- Ministers Knew Of The Environmental Dangers, But The
Tests Were Designed Not To Focus On This
-
- In truth the GM trials, whose results will be reported
on Thursday, were always more political than scientific. And their impact
- despite being the biggest experiments of their kind conducted anywhere
in the world - will be felt most in Whitehall, Westminster and the often
disconcertingly plush offices of the big environmental pressure groups.
-
- Their establishment, in 1999, was a political act. Michael
Meacher, the then environment minister who was already developing doubts
about the technology, pulled off a remarkably skilful coup in getting all
sides to agree to them and thus postpone the introduction of commercial
GM crops until the results were in.
-
- At the time, several modified crops were ready to be
grown in Britain and Tony Blair would have been happy to give them the
go-ahead. But English Nature, the Government's wildlife watchdog, was raising
concerns about their effects on the environment. And a furious public row
was mounting with several newspapers - led by The Independent on Sunday
- campaigning for a delay.
-
- Mr Meacher agrees that "the purpose behind the tests
was to buy time". But everyone gladly went along with this. Industry
and government believed that if the heat could be taken out of the issue
for a few years the public would stop worrying and learn to love the technology.
-
- In classic Whitehall fashion, the tests - on GM maize,
oilseed rape, and sugar beet - were fixed in a way that everyone thought
would enable the technology to pass them. Everyone knew, even then, that
the main danger to the environment from GM crops was that they would cross-pollinate
with nearby plants. So the trials were deliberately designed not to focus
on this.
-
- Instead they looked at the effects of using different
kinds of weedkillers on the crops. Over the next three years, 283 fields
across Britain were divided in half: one side was sown with the GM crops
and sprayed with the special weedkillers which they had been bred to resist;
the other was seeded with conventional crops, and treated with the usual
herbicides.
-
- Pro-GM ministers asserted that the results of the trials
would determine the Government's final decision on GM agriculture. More
recently ministers and the industry have begun to be seized by the dread
that it might all go horribly wrong, with ministers stressing that the
results of the tests would be just one element in the final verdict. And
so it seems to have proved.
-
- Leaks suggest that the results show that the weedkillers
applied to two of the GM crops - oilseed rape and sugar beet - actually
did more damage to the environment than the ones used on conventional crops.
This would be a devastating conclusion, because there is no way the farmers
can change them: the GM crops are specifically bred to tolerate them.
-
- But the leaks also suggest that the herbicide used on
the third GM crop, maize, was actually less damaging than the one used
on its conventional counterpart. So ministers started preparing plans to
approve GM maize, while banning or postponing modified sugar beet and oilseed
rape.
-
- This strategy has been torpedoed by last week's EU's
ban on atrazine, the weedkiller used on conventional maize. It has long
been on the danger list, suspected of causing cancer and "gender-bender"
effects. Now it will have to be withdrawn within 12 months.
-
- This invalidates the tests, because they no longer reflect
the real conditions under which crops will be grown. Unless they carry
out new trials with an alternative to atrazine, ministers cannot claim
that growing GM maize is safe. And, as the new chemical is likely to be
more benign, the tests would probably come down against the modified crop.
-
- Crucial questions about controversial tests
-
- What have the field trials done?
-
- For three years, scientists tested GM maize, oilseed
rape and sugar beet by measuring the impact of weedkillers for GM crops
on local weeds and wildlife, and compared it with the impact of ordinary
weedkillers. They did not look at the effect on soil or humans, or consider
whether GM genes crossed into ordinary crops.
-
- Why do they matter?
-
- The results, due out on Thursday, will determine whether
these crops get commercial approval in the UK. They are expected to say
that the herbicide used on GM oilseed rape is more damaging to local wildlife
than conventional weedkillers; and that herbicide for GM maize and sugar
beet could be safer than the conventional.
-
- What will ministers do next?
-
- The UK's Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
will report soon on how easily GM crops can "co-exist" with non-GM
crops. It will also decide how compensation will be paid if non-GM or organic
crops are contaminated by GM genes.
-
- Which crops are next?
-
- Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta have another 20 other GM
crop varieties waiting EU approval.
-
- What are other countries doing?
-
- The US and Canada have millions of acres of GM soybeans
and maize. The US, China, Mexico, India and Argentina have GM cotton.
-
- Severin Carrell
-
- © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
-
- http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=452413
|
