Scientists and minister clash over ban on growing GM crops

A letter signed by almost 30 scientific organisations was published yesterday raising concerns about the move.

And Dame Anne Glover, former chief scientific adviser to the Scottish Government, spoke out about the Government’s apparent lack of consultation.“I really wish [Mr Lochhead] had talked to the community before the announcement was made.,” she said.“It is always hard for anyone to go back on a statement once you make it.”

“I hope they can show some leadership here and revisit this and see what the possibilities are of judicious use of GM and other technologies.”

Glover, who is also a former chief scientific adviser to the European Commission, insisted the cultivation of GM crops could be consistent with a green agenda.

Her comments were supported by Professor Alan Alexander, general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, who urged the minister to explain his decision to the Scottish Parliament.

“Given the importance of the issue I would urge the rural affairs, climate change and environment committee to hold evidence sessions including from the cabinet secretary specifically on the scientific evidence available and what consideration was given to it,” he said.

“We are concerned that the scientific case for well regulated use of biotechnology has not been sufficiently heeded.

“Scottish Government statements implying that GMOs are ‘unethical’ have given an anti-science message that may prove to be very damaging to the long-established outstanding reputation of Scotland within the international scientific community."

The letter, sent yesterday by Sense about Science, said a ban would “constrain” Scotland’s contribution to research.

It was sent a week after Lochhead said he will be requesting an opt-out from European consents for the cultivation of GM crops, including an EU-approved variety of genetically modified maize and six other GM crops that are awaiting authorisation.

He insisted a ban on growing GM crops would “protect and further enhance” Scotland’s “clean, green status”.

But the scientists’ letter, which asked for a meeting with Lochhead, said banning their use in Scotland could mean the country would be “prevented from benefitting from future innovations in agriculture, fisheries and healthcare”.

It said the decision to introduce a ban was ‘‘political and not based on any informed scientific assessment of risk.’’

The letter stated: ‘‘Genetic modification of plants has become a well established method and has a 20-year track record of safe use worldwide ... Scientists are developing new plant breeding techniques that may be classified as GM in the future. Scottish researchers and agricultural challenges, such as potato blight and tree diseases, have informed that scientific development. Will they now be prevented from making further contributions in future?”

It added: “Traits currently being investigated that might benefit Scotland’s farmers, consumers and environment include potatoes that can reduce fungicide use and omega-3 enriched oilseeds that could provide a more sustainable source of feed for salmon farming. There are many other needs for the development of disease-resistant, pest-resistant and climate resilient crops, where a GM method has a contribution to make.”

Lochhead said: “I will be happy to meet representatives of the science community and reassure them that these changes will not affect research as it is currently carried out in Scotland.

“However, just because GM crops can be cultivated in Scotland doesn’t mean they should be.

“We respect the views of those in the scientific community who support the development of GM technology and the debate on the future of GM will no doubt continue.

“However, Scotland’s £14 billion food sector has a reputation for a clean and green image across the world and allowing the cultivation of GM crops could damage that unique selling point.”

The world-leading Roslin Institute in Midlothian, Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, and the universities of Edinburgh and Dundee were among the other organisations which signed the letter.The Royal Society has also asked Professor Nigel Brown, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Microbiology, to chair an expert working group to prepare an advice paper on GM which will be presented to Lochhead and the rural affairs committee.

IN FAVOUR OF THE BAN

BY PETE RiTCHIE, DIRECTOR OF NOURISH SCOTLAND

THERE’S been a predictable chorus of protest from pro-GM scientists in Scotland and beyond at the Scottish Government’s decision to convert the moratorium on growing GM crops into a ban.

Nourish Scotland supports the ban, and here’s why. GM technology, and the way it has been applied over the last few decades, has over-promised.It has over-promised in the claims it has made about how this technology will ‘feed the world’ or ‘reduce pesticide use’.

There are still 800 million people going hungry in the world, because they cannot afford to buy food, not because there isn’t enough food to go round.

Most of the world’s cereal crop goes to feed animals or make biofuel rather than feed people directly.

The best way to feed the world is to empower small farmers, especially women, with credit, storage, diverse local seeds, routes to market and techniques for working with nature and looking after the soil.Small farms are more productive per acre than large ones, just as a well-kept garden or allotment is more productive per acre than a farm.

Of course it has delivered revenue and profits to agribusiness – bundling seeds up in a package with glyphosate has led to a four-fold increase in glyphosate use in the last 20 years. About 45 per cent of this is on GM crops, which are grown on about 12 per cent of the world’s cropland.

We now use 100g per person each year – and it doesn’t just vanish like fairy dust – it’s detectable in our food and our bodies. The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently categorised glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic’.

We are used to regular announcements about the next GM breakthrough providing the technical solution to a perceived food problem. This week, we’ve heard about inserting genes from algae into camellina plants so they produce more fatty acids to feed farmed fish.

Given Scotland’s superabundance of water, we could instead grow the algae (which is where fish naturally get their fatty acids from in the first place).And we’ve heard about the GM blight-resistant potato: but it’s unlikely to get shelf space in the supermarket among the dozens of blight resistant potatoes already on the market.

WE’VE heard less about the GM wheat which failed to repel aphids, while the conventionally bred superwheat from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany could significantly increase yields.But the Scottish Government decision is scientific in a much broader sense than “does this particular technology work within a limited frame of reference”.

Instead, it takes a much broader look at the evidence. Does the Scottish and UK public want to eat GM food? No, by a majority of 4:1 – so there’s no local market. Do our export markets want GM whisky, GM seed potatoes or GM salmon? No. Is there a competitive advantage to marketing Scottish produce worldwide as GM-free? Yes. Could Scottish farmers adapt in 10 or 20 years’ time to growing GM crops if the technology was open source and there were universally accepted environmental and commercial benefits? Yes. For now, is GM in Scotland a hammer in want of a nail?   

AGAINST THE BAN BY COLIN MCINNES, JAMES WATT CHAIR, PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

EXACTLY 250 years ago James Watt invented the separate steam condenser while ambling through Glasgow Green. His quite brilliant insight led to a three-fold improvement in the efficiency of steam power, arguably pushing industrialising Britain 60 years into the future. 

But in contrast to Watt’s free-thinking inventiveness, we now seem to have lost our way. Scotland has a de facto ban on new nuclear power, a moratorium on shale gas extraction and now a clear prohibition on the planting of GM crops. For a nation that was at the forefront of the 18th century rationalist enlightenment, we now seem curiously unable to grapple with some key technologies for the 21st century.      

While technologies such as nuclear power, shale gas extraction and genetic modification exist, it does not of course mean that we need to use them. However, we do need to conduct public debate based on that rationalist world-view which Scotland was so instrumental in creating. For example, as an argument against nuclear power in Scotland it’s claimed that nuclear is not low carbon and is no cleaner than gas. Not the case; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who we apparently trust on climate agree that it’s a key technology for de-carbonisation. 

Similarly, anti-fracking campaign posters invariably show drilling just below a shallow water table rather than in deep shale bedrock; the intent is clearly to spread fear and doubt. And on GM it’s interesting to note that the scientific consensus on safety is apparently stronger than that on human-driven climate change, yet we deny the former and accept the latter.

Instead of prohibiting key technologies, with vision Scotland could embraceand re-shape them for the future; inventiveness with Scottish characteristics if you will. Here’s some idle speculation. 

As an alternative to the huge new nuclear plants planned in the south we could be pioneers of small, modular plants using so-called 4th generation technologies. For example, the PRISM reactor consumes rather than produces waste and could have been a bold solution to utilise the spent fuel left over from Dounreay’s closure, generating low carbon electricity for years to come.  

SIMILARLY, rather than railing against shale gas extraction, we could be pioneers of novel, emerging technologies such as water-less fracking and pulse plasma methods which dispense entirely with the need for chemical agents. 

We also need to be honest with ourselves that natural gas will be needed for years to come, including as an industrial feedstock for plastics production at Grangemouth, if not to fuel gas power plants which are essential to load-balance intermittent windpower.  

Lastly, rather than simply prohibiting GM agriculture, with vision we could invest heavily in GM research but open-source the results of field trials in Scotland. We could be leaders in the development of a global GM Wikipedia that puts new technology into public rather than private hands. This should be one for enthusiasts of a networked post-capitalist society.   

In Gulliver’s Travels the satirist Jonathan Swift writes: “Whosoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.” Following the recent GM ban Swift’s words are perhaps even more relevant today than when he put pen to paper in 1726.

 Rather than recoiling from key technologies, we need bold ideas to re-shape them for the future; a future imprinted with a progressive, enlightened world view.  

GM Ban: Both sides of the argument