|
EFFORTS TO ADVANCE UK GM PLANT APPROVALS COME A CROPPER
Early March appeared to herald genuine progress toward the first approval for commercial cultivation of a genetically modified (GM) crop in the United Kingdom. But by the end of the month, GM crop technology faced a major setback, one that could cost four years. Why did it all go pear-shaped? The UK Copes with a Controversial Technology
During the latter years of the UK's investigation of GM food and crops, English Nature, the nature conservation and wildlife protection adviser, informed the government about its concerns regarding the effects of GM herbicide-resistant crops on biodiversity. The government responded by authorizing the Farm-Scale Evaluations, a three-year bio- diversity study of GM maize, beet, and oilseed rape crops. Meanwhile, the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, a strategic advisory body, suggested that the government fund an independently-run public debate on GM issues. The government agreed. In May 2002, Margaret Beckett announced that Defra and the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland would sponsor a dialog with three strands: a public debate called "GM Nation?," a cost-benefit study performed by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, and a review of the scientific issues relating to GM crops and food, conducted by a panel of independent scientists. The three strands converged during the summer of 2003, producing a tightrope for the future of UK's GM technology. The public debate registered a general unease about GM food, and the participants gave little support for commercialization of GM crops in the near future. While the costs and benefits study concluded that currently available GM crops offer only limited benefits to UK farmers, the government suggested that future developments might provide benefits of greater value. The Science Review concluded that GM methodology is not a homogeneous technology, and that applications for GM crop approval should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The science committee also found no evidence to suggest that current GM foods pose a greater risk to human health than their conventional counterparts. The main environmental risk with current GM crops, said the committee, is their potential impact on farmland biodiversity. And this is where the Farm-Scale Evaluations come in. A consortium of research institutions performed the FSE project, in which about 60 fields each were planted with beet, maize, and spring oilseed rape. Each field was split, one half sown with a conventional variety managed according to farmers' normal practices, and the other half sown with a GM herbicide-tolerant variety. Researchers evaluated biodiversity effects by looking at the levels of weeds and insects in the fields. The results were published in October 2003 as a series of eight peer-reviewed scientific papers in the Royal Society's journal, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences. Margaret Beckett commissioned the UK's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE)to assess the results of the FSEs. In January 2004, ACRE presented its findings and the Science Review published its second and final report. Both groups concluded that if GM herbicide-tolerant beet and oilseed rape were managed as in the FSEs then a significant reduction would be expected in weed biomass and weed seed return, and this would result in fewer nectar resources for pollinators and fewer weed seed resources for granivorous birds. That is, cultivation of the GM crops could present a danger to farmland wildlife. The maize study yielded opposite results: fields sown with GM maize produced more weeds and seeds than those planted with conventional maize. The completion of the FSE study and the three strands of the public debate set the stage for a policy decision. Beckett's March statement to Parliament described the government's guidelines on GM agriculture. The government will assess GM crops on a case-by-case basis, taking an evidence-based approach to decision-making; institute mandatory labeling of GM food products; and consult on measures to facilitate the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and on options to provide compensation to farmers of conventional and organic crops who suffer financial loss due to GM crop contamination. Noting the results of the FSEs, Mrs. Beckett said that the government will oppose EU approval for the commercial cultivation of the GM beet and oilseed rape varieties as grown in the trials. But the government would allow the commercial cultivation of the GM corn selected for the FSEs, Bayer CropScience's Chardon LL (T25) forage maize. Farmers would have to cultivate the maize under the same conditions used in the trials or under other environmentally-safe conditions. Beckett also addressed concerns that a GM crop could affect wild type relatives. She observed that maize has no wild type counterparts in the United Kingdom and suggested that it is highly unlikely that any stray remaining plant or seed would survive a UK winter to initiate a subsequent crop. These characteristics of maize cultivation in the United Kingdom, she said, reinforce the value of a case-by-case approach to GM crop approval. Despite these reassurances, the government offered only a conditional approval for Chardon LL; there would be many hurdles to go. Bufferin' Zones, Provisos, and Mounting Tensions
The government will also develop a compensation program for conventional or organic farmers who experience GM crop contamination. Like the buffering zone issue, the compensation plan options will emerge from a public consultation before formulating legislation. In her Parliament address, Margaret Beckett emphasized that any compensation scheme must be funded by the biotechnology industry, rather than by the government or producers of non-GM crops. Paul Rylott, head of BioScience UK at Bayer CropScience, predicted that the industry would never agree to the suggestion that biotech companies must foot the bill to compensate farmers for GM crop contamination. Another prerequisite for commercial cultivation of Chardon LL is that the maize must be added to the UK National List of Varieties as suitable for growing. In the post-devolution United Kingdom, ministers in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland must agree to add a seed to the List. However, Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Assembly's Environment Minister, announced on March 24 that he will not add Chardon LL to the List without the authorization of the Assembly through a free vote on the issue. Dr. Brian John of GM Free Cymru asserted that it is highly unlikely that the Assembly would approve the listing. These additional hurdles promised more than a simple delay in cultivating Chardon LL: they narrowed a window of opportunity. Bayer CropScience's EU marketing consent for the maize expires in October 2006. And Margaret Beckett warned the company that an application for a new license would have to include data comparing the cultivation of the GM maize with whatever herbicide practice is in operation with conventional maize at that time. In the FSE's, farmers had sprayed conventional maize with the weed killer atrazine, a herbicide that will be banned across the European Union by April 2005. Bayer Cures its GM Maize Headache
Bayer deals blow to UK GM crops. (2004) BBC News. March 31, 2004. Brown P. (2004) Green light for GM crop, but rift threatens planting. The Guardian (Manchester), 2, March 10, 2004. Little J. (2004) Bayer CropScience discontinues further efforts to commercialise GM forage maize in the UK. March 31, 2004. Available at: http://www.bcsbioscience.co.uk/. Secretary of State Margaret Beckett's statement on GM policy. March 9, 2004. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/statements/mb040309.htm. Phillip B.C. Jones, PhD., J.D. |