GM Crops fail UK trials

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Well, all the Americans on here are already eating this stuff, since it isn't labelled and is grown widely in the States (from the tiny amount of research I did when I lived there). From what I've heard there's not much of an anti-GM lobby in the States either. Looks like this will reinforce the lobby here to stop introduction.

GM crops fail key trials amid environment fear

Two out of three strains 'should not be grown'

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Thursday October 2, 2003
The Guardian

Two of the three GM crops grown experimentally in Britain, oil seed rape and sugar beet, appear more harmful to the environment than conventional crops and should not be grown in the UK, scientists are expected to tell the government next week.
The Guardian has learned that the scientists will conclude that growing these crops is damaging to plant and insect life.

The judgment will be a serious setback to the GM lobby in the UK and Europe, reopening the acrimonious debate about GM food.

The third crop, GM maize, allows the survival of more weeds and insects and might be recommended for approval, though some scientists still have reservations.

The results of the three years of field scale trials - the largest scientific experiment of its type on GM crops undertaken anywhere in the world - will be published next Friday by the august Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. The results have been a closely guarded secret for months, and will be studied by scientists, farmers, food companies and governments across the world.

The study will include eight peer-reviewed papers about the effect of growing GM crops and accompanying herbicides on the plants and animals living in the fields around. The papers compare the GM fields with conventional crops grown in adjacent fields.

The overwhelming public hostility in the UK to GM crops has not been shared by scientists or the government but the results of the field scale trials are expected to be a jolt to the enthusiasts. The Royal Society refused to publish a ninth paper produced by the scientific group.

The Society's explanation was that the ninth paper was not a scientific document but a summary of findings and in effect a recommendation to the advisory committee on releases to the environment - the expert quango. The scientists involved will now themselves publish this summary at the same time as the other eight papers, concluding that two of the three crops should not be grown.

The trials were set up four years ago by the former environment minister, Michael Meacher, urged on by English Nature, the government's watchdog on the natural world, which feared that the UK's already declining farmland species might be further damaged by the introduction of GM crops.

A three-year moratorium on the commercial introduction of crops was negotiated with the GM companies Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer Bioscience while the experimental field trials took place. Despite repeated attacks by anti-GM protesters that destroyed many of the fields, the scientists decided they had enough results to be scientifically valid. Experts not involved in the trials had not expected definitive results even though hundreds of fields were used.

The numbers of weed species and various types of spiders, ground beetles, butterflies, moths and bees in fields of GM crops and the adjacent conventional crop fields were counted to see if they showed marked differences. All were treated with herbicides to kill weeds but the GM crops were modified to survive special types made by Monsanto and Bayer.

The papers accepted for publication by the Royal Society show that in GM sugar beet and oil seed rape the weeds and insects were significantly less numerous. Spraying with the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate had taken a heavy toll in the beet fields and the Bayer product glufosinate ammonium had wiped out many species in the rape fields.

For maize the reverse appears to be the case. The reason seems to be that maize fields are normally sprayed with atrazine, which kills weeds as they germinate, and is an even more savage killer than the Bayer product. But the result may be controversial because maize is particularly sensitive to competition from weeds and yields may be down. Farmers in America found glufosinate ammonium was not enough to kill competitive weeds and used a second herbicide, further damaging biodiversity.

The political fall out from the trial results is potentially enormous. It would give the government every excuse to refuse permission outright for two of the three crops on environmental grounds. One of the two legally watertight reasons for such a refusal is the environment, the other is health. Almost all of northern Europe, with similar farming conditions, would be expected to follow any British ban.

GM maize, grown in the UK as a fodder crop, may be given the green light under strict guidelines, as a concession to the GM companies and the US where a trade war looms. The US is threatening to take the EU to the World Trade Organisation if the moratorium on GM crops is continued.

The government has other minefields to negotiate before GM crops can be introduced. The agriculture and environment biotechnology commission is still wrestling with the vexed question of distances required between GM and conventional crops to avoid cross contamination and compensation schemes for injured farmers if all goes wrong.

If contamination above 0.9% occurs in conventional crops it will have to be declared and will be virtually unsaleable to food companies and all UK supermarkets. For organic farmers the threshold is even lower at 0.1%.

The majority of the commission members believe that the biotech industry should set up a fund with a levy on farmers growing GM crops to compensate any conventional farmers whose crops lose value because of cross-contamination. The biotech industry is wholly opposed to this.

The commission is also set to recommend a second statutory fund paid for by the government to compensate farmers who lose organic status for the same reason.

New legislation would be required to set up the schemes and enforce the separation distances between crops. The legally enforceable separation distances could be made larger or smaller in the future in the light of experience.

The commission meets again in December by which time a draft of proposals will be circulated.

[Douglas]

Interesting, Nat. Did I read somewhere that the last GMO company pulled out of the UK last week?

FWIW, if the maize strain led to a reduction of the application of atrazine, which is banned in a number of countries over fears about cancer and endocrine disruption, it would be probably a good thing. In some ways I'm glad sugar beet failed the test. I find it ridiculous that European farmers even grow sugar.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

I never ear beet sugar, only cane, although the word "never" is bollocks, since I very occasionally drink soft drinks and eat foods with added sugar, almost certainly Beet sugar. Damn, that doesn't make any sense.

At least one company has pulled out, although I didn't think it was the last. That anyone would trust Monsanto with anything (especially this) after their involvement with Agent Orange always trips me out. "Oh yeah, let's get Monsanto to do it". So if they're not gone yet, I hope they disappear soon.

As to Maize - there's other ways to avoid using chemicals like Atrazine, like growing food organically, permaculture.

I'll admit now to not having read up much on the science of this. But my understanding of at least some strains of GM crops, is that they're grown to be infertile - all seed has to be bought from the Multinational developer (and, they hope, patent holder), every year. So they may be more hardy, resist parasites etc. but the company that owns them has a monopoly on seed, leading to seed becoming a consumable in the sense that printer cartridges are - buy one, use it up, buy another one but without the handy refill companies.

Bananas are already at risk due to hundreds (if not thousands) of years of breeding out seeds and using cuttings instead. This is much worse - a crop that can only be grown if bought from a single company, with accessories tailor made, and also only available from that company. Since, if they take hold to a sufficient extent and live up to their billing, they'll be promoted as super crops, they're likely to overtake all other strains of maize, wheat etc. If interbreeding isn't restricted completely (I'd guess the crops still produce pollen, even if the seed is useless), those other strains may well become infertile themselves, and we'll all be eating food grown by a handful of companies, with farmers reduced to franchises. Say 100 years down the line a parasite develops that can wipe out GM Maize (or Wheat, whatever), it's not unreasonable to suggest that there'd be no alternative Maize crops to breed resistant species from - I'm assuming that job would have to be done by further Genetic Modification, which could lead to countries being entirely dependent on one company for their staple food supply, not that some aren't close to that already.

The food/environmental scare stuff, as valid as it might be, isn't the main issue as far as I'm concerned. Even if GM food is the best thing since microwave meals (which I also never eat), it'll put the world's food supply into the hands of a very tiny minority of US Multinationals - that the UK might introduce GM Maize due to pressure from the US is a sign that this has nothing to do with science at all - the science of it is merely an excuse on either side. It's driven purely by the economic interests of agribusiness, and it just happens that their product doesn't seem as foolproof as they'd hoped - their interests are not in providing cheaper, less resource intensive food, but in being the _only_ providers of food.

[mke]

For me, the GM manufacturers showed their true colours when they refused the labelling of GM products.

Nat sums it up nicely.

[Douglas]

For anyone interested, the UK government’s consultation documents on GM crops can be found here .

While they are excessively reluctant to commit an opinion one way or the other on any individual point, they are reasonably comprehensive in addressing the issues. They are also very long, as are almost all UK government documents.

MKE, I’m not sure what you are talking about as under EU law labelling all GM foods is mandatory. If you are thinking about something else then I guess the passage in the original article that says labelled food “will be virtually unsaleable to food companies and all UK supermarkets” is sufficient. What is so strange about that?

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

I have a feeling that when GM crops were first introduced, labelling was resisted. I was never able to find a product labelled GM in Boston, although I'd imagine a large percentage of the vegetable produce was. I remember a supermarket getting into a lot of trouble for labelling eggs "battery farmed" - had to change it back to barn eggs very quickly due to some EU regulation. Wasn't there some Californian senator a few years back who thought GM foods that didn't need pesti/herbicide should be labelled organic (!?!).

[Douglas]

OK. I get you. You mean in the US?

But in that case why should they if people are generally indifferent (in comparison to some countries in Europe)? I would imagine that GM-free labelled products may be available for those that wanted them, much as "bio" labelled products are available in continental Europe for pesticide free products.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

I saw some survey results, taken in US supermarkets, where people were ask if they ever buy genetically modified products. A large majority said no, and that they never would. They then looked at the trolleys of the people they'd asked, finding large numbers of products that were genetically modified (can't remember where I saw this, as usual, but it stuck in my mind).

This suggests that if the products were labelled, people would no longer be indifferent about it.

[Douglas]

Dunno. A badly designed survey (which that was) on environmental issues tends to overestimate how much people are concerned about a given issue.

My point was that in a few European countries there are very active lobbyists against GM crops. In the US by contrast it appears much less of an issue.

[jesus marion joseph]

I agree that creating a "food monopoly" is not a desirable end result, but in the long run is it better to use convetional crops and all of the herbicides and pesticides that go with them?

[mke]

Originally posted by jesus marion joseph
I agree that creating a "food monopoly" is not a desirable end result, but in the long run is it better to use convetional crops and all of the herbicides and pesticides that go with them?

It's a bit misleading to pretend that GM foods are the only alternative.

[Douglas]

There is an alternative already in the "bio" foods, which can only account for a tiny fraction of total food sales.

You can try to finesse all you want, but to a large extent you cannot avoid JMJ's question.

[mke]

I see several three main issue areas: environmental (risks of gene modification vs. pollution of pesticides), public health (ditto) and economic (greater concentration and more direct control of small farmers worldwide through sterile seeds).

When you take all this into account, which comes out on top? I'm not sure.

[Douglas]

Well, to throw a red rag to a bull, I’ve just finished going through the results released yesterday (here) and am now unconvinced that these results contain any evidence against GM crops. They are not even about GM crops– they are about herbicides.

The terms of reference are very strange in talking about ensuring the recovery of certain bird populations. If that really is the motivating factor then the study is fundamentally flawed by not considering the whole set of possible measures. That would include farming practice, which the overview admits in passing has the greatest potential impact.

What I found interesting about Nat's initial post was that the trials seemed to be trying to say something about a big picture from a very narrow field of inquiry. They counted weeds and insects in the fields (not even birds) and compared them, that’s it. In two out of the three crops they found fewer weeds (and different insects) in the GMO crops after the application of the herbicide – but that leaves the question, so what? Birds have wings and are not limited to a single field. Also, these two GMO crops are what they call break crops, grown only every third year or so. If this decline in weeds is a problem then it relies on a geographically and time bounded definition of biodiversity that is IMO nuts.

After reading through this I cannot see how these results could be used to justify a prohibition. They could help inform what good farming practice should look like, though.

The trials did not take into account any wider environmental impact of the herbicides (such as fears that Atrazine used in conventional maize production turns boy or girl frogs into sexless frogs), or on public health. The evidence from the US cited in this work seems to suggest that the take up of GMOs is considerably less than complete, which would suggest that it may even augment the stock of seeds in use.

In any case, the European Commission will ban the use of Atrazine throughout the EU in a little over a year. That ban and the positive result for maize in these trials will probably accelerate the use of GM crops in Europe.

[jesus marion joseph]

I read some of the findings and heard some reporting on the radio, and I must admit that I was puzzled by the concentration on weeds and bugs as well. I would have assumed that the focus of the study would have been wider in scope, BWTFDIK?