ISIS Report March 15, 2001
UK GMO Field Trials - A Tragi-Comedy of Errors
The 4th AEBC meeting on the UK GMO field trials exploded the
ridiculous farce of the whole affair. The scientists behind the trials were
ashamed as DETR and SCIMAC flung mud at each other and the environmentalists
got the better of them all. Angela Ryan of ISIS reports on this tragi-
comedy of errors!
The Agriculture & Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC)
gathered important evidence last month in Norwich about the UK farm scale
trials (FSTs) of GM crops. Valuable insights came to light, but whether the
government will take heed remains to be seen.
Four groups of witnesses were called to give evidence;
- Les Firbank, the scientific co-ordinator of the FSTs
- Linda Smith of Department for the Environment Transport & Regions
(DETR) & Brian Johnson of English Nature
- Doug Parr of Greenpeace and Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth
- Steve Smith and Daniel Pearsell from SCIMAC, the biotech industry
body responsible for the trials.
Two camps; Pro GM and Pro Precautionary Principle, have now formed
within the commission and each sat to the left and right respectively of the
chairman. Everyone present was acutely aware that it was time to get down to
the ‘nitty gritty’.
Les Firbank was the first witness on the stand. He said the
null-hypothesis of the FSTs is, "There are no differences between the effects
of GM crops and non GM crops on biodiversity." He was immediately confronted
with the fact that the trials are only looking at herbicide resistant GM crops
and therefore the null-hypothesis is too broad for what the field trials were
actually aiming for.
Robin Grove White, an experienced environmental scientist, took Firbank
to task and asked, "at the end of the trials, how are you going to interpret
the results? It is unlikely to be clear-cut. You are monitoring a selected
range, over a limited period. What judgements can you make in terms of
significance, and how are you going to reconcile your indicators in different
directions? Using statistical analysis there will be variable soil types,
variable weather conditions etc. How are you going to handle that?
Ecologically, there are other random effects and what are the large-scale,
long-term consequences for weed bio-mass and seed banks. What are the potential
scenarios?”
Firbank was floored, and said there was "a need for transparency" and
that “all processed information will be publicly available on a
website”. Robin emphasized [for the record] that although the scientists
conducting the FST will draw their own interpretations, the data will have to
be subject to wider interpretation. Firbank agreed.
Sue Mayer flagged up the ‘bias of the trials’, pointing out
that yield is not even being measured and that a sub-section of farms and
farmers had been specially selected. She asked whether the trials could be
easily audited for bias and whether anyone was monitoring how the farmer
manages the two halves of the field; GM and non-GM? Firbank evaded this
question too, and said the aim of the trials was to look solely at the most
cost-effective weed management system.
The pro-GM camp, spearheaded by Phil Dale, asked "what if the FSTs find
no difference between GM and non GM?". Firbank said the growing of GM crops
would ultimately be a societal decision, proclaiming "these trials are the
biggest studies so far conducted anywhere in the world!". But the fact that GM
crops have been grown around the world without any environmental safety
assessment is not a good selling point.
Organic farmer Helen Browning asked whether soil health was coming up
the agenda and raised the issue of horizontal gene transfer and the fact that
glyphosate kills soil microbes and fungus too. Firbank said soil research would
be better done on a smaller scale. He did finally admit, "the trials are
limited" and explained "we could not do it all and had to prioritize".
Firbank had to face the inescapable truth about the farm scale trials.
His morale fell and Phil Dale tried to rescue him by asking "but non GM crops
are just as bad for the environment, aren’t they?" Firbank replied "the
evaluations are specific to GM products". He said he would welcome more
research, especially research that takes into account organic farming, but the
trials had to fit into a national context (except the national context is
changing rapidly, with accelerated growth in the organic sector). He added, "in
principle there are radical effects on biodiversity from the widespread
practice of autumn sowing, now typical in all conventional regimes". He agreed
"all management regimes should be biodiversity linked" and "soil studies should
to be done before large scale field releases of GM crops go ahead".
Next on the witness stand was Linda Smith of DETR & Brian Johnson of
English Nature.
Smith told the commission that DETR needed the evaluations and were on
target. They had 60-75 independent sites offered to them by SCIMAC. She
stressed that as far as the DETR is concerned, the trials are only looking at
the impact of herbicide resistant GM crops on biodiversity. Effects to human
health are not included. She explained SCIMAC had determined the
segregation distance, not DETR. DETR had reviewed the situation and new
measures would be announced later that day, which they were. She stressed "if
GM crops are ever to be grown commercially, it is very important to put in
place considerable regulation in order to protect the integrity of nearby
crops". She brought up the new EU Directive 990/20 on deliberate releases and
said that this would set out the conditions for release to the environment.
Brian Johnson agreed assessment was necessary and there is a major gap
in safety assessment regarding human health. He said gene flow is not a big
issue for English Nature as they don't use any herbicides. He said, "the trials
are not going to tell much", especially regarding other types of GM crops, but
they do fill a gap in regulation, for nothing is known about the effects of any
GM crop on biodiversity. English Nature fear more intensive weed control will
simply make matters worse for farmland biodiversity, which are the most at
risk. The only way English Nature can see any benefit in the trials is to see
them as just one part of a fuller assessment of intensive agriculture.
DETR was then questioned as to why it had ignored beekeepers and organic
farmers? Smith talked about how very difficult it is to reach consensus with
diverse groups. The government are "holding back on commercialization" until
the trials are over. She admitted, “things should have been more properly
assessed, reviewing all the issues in respect to safety". She then added, "The
Chardon LL hearing has raised several safety concerns for government regarding
human health".
Helen Browning asked for studies on soil health. Smith said "the issues
of horizontal gene transfer and soil health are being put to ACRE, we are
asking them [.....] do you understand the risks?". Smith said that soil health
is under review in DETR, "considering additional research more effectively done
in different ways”, adding "the issue of gene flow is not easy to resolve,
it is a very difficult question".
Ironically, she went on to claim that the aim of DETR is to "do as
little damage to the environment as possible and meet the biodiversity targets
for Britain". And many others issues have to be resolved, especially regarding
human health. There are "a large number of unknowns yet and we'll have to wait
and see" she said. She admitted "the government's got into a very bad position
due of bad decisions taken early in the process". Is she implying the
government has been impaled on the FSTs and it is all industry’s
fault?
Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth and Doug Parr of Greenpeace were next
on the witness stand and the chairman asked them what they "thought of the
discussions so far?".
Pete Riley was incensed. He said "the comments from Linda Smith go to
prove our political analysis is correct!"
He stressed the importance of 'biodiversity systems' and how the
government should be funding more basic research. "We must reflect on the
process that lead to the FSTs and see what we can do with it". The political
process must put science into context and "we need a more advanced debate about
what sort of food people want to eat". He said the government is "completely
out of touch with public opinion on these issues". In public meetings across
the country, "the overriding emotion is anger!". BSE will shape the way we
regulate food from now on. Gone are the days when government "decides,
announces and defends". The public must be consulted early on and we must have
a broad discussion as to whether we even need GMOs or not. Doug Parr strongly
supported this view, adding "we need to look at the trajectories; where are GM
crops taking us."
Devil’s advocate Phil Dale, asked, "if we allow consultation with
the public, how can we protect our ability to innovate?". Doug Parr said
science and technology shape all our lives, therefore it is wrong to leave it
all up to science and technology committees. There is "a diversity of options
and alternatives to GM crops", for instance, Greenpeace is positive about
marker assisted breeding, and regards organic farming also as a highly
innovative science. Riley pointed out that the government would have gone ahead
and proposed Chardon LL for spring planting this year, which was "totally
illogical and not credible in the eyes of the public". The government is seen
to be "motoring ahead, preparing the grounds for commercialization".
Matthew Freeman asked them what their specific concerns were.
Parr replied "the unpredictable nature of GMOs" and "the mixing of
genetic material across wide species barriers". Greenpeace want sustainable
agriculture. Riley said the trials are asking the wrong question, they are
comparing two intensive systems. There are bigger ethical issues too, that have
not been debated at all; this is unacceptable. He said the issue of patents is
a major concern that "should have been debated along side the FSTs". Food
safety is another, "is it safe to eat?" In the past "we've launched into
technology without testing it properly" and we should not make the same mistake
with GMOs. We must have a strict regulatory regime that includes liability and
"ensures industry takes responsibility" when things go wrong. People nowadays
want quality assurances, genetic ID testing of GM free food "is very difficult
and messy".
Freeman was unsatisfied and pressed for "specific examples of risk,
published in scientific journals"?.
The two witnesses cited a couple of examples: Monsanto's GM soya with
stem cracked open, the unpredictability of GM, and studies on Bt crops showing
active Bt toxin leaks into soil. Both published in Nature.
At this point, I couldn't figure out whether Freeman was calling their
bluff or was genuinely ignorant of GM safety concerns. Freeman is the only
molecular biologist on the commission, coming from a background in drosphophila
research, but there is no reason to suppose he is familiar with GMO risk
assessment.
After the meeting and in front of another member of the commission, I
asked him "you're not really that unaware of the safety concerns are you?". His
reply was "I do not believe there are any safety concerns". I had to remind him
that as a scientist he must be impartial and take account of evidence. He
repeated, "I do not believe genetic engineering is dangerous but in some
cases the effects may have harmful consequences." I replied "yes, like
insertion mutagenesis or insertion carcinogenesis for instance?" He agreed.
I then raised the safety issue of the CaMV promoter and the fact that it
has a recombination hotspot and is a very strong universal promoter, having
functional activity in human cell lines, yeast, E.coli, xenopus, as well as all
plants. He asked "are you sure your are not getting it mixed up with the CMV
promoter?". I said "No, not the cytomegalovirus promoter, I'm talking about the
cauliflower mosaic virus promoter, used in practically all GM crops". He looked
surprised and said, "I didn't know it was active in human cells".
Next on the witness stand was SCIMAC, who were made to eat humble pie.
They were very unclear and scared. They said they had ignored organic farmers
and beekeepers because they only “respond to new evidence" but they "do
want a continuing dialogue”, although "this technology has to co-exist
with other agriculture". The importance of "openness and transparency" was
offered repeatedly in defense and statements like "SCIMAC published full
details of all the sites, exceeding regulatory requirements”.
Sue Mayer asked what SCIMAC consider to be 'valid objections'? Steve
Smith launched into a rambling diatribe about how "we are all in a changing
environment" and "many changes are taking place in society, economics and the
environment". He has been reading books on the environment and even mentioned
the importance of our "ecological footprint".
Apparently SCIMAC have "graphically demonstrated consideration for the
views of the public". But the two men then went on to confirm the fears of the
public by saying "the FSTs are not a safety trial nor an impact assessment,
they are just looking at the impact of GM herbicide resistance crops on
biodiversity, as this was missing from the regulations".
They offered plenty of excuses like "industry had done nothing wrong"
for "it only has to satisfy regulators" and "remain competitive". Steve Smith
said, "SCIMAC is acutely aware that we are in a changing environment", he then
passed the buck back to DETR by suggesting “regulators should do the
same”. He took some credit, "these FSTs have opened the debate up to the
public and this must continue". On liability, he threatened "we need to think
about the liability of these products to other industries, not just
environmental liability".
Having pushed the idea that the FSTs are an example of how industry "is
prepared to be proactive", Steve Smith admitted, "we haven't reached our
conclusions yet." Industry only has to meet the requirements of the new EU
Directive but "safety concerns still remain" and "SCIMAC is involved in looking
at impacts outside the bounds of regulations". SCIMAC's framework is under
development and "there is a range of concerns" [what does that mean?!]. He
would not elaborate further, deferring questioning to his unidentified
"technical provider".
Pearsell said industry "can't get away with anything nowadays"
reiterating Steve Smith, "we haven't reached any conclusions" and "everything
is not wonderful". The two men, when finally cornered, both agreed there is a
need to "reduce risks to human health and safety" and "return to sound
science". But that can only mean no Field Trials should go ahead!
| 
