Controversial experiments to find out whether GM crops will harm British wildlife have been attacked by the government鈥檚 own advisers.
In the first report since its birth last year, the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission slams the apparent secrecy that shrouded announcement of the so-called 鈥渇arm-scale evaluations鈥�.
However, the commission says that the trials are valuable, and should carry on.
Advertisement
Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association which represents organic farmers, was 鈥渄elighted鈥� by the commission鈥檚 report. 鈥淚t鈥檚 probably the most significant breakthrough yet in terms of how it will alter the climate of government opinion,鈥� he says.
鈥淭o the government鈥檚 credit, they did the right thing in setting up the commission. I don鈥檛 think they can reject the recommendations with any credibility, but it would be a scandal if they did,鈥� he says.
Tainted pollen
Initiated in 2000, the trials aim to compare the effects of GM crops and their conventional counterparts on farmland wildlife.
All four GM crops in the experiment 鈥� maize, sugar beet, winter oilseed rape and spring oilseed rape 鈥� have extra genes which make them resistant to weedkillers.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and English Nature, the government鈥檚 countryside adviser, demanded the trials. They feared damage to farm wildlife if everyone switched to GM systems, which would allow farmers to 鈥渟terilise鈥� fields.
Between 60 and 75 fields have been planted for each trial crop, and some have been attacked and destroyed by protesters.
Many residents and farmers living close to the trials say they were not told about the trials, or what they are for. Organic farmers living nearby fear that they will lose their 鈥渘on-GM鈥� organic status if their crops are tainted by pollen from the GM fields.
Independent evaluation
The commission says the government should have done more to publicise the objectives of the trial, and to protect the interests of organic farmers.
鈥淭he appearance of secrecy and the way decisions have been made helped to generate some of the hostility,鈥� says Julie Hill, deputy chair of the commission.
But the experiments should carry on, says the commission, provided certain conditions are met.
For instance, the government should reaffirm that farmers will not be allowed to plant any GM crops commercially until after the trials are complete and the results evaluated independently.
Open debate
Also, it should re-state the objectives and limitations of the trials. 鈥淭he trials should take more account of local interests, make sure that organic farming is not adversely affected, and everything should be debated openly beforehand,鈥� says Hill.
Separation distances between organic and GM fields should be worked out which virtually guarantee that GM pollen cannot reach the organic fields during the trials. The distances should be re-evaluated if commercial planting is allowed.
But completion of the trials should not be seen as the green light for commercialisation of GM crops, says the commission.
鈥淭hey had been regarded as the final piece in the jigsaw,鈥� says Hill. 鈥淏ut they were only designed to answer specific questions,鈥� she says.
They will not reveal, for example, alterations in soil structure or water quality. And they will only show indirectly whether there are effects on birds and mammals (see 鈥淩eap what you sow鈥︹��, New 杏吧原创, 10 July 1999, p18).
