Should the spread of GM be a cause for concern?

Related tags Agriculture Genetic engineering

For the seventh consecutive year, farmers around the world
continued to plant genetically modified (GM) crops at a
double-digit pace, with the 2003 total up 15 per cent to 67.7
million hectares, according to a report released this week by the
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA).

"Farmers have made up their minds,"​ claimed Clive James, chairman and founder of ISAAA. "They continue to rapidly adopt GM crops because of significant agronomic, economic, environmental and social advantages."

But not everyone agrees. GM campaigner from UK pressure group Friends of the Earth​ Pete Riley claims that the growing of GM crops is not as widespread as these figures would have you believe. "Blandly stating the hectarage is not helpful to farmers,"​ he told FoodProductionDaily.com."The US, Canada and Argentina still account for about 95 per cent of all GM crop hectarage."

Nonetheless, the ISAAA is confident that GM crop growing is about to take off in Europe. According to the association's figures, biotech crop hectarage in Spain grew 33 per cent as a result of gains in GM maize production. A total of 32,000 hectares of GM maize were grown in 2003, up from 25,000 hectares in 2002.

Elsewhere in Europe, Romania increased its area of GM soybean by 50 per cent to 70,000 hectares in 2003. Bulgaria continued to grow a few thousand hectares of herbicide-tolerant maize, while Germany continued to grow a token area of GM maize.

For environmental groups, who are concerned that increasing reliance on GM crops will damage the environment, this is not good news. According to the UK's Soil Association​, over 70 million pounds more herbicides have been applied in the US since commercial GM planting started than if GM crops had not been grown.

"This is compelling evidence that GM maize will lead to higher spray use and serious damage to wildlife if the crop is grown in this country,"​ said the association's policy director Peter Melchett. "The (UK) government must take these findings into account when considering whether GM crops can be grown here. For farmers, it is now clear that GM maize will result in worsening weed problems, greater reliance on sprays and increased chemical costs."

Riley agrees, claiming that one GM crop in the US, purportedly designed to be insect-tolerant, now requires more herbicide treatment than ever.

"There is also the problem of cross-pollination,"​ he said. "Non-GM crops in Canada are finding GM material on their land, and controlling this is expensive. This highly-predictable process is harming the country's rape seed industry and organic farming."

Another problem is the mixing up of pharmaceutical crops with food crops. Riley recounts the story of the GM crop Starlink maize, which was given an FDA licence to be grown as animal feed only.

"Aventis Crop Science, which is now defunct, marketed this to farmers, not telling them that it was only supposed to be for animals,"​ he said. "The result was that after the discovery, food manufacturers across the US had to initiate clean up operations along their supply chains. Kellogg had to close a plant for two weeks. This type of incident will happen because there is no reliable food or feed safety system in place that is recognised globally. "

But advocates of GM crops are confident that the tide is turning. "Despite the ongoing debate in the European Union, there is cause for cautiousoptimism that the global area of biotech crops and the number of farmers planting them will continue to grow in 2004 and beyond,"​ said James.

Within the next five years, the ISAAA​ predicts 10 million farmers in 25 or more countries will plant 100 million hectares of GM crops. According to the report, the global market value of biotech crops is expected to increase from approximately $4.5 billion this year to $5 billion or more by 2005.

Environmental campaigners such as Riley urge caution. "Any farmer needs to look very carefully at the implications before deciding to grow GM crops,"​ he said. "They should look at who is liable if things go wrong. As it stands in the UK, it is the farmer that is liable, not the agri-chemical company."

Related topics Regulation