson, EC, Norris, CE, Law, JR, Thomas, JE, Sweet,JB, 1999.
Gene flow in genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica
napus) in the UK in Gene Flow and Agriculture: Relevance for Transgenic
Crops 1999 BCC Symposium Proceedings No.72 pp75-81.
return to text
14.Emberlin,J, Adams-Groom,B, Tidmarsh,J. 1999. A Report on the Dispersal
of Maize Pollen. Soil Association, Bristol.
return to text
15. Gray,AJ, Raybould. 1999. Environmental Risks of Herbicide-Tolerant
Oilseed Rape - A Review of the PGS Hybrid Oilseed Rape. DETR, London.
return to text
16. Vigouroux,Y, Darmency,H, Gestatde Garambe, T, RIchard-Molard,
M, 1999 “Gene flow between sugar beet and weed beet” in gene
flow and Agriculture: Relevance for Transgenic drops 1999 BCC Symposium
Poroceedings No.72 pp83-88.
return to text
17. Wilson, PJ,Boatman, ND and Edwards PJ. 1990. Strategies for the
conservation of endangered arable weeds in Great Britain in, Proceedings
of the European Weerd research Society Symposium, 1990: Integrated Weed
Management in Cereals.pp.93-100. European Weed research Society, Helsinki.
return to text
18. Campbell, LH, Avery, MI, Donald,P, Evans, AD, Green, RE and Wilson,JD.
1997. A Review of the Indirect Effects of Pesticides on Birds JNCC Report
No. 227. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Peterborough.
return to text
19. English Nature. 1998. Government Wildlife Advisor Urges Caution
on Genetically Modified Organisms - The New Agriculture Revolution.
Press Release 8th July 1998.
return to text
20. The Daily Telegraph 22nd May 1999. GM farming code will not save
wildlife. p1.
return to text
21. Friends of the Earth Press Release 17 June 1999 "No place
to hide for GM crops
return to text
22. Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. 1999. Rural Land Managers
Cautious on GMO's News Release 9th June 1999. RICS, London.
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk
July 2000
Real Food Team
Last updated June 2001
