In a major speech on Friday the Prime Minister will reflect on the role science and technology will play in Britain’s future.
In preparation for his lecture, the fourth in the Our Nation’s Future series, Tony Blair considered the following paper - one of those written by a range of experts in the field.
The authors are independent, and all views and opinions are their own. They do not necessarily agree with Government policy, but each makes an interesting contribution to the debate.
About the expert
Sir David King is chief scientific advisor to the Government.
Read the report
GM CROPS - NOTE FOR No. 10
Public opinion
1. The GM Nation debate in 2003 concluded that there was general public unease about GM crops and food and little support for early commercialisation of GM crops. People already engaged with the issues were generally much more hostile. Those not so engaged were ambivalent; they recognised that GM crops had some potential benefits but were also very cautious with respect to the potential risks. They also had some doubt about whether the purported benefits would be delivered.
2. The issue has not been the focus of any significant media attention since then as GM crops are unlikely to be grown commercially in the UK before 2009. It is possible that there has been a slight shift in public opinion towards a more conditional acceptance of GM crops (or more indifference and less hostility), but this is difficult to verify and could simply be the result of reduced media coverage. Indications from reports by the UK’s (now defunct) Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and the Danish Board of Technology are that public acceptance is likely to be greater for GM non-food crops than for food crops, providing there are suitable controls in place to prevent environmental crossover. A report by Eurobarometer reached a similar conclusion; that people within the EU are more optimistic about technologies that are seen to promise tangible benefits. They are positive about medical and industrial biotechnologies but there is general opposition to agricultural biotechnologies. Eurobarometer concluded that the public would continue to be sceptical about GM crops unless new crops and products are seen to have consumer benefits. As yet those benefits remain limited.
NGO position
3. NGOs such as the Soil Association and Friends of the Earth continue to use every opportunity to highlight their opposition to GM crops and to keep the media spotlight on the issue. For instance, they see the Defra consultation on proposed co-existence measures as their last chance to secure Government rules that might effectively prevent the commercial growing of GM crops. They are therefore mounting campaigns to ensure that the vast majority of respondents to the consultation oppose co-existence measures unless they prevent any GM crossover.
4. The GM crossover of rice from the USA and China has also been the focus of attention by NGOs, with Friends of the Earth even proposing to take legal action against the Food Standards Agency over its safety assessment of GM LL RICE 601 and whether its action is sufficient to meet the obligation of the underlying Commission Decision. But despite their best efforts, media attention and public interest has been limited.
5. Nevertheless, GM crops remain high on the NGOs’ agendas and we can expect any perceived shift in the Government’s broadly neutral position to be met with vigorous campaigns. And, whilst it may not yet be typical, there is already something of a "green" movement to discredit the growing of crops, especially GM crops, to produce biofuels.
Media interest
6. There has recently been some positive media coverage about non-food GM crops for the production of vaccines and drugs to tackle HIV and hepatitis B, although these are in the research phase and are being grown in secure facilities. There was also a piece on the Today programme on 20 September about the potential loss of consumer benefits from our failure to exploit GM technology and positive coverage of BASF’s application to trial a blight resistant potato in the UK. Conversely, there have been some negative stories about the susceptibility of GM cotton to certain pests and the spread of wild grass over a distance of 3 miles, and some negative coverage of the Government’s launch of a consultation on provisions to allow the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops.
Government position
7. To date the Government has taken a broadly neutral approach to GM issues, with its priorities being to protect human health and the environment and provide choice for the consumer over whether or not to purchase GM food. Defra, as the regulator, has taken a case-by-case, science based and evidence based approach across the range of GM issues but particularly in relation to approvals of GM products. For this reason, it is important that Defra’s proposed co-existence measures are not only based on sound science (which they are) but are also perceived to be soundly based and not politically influenced. As such, it would not be wise to attempt to promote GM crops before the consultation ends (20 October 2006) and a decision is announced (towards the end of 2006 or early 2007). Moreover, the Government has consistently taken the position that it is neither pro- nor anti- GM (Margaret Beckett’s policy statement in March 2004) so any attempt to promote GM crops would be an explicit change of policy and would probably require Cabinet agreement.
8. As part of a DTI/Defra Departmental strategy on industrial non-food crops, a communications strategy is being drawn up. The development of GM science is an important part of the renewable materials agenda and the strategy will therefore highlight the need for science aimed at maximising the efficiency and performance of crops for non-food uses. However, there will be no direct reference to GM in the strategy as this could be misunderstood by the general public and have an adverse effect on the efforts to promote renewables.
Extent of GM crops
Europe
9. GM crops (food or non-food) are not being grown commercially in the UK. Within the EU, five member States (Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and the Czech Republic) are growing commercial GM crops, with the last three growing them for the first time in 2005. In Spain, Portugal and France maize is the main GM crop. Such crops are being grown for animal feed.
10. Within the EU (including the UK), farmers are using imported animal feed containing GM products. For example, UK farmers are using imported feed made from GM soya. The EU is currently considering an application to market a carnation genetically modified for flower colour (although there is no agreement among member States).
Worldwide
11. Globally the area of GM crops has grown from 1.7 million hectares in six countries in 1996 to 90 million hectares in 21 countries in 2005. The major growers are the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Paraguay, India and South Africa. The main crops are maize and soya (for both food and animal feed) and cotton. Of the 90 million hectares, 55% are in the USA, 19% in Argentina, 10% in Brazil and 6% in Canada. 60% of the world’s soya beans and 15% of its maize are produced from GM seed. 3.3 million hectares of cotton were grown in China in 2005. Recent reports suggest that GM cotton has been effective in preventing growth of a common pest, bollworm, although the benefits were reduced after seven years when secondary pests became a problem.
12. It is worth recalling that in 2003 the costs and benefits study carried out by the PM’s Strategy Unit said that the GM crops available at the time offered only some small and limited benefits to UK farmers, although future developments in GM crops could potentially offer benefits of greater value and significance, even in the United Kingdom. The position has not changed greatly in the three years since then.
13. Although some GM plants are now being grown (in secure facilities) to produce vaccines and drugs, the position remains much the same. The traits so far developed do not affect the intrinsic yield of the plants, but only herbicide and pest resistance. As such, GM crops are not yet grown for biofuel production and we appear to be many years away from the use of breeding to improve photosynthetic efficiency. Nevertheless, GM could help to spearhead the second generation of bioethanol production by developing enzymes to break feedstocks down, rather than by altering the crop itself.
Current state of science
14. Since 2004 a considerable amount of research has been funded to improve our understanding of GM crops. There has also been an assessment of the technologies that exist for the biological containment of both GM and non-GM crop plants, and a report on the wider implications of the way that crops (GM and non-GM) are grown, in the context of the long term changes in arable production in the UK. But there have been no developments that have significantly changed the position from that in 2004.
Commercial development
15. There have been no field trials of GM crops in the UK since 2003, although BASF have applied to carry out field trials of GM potatoes that are resistant to late potato blight. In line with statutory requirements, this application will decided by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the basis of recommendations by Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and other statutory consultees. Field trials have already been carried out in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands.
16. BP has recently announced plans to spend $500 million over ten years in either the UK or USA to set up an Energy Biosciences Research Institute to focus on energy bioscience (eg developing new or improved biofuel components). It will carry out both open, basic research and applied proprietary field work for BP’s commercial bioscience applications.
17. Although we do not have full details to hand, research work involving GM techniques is being carried out in a number of research institutes and laboratories. An example is Rothamsted’s collaboration with India to look for varieties of oilseed that are resistant to plant diseases and drought. However, because the industry is not carrying out the more applied laboratory work, the research is not feeding through into applications for field trials.
delicious
digg
facebook
