Two sides to the GM crop debate

Following a report in The Independent on Sunday, MAFF confirmed that tennis court-sized plots of the herbicide-resistant GM maize, produced by Aventis, are being cultivated alongside non-GM crops in the current trials. Phil Rowland, a spokesperson for Ryedale Against Genetically Modified Organisms (RAGMO) and Simon McQueen-Mason, a lecturer in biology at York University with a special interest in the potential of GM technology, adopted contrasting views when they spoke to the Gazette & Herald.

Phil Rowland, RAGMO

"I wasn't surprised at all, quite honestly," said Mr Rowland, responding to reports of the secret trials. "Big business just keeps on pushing and hoping the public will give up the fight."

Dismissing the argument that the MAFF-approved trials were in the interests of public safety, he said the trials were, on the contrary, a public danger, increasing the risk of contaminating non-GM crops and entering the food chain.

"The more trials you have, the greater the chance you have of contamination. It's like telling someone to keep running across the A64," he said. "That's why we've always considered the trials should be conducted in laboratory-type conditions."

He added: "Even the government has admitted that some contamination is inevitable from the introduction of GM. What about the contaminated seed that came in from Canada? Besides, Friends of the Earth would argue that there are changes in the environment that are taking place already."

Mr Rowland is sceptical of claims that the outcome of similar trials in North America had not revealed any significantly negative impact on the environment. "We shouldn't adopt something just because America is doing it. If we carried that attitude to its logical conclusion, we'd all be carrying guns and shooting each other. Of course, we watch what other people are doing, but the biotech companies will only give out information that suits them."

Finding sources of information that can be trusted is a problem, he added. "What you've got to do is find a body that's not in the pockets of the biotech companies. The USA has always been more consumer-orientated, and there are organisations there that keep track of developments."

As to the potential of GM technology for ordinary farmers struggling to make a living, whether in the UK or indeed the developing world, where supporters of GM technology believe the introduction of GM crops could reap huge benefits in terms of disease-resistance and yield, Mr Rowland said he could not see it.

"Recently, I attended a public meeting given by Alan Simpson MP. He's travelled all over the world, and he is of the view that the problems of the developing world are more economic than anything else. If farmers can't afford GM crops, then they're no use to them. Even if they could, this would simply put farmers in the pockets of the big companies. They would have to buy Monsanto's seed, and their pesticide."

Simon McQueen-Mason, biologist, University of York

"The announcement (of the secret trials) surprised me a little bit," said Dr McQueen-Mason. "But I can understand why they want to keep the trials secret. The fact that it's become increasingly difficult to run the tests because of an active and vocal small minority of protesters is making it increasingly difficult to collect data.

"But the research itself should be open to public discussion if the trials are going ahead, because if they are completely secret, then this is counter-productive."

Dr McQueen-Mason said he believed the GM maize trials currently taking place under cover were likely to be "fairly safe-ish to run" as there was no risk of gene escape with this type of crop. "MAFF are simply doing what the public would like them to do - that is, finding out if there are any safety issues," he said.

He said he believed laboratory-style tests of the kind advocated by groups like RAGMO and Friends of the Earth were limited in their usefulness. "There's been some fairly good greenhouse studies looking at insect resistance, but realistically, you can't look at the environmental impact," he said.

"There's a huge amount of data coming out of the United States, where trials have been going on for five or six years, and it has mostly been very positive," he added.

"A lot of the research is about the environmental and economic impact of reducing the need for herbicide and pesticide. One of the findings was that the greatest benefit was to the farmers."

In other words, it is not just the biotech companies that stand to gain from the adoption of GM technology.

"A lot of the work being done in developing countries is not aimed at producing large financial benefits for Monsanto.

"In the UK, there is a group working on removing the cyanogenic components out of cassava crops, which are grown in tropical Africa and America. The toxic components can't be removed without processing, and if it isn't done properly, it can kill people - and quite a substantial number are killed. Hence, getting rid of these components would make the crop much cheaper and safer to grow.

"Most farmers in the developing world can't afford pesticides, and growing organic is not a good option because their pests are more devastating to crops," he added.

"If GM work is sponsored by charities and governmental organisations, it could do an enormous amount of good. I have family connections in Argentina, and when I go there they laugh at me because the UK won't allow GM crops. For them, it's been wonderful.

"In this country, farmers are already losing out in competitiveness. If you have access to crops that can be grown more cheaply and with better yield, British agriculture simply isn't going to be able to compete. Farmers should take note of what's coming out of these trials. Instead, they're losing out because of GM's public detractors," he said.