An influential committee of MPs has today announced that the Government should not commercialise GM maize on the basis of the results of the recent Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE). Amidst rumours that Tony Blair has already decided to give GM maize the go-ahead, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) unanimously agreed that the GM maize trials were "unsatisfactory, indeed invalid." They urge the Government to carry out further tests on GM maize, but this time comparing it to less intensive forms of farming like organic.
The report, written by a cross-Party group of MP's, examined the design of the FSEs and recommended that:
"It would be irresponsible of the Government to permit the commercialisation of GM crops on the basis of one narrow component of the entire evaluation of GM technology."
"The scope of the trials was very narrow and the results cannot be regarded as adequate grounds for a decision to be taken in favour of commercialisation."
"The issue of liability be settled before any GM crops are allowed to be commercially grown in the UK."
"It is vital that the Government permit no commercial planting of GM maize until that crop is thoroughly re-trialled against a non-GM equivalent grown without the use of Atrazine."
"Problems evident in north America have not been taken seriously enough"
Greenpeace campaigner Ben Ayliffe said:
"The EAC have concluded that the GM maize trials were practically worthless. The Government can't try to cook the books on GM maize any more. It's clear that Tony Blair wants to press ahead with GM as soon as he can, but the Government must respond to this report before making any formal decision on commercialising GM maize."
The launch of the EAC report coincides with the publication of a letter by pro-GM scientists at Rothamstead Research in the journal Nature, which claims that GM maize is better for wildlife than non-GM maize that has not been treated with the banned weedkiller Atrazine. The research is based on further analysis of the FSE results and found that the banning of Atrazine means that the benefits to wildlife of GM maize would only be slightly reduced.
In response, Ben Ayliffe added:
"I am amazed the Rothamstead research was published in Nature. It is totally unconvincing."
For more contact Greenpeace on 020 7865 8255
NOTES
The Environmental Audit Committee is a cross-party body with the remit to "consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development: to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by her Majesty's Ministers; and to report thereon to the House." Environmental Audit Committee
The FSEs concluded that growing GM maize was likely to cause less damage to farmland wildlife than growing conventional maize. This is because conventional maize is treated with the chemical Atrazine, which is so toxic it's now been banned in Europe.
The key assumption in the Nature letter about farmer's behaviour derives from Greenpeace evidence to ACRE. This points out that the herbicide use on GM maize in the FSEs trials almost certainly aren't relevant. It is totally unconvincing to make assumptions about changes in farmer behaviour for the conventional maize but to ignore actual evidence for changes in GM maize management. The letter "Ban on triazine herbicides likely to reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize cropping" can be read on the Nature website.
