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
