9th March 2004. PG Economics
Ltd
notes inaccuracies and the use of unrepresentative material contained within
this report. It is evident to us that in drawing conclusions for the
report the Select Committee has taken evidence presented by some Green
pressure groups ‘at face value’, without researching and checking the
accuracy or otherwise of such evidence. In particular the section ‘The
north American experience’ (paragraphs 27-31) contains the following
inaccuracies and/or mis-representation of the ‘real’ experience in north
America:
- Experience of
growing GM crops in north America has NOT been ‘pre-dominantly
negative’. Whilst some organisations and
individuals portrayed a negative image to the Committee in the provision
of evidence, this picture is totally unrepresentative of the actual
experience. A simple question to ask in relation to this is, if the
experiences were as negative as portrayed then why, in 2003, was 81% of
the US soybean crop, 40% of the US maize crop, 84% of the US canola crop,
48% of the Canadian soybean crop, 58% of the Canadian maize crop and 68%
of the Canadian canola crop planted to GM varieties? In total this
amounts to 41.7 million hectares, an area that is nine times greater than
the total UK arable crop area. The simple answer is that the
majority of farmers (the ‘stewards of the land’) have positive
experiences (eg, low tillage cultivation, reduced use of toxic pesticides,
higher and more secure yields) – for a review of literature on this
subject read ‘Consultancy
support for the analysis of the impact of GM crops on UK farm
profitability’ (appendix 5), a report PG Economics completed for the
Cabinet Office in 2003, that has been available on the Cabinet Office
web-site since July 2003;
- Evidence from the
Canadian Farmers Union. Evidence from this
organisation should be put into context. This body represents only
2%-3% of Canadian farmers and is therefore not representative of canola
farming experience in Canada. For a more rounded and representative
perspective read research undertaken by the Canadian
Canola Council in 2001 – reviewed in the PG Economics report for the
Cabinet
Office referred to above. This report identified $300 million
worth of additional production and/or reduced cost of production.
Evidence from bodies like the Soil Association should also be placed in
context – its well publicised report ‘Seeds of Doubt’ (2002) from
which most of their evidence will have been based, was largely drawn from
reading press articles and undertaking interviews with a total of 25
farmers, two-thirds of which were organic farmers. This is against a
background of there being, for example, over half a million farmers in the
US alone growing soybeans. Such evidence is therefore biased and
unrepresentative;
- The Canadian
experience. Some facts to take into
consideration include the following:
Ø
All farmers growing GM
(herbicide tolerant) canola crops are provided with advice on managing
volunteers. This covers aspects of an integrated weed management system,
the majority of which is equally applicable to non GM
varieties and other herbicide tolerant (non GM) canola crops;
Ø Some
analysts (eg, Van Acker) suggest that there is a widespread problem of
herbicide resistant volunteers in Canada. However, the Canola
Council’s 2001 research amongst both GM and non GM growers of canola did not
find the issue to be problematic for farmers. Furthermore several
research papers exist that demonstrate that volunteer GM herbicide tolerant
oilseed rape is not a significant problem and can be relatively easily
controlled (eg, Downy 2000, Pekrun et al 1998). Lastly Monsanto even
offers a free volunteer removal service to farmers but reports few calls and
requests for the service;
Ø The
reference to ‘a lamentable picture of the potential effect upon biodiversity
and agriculture in general of the contaminatory effect of GM wheat
cultivation’ (paragraph 27), is inaccurate and out of context. No GM
(herbicide tolerant) wheat is currently planted commercially anywhere in the
world and hence there is no experience or evidence to support such a
statement. The claims made in this evidence submitted to your Committee
are speculative and based on assumptions about herbicide usage patterns and
behaviour by farmers that may not exist in the future. Furthermore they
bear little, if any relevance to the UK context largely because the scenario
examined in the evidence presented to your committee is one in which
glyphosate tolerant canola is grown in a rotation with glyphosate tolerant
wheat. Glyphoate tolerant canola or oilseed rape has not and is not
expected to be bought forward for regulatory approval for planting in the EU
(the GM trait currently in the EU regulatory approval process is glufosinate
tolerant oilseed rape). Also, if glyphosate tolerant wheat were to ever
be made commercially available to European farmers, this is at least ten years
in the future. In sum, we are extremely unlikely to ever see glyphosate
tolerant oilseed rape and wheat being made available commercially to UK
farmers;
Ø Despite
claims stating otherwise, organic canola is still grown in Canada. This
area is extremely small (about 2,000 hectares or 0.04% of total canola
plantings in Canada) but its insignificance as a crop largely reflects a lack
of demand for domestically grown organic canola, and difficulties in growing
the crop within an organic rotation (eg, is high nutrient requirement relative
to other break crops and the difficulty in controlling weeds). It is
also possible for organic and GM canola to co-exist satisfactorily provided
both GM and non GM growers adopt good husbandry practices and make sensible
use of measures to minimise co-existence problems arising (eg, organic farmers
using only organic seed (or testing conventional seed used prior to planting)
and/or planting brassica rapa varieties that flower slightly earlier
than the more commonly planted brassica juncea varieties.
- Cited evidence of
GM crops leading to increased use of herbicides to deal with resistance
problems (eg, drawing on various papers from Charles Benbrook). As
above, this evidence is essentially not representative of actual
experience:
Ø Whilst
some (a very small number) may have experienced incidences of weeds developing
resistance to herbicides such as glufosinate and glyphosate (the herbicides
used on GM crops in North America), this is an issue of herbicide resistance per
se and not a GM-specific issue. Farmers have been managing such
issues in conventional agriculture for years – they do not cause significant
problems - again see the PG Economics report for the Cabinet Office for a
review of literature on the subject;
Ø USDA
pesticide usage data does not support Benbrook’s assertions. Benbrook
makes adjustments and amendments to USDA data in order to draw conclusions
about US farmer herbicide usage on GM crops (eg, for 2003) and hence assert
that herbicide usage on GM crops has increased. These are not supported
by USDA data and therefore to imply otherwise is misleading and inappropriate.
He also fails to highlight the eco-friendly nature of glyphosate compared with
alternatives used before the introduction of GM crops;
Ø There
is a reasonable body of evidence in North America that shows that the use of
herbicide tolerant GM crops has resulted in reductions in total herbicide
usage (eg, Gianessi et al 2002, Fernanez Cornejo et al 2003, Canola Council
2001) and/or resulted in switches to more environmentally benign products.
Again much of this work was reviewed by PG Economics in its report to the
Cabinet Office in 2003.
Web-site link to
original Environmental audit Committee Report www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee.cfm
