SO THE British government has finally taken the plunge and given the go-ahead for commercial growing of a genetically modified crop. It has placed so many hurdles in the way of planting that it is more like an amber light than a green one (see page 4), but the move is certainly symbolic and will reverberate round the world.
The decision is based in large measure on the results of a unique set of farm trials designed to compare the effects on farmland biodiversity of GM maize, beet and oilseed rape (canola) with those of non-GM strains grown in the conventional way. Only Bayer鈥檚 GM maize proved more environmentally friendly than its conventional counterpart, and this is the crop that has received the go-ahead. Significantly, the government will not license the other two GM crops as grown in the trials.
Because of its careful approach, the UK鈥檚 decision is likely to have a major impact on other European Union countries, which have unofficial bans on new GM products. It may also help to fend off a trade war by sending a message to the US, Canada and Argentina, which have asked the World Trade Organization to investigate Europe鈥檚 ban.
Advertisement
But the biotech companies are likely to hold the champagne until they find out all the hoops they will have to jump through to gain approval for commercial growing in the UK. Bayer鈥檚 GM maize will have to be grown in the same way as it was in the farm trials. And before that can happen, the government will have put in place rules for the size of buffer zones between GM and conventional crops, and a plan for compensating non-GM farmers who lose money because of 鈥渃ontamination鈥� by GM crops. That compensation will be paid by the GM industry.
There is little doubt that by homing in on biodiversity, the UK has added a sensible new measure for deciding which crops 鈥� both GM and non-GM 鈥� should be grown. The farm trials showed that GM crops are not universally good or bad for biodiversity and this week鈥檚 decisions reflect that. The government must follow through with this science-based approach in the finalised approval process.
The farm trials, for example, have been criticised for being too short. In North America, farmers have found herbicide-resistant weeds start to become a nuisance after three years of planting, at which point some farmers add other herbicides to their sprays. The government must decide how to deal with such events. Will biotech companies have to test new strains for four years before they can apply for a licence, or will monitoring be set up after a crop has been approved? Both options are costly, but if biodiversity matters then it is a price worth paying.