| |
|
Web version of a letter sent 20th July 2003 by Eva Novotny, SGR
Mr Paul Tiplady, Lake District National Parks Authority
PaulTiplady@lake-district.gov.uk
Mr Rex Toft, Cumbria County Council
rex.toft@cumbriacc.gov.uk
Dear Mr Tiplady and Mr Toft,
In advance of your deliberations on whether genetically
modified (GM) crops should be permitted to be grown in your region, I am writing
on behalf of Scientists for Global Responsibility, an organisation of some 600
British scientists committed to the ethical, social and environmentally compatible
uses of science and technology. We believe that the consequences of adopting
GM technology are not yet understood well enough to be confident that no significant
adverse effects will result, especially as it is too soon after the introduction
of this technology to have experienced long-term problems. The evidence supporting
our view is outlined briefly below. Further information is contained in the
attached short summary of the comprehensive report by the Independent Science
Panel (Genetic Modification Group), of which I am a member. Both the short and
long versions of this report may be found on the web site of the Panel, at http://www.indsp.org
We firmly believe that good health of the environment,
of crops and farms animals and, ultimately, of human beings can be secured only
by truly sustainable forms of agriculture, such as organic farming. By working
with Nature rather than battling against Nature, farmers can provide great benefits
in health and in social terms for themselves, their communities and the nation
at large.
It is well known that there has been a severe decline in populations of birds over the past decades, as chemical agriculture has destroyed much of the weeds and insects upon which birds depend for food and breeding.
A summary[1] of 23 research projects shows conclusively that organic farming supports much greater biodiversity than does conventional farming. Because GM crops are also dependent on chemicals or on engineered genes that cause toxicity, similar findings as for conventionally grown crops can be expected in a comparison of organic and GM crops.
A 21-year study[2] by Swiss scientists found that organic methods were more efficient in use of energy and other resources. Yields on organic farms, while on average 20% smaller than on conventional farms, were stable over time. Worldwide experience of GM varieties, on the other hand, has shown that these can be successful in one season or location and disastrous in another. Organic farms proved to be superior in biodiversity, with larger numbers and more variety of organisms. Other studies have shown that yields can also be competitve with those of chemical farming.
Pesticides and herbicides are used on crops to destroy pests and weeds. The principal pesticide now in use is genetically built-in to the plant and is created in every cell of the plant. This means that any animal that eats the crop is automatically ingesting the pesticide.
Two main varieties of herbicide are being used on GM crops: glufosinate ammonium (also called simply ‘glufosinate’) and glyphosate. Both are broad-spectrum herbicides, destroying all green plants except those that have been engineered to tolerate it. With all herbicides and pesticides, the expectation must be that new strains of the troublesome species will develop that will be resistant to the chemical used to control them. This is already happening for some GM varieties. Herbicides and pesticides have negative effects on the health of animals, including human beings, as well as on the environment, including important soil micro-organisms.
Evidence is accumulating on the effects of GM plants on soil. A team of nine expert scientists has warned that observed processes involved in the transfer of GM DNA to soil micro-organisms could result in the progressive decline of soil fertility over time, with the damage spreading outwards from the original area as the transformed organisms multiply.[3]
Many anecdotes have been collected by American farmers and scientists about wild and domestic animals instinctively avoiding GM crops. Cattle fed GM silage have failed to gain weight normally.[4]
Pollen is spread by wind, insects and other animals, and also by machinery and even shoes. Pollen can be carried and remain viable over many kilometres. Alarmingly, a significantly high level of maize pollen (a relatively heavy pollen) was observed to be deposited on the upwind side of a source field even as far as the greatest distance, 800 m, at which measurements were made.[5]
Weeds resistant to the herbicides used on GM crops have already become a nuisance, after only several years of use of the herbicides. In North America, for varieties having GM counterparts, it has become very difficult to find sources of seeds that are not contaminated with GM seeds.[6] Cross-breeding of GM crops with wild relatives is also a problem. The Government has admitted that contamination of non-GM crops is inevitable.
A comprehensive survey[7] of water in the UK found that we have some of the highest levels of contamination of water by ‘pesticides’ (apparently used to mean ‘pesticides and herbicides’) in Europe. The costs of removing them are considered to be unsustainable in the long term.
British consumers and supermarkets are continuing to boycott GM products. Rejection of GM crops by the EU, Japan and other countries has caused a nearly total collapse of the market for Candian growers of GM maize, oilseed rape and honey.[8]
Farmers who grow GM crops must sign contracts that remove much of their freedom. They must pay high fees and prices, and they are liable to severe penalties if GM plants are found on their land, however accidentally the plants may have come to be there. Legislation on liability for contamination has not yet been worked out in the United Kingdom.
The Royal Society, which is a firm advocate of GM crops and foods, has implicitly acknowledged lack of confidence in the safety of GM crops by recommending post-marketing surveillance of the environment and of human health, especially that of infants and other vulnerable groups of the population.
Even if all claims made for GM crops were true, the growing of such crops would not be sustainable. Oil is required for the production of chemicals; and oil is becoming more scarce and more expensive. Soil is under threat from conventional and GM farming, in terms of physical structure, in the effects of the chemicals applied and in the yet-unknown consequences of alteration of soil micro-organisms and ecology for soil fertility. Minerals, all-important for health, are gradually being mined from the soil and not returned. Some important minerals have already been reduced by 50 % or even 90% over 50 years.[9]
The United Kingdom would do well to judge the
performance of GM crops by the results from North America, where experience
of growing them is the longest. It is found that ‘in reality, virtually
every benefit claimed for GM crops has not occurred. Instead, farmers are reporting
lower yields, continuing dependency on herbicides and pesticides, loss of access
to markets and, critically, reduced profitability ….’[10]
| |
For further information contact Dr Eva Novotny, SGR Co-ordinator for GM Issues Send correspondence about the web-site to This page last modified: 4th August 2003 © SGR 1997-2003 |
