Genetically Modified Organisms

News Cuttings

If you are unfamiliar with this subject, click here first for a brief introduction.

Press Briefing: English Nature
21 June 1999

Genetically Modified Organisms - briefing

Over the past 18 months GMOs have been the subject of much
public debate. English Nature has had a high profile within the
debate and maintained its position throughout.

Following is the text from Genetically Modified Organisms - English
Nature*s view, a question-and-answer leaflet which clearly
explains English Nature*s position with regards to Genetically
Modified Organisms and the environment, which we hope you will
find useful.

Further copies of the this leaflet are available from our Enquiry
Service, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA, or from our
web site http://www.english-nature.org.uk

Ends

Issued by English Nature Press Office

1 What is English Nature*s role in relation to
genetic modification of crops?

English Nature is the Government*s statutory adviser on
wildlife and natural features. As well as declaring and managing
National Nature Reserves and notifying and promoting effective
management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, we monitor
developments which may affect wildlife and advise on how any
damaging effects might be avoided. This advice is based on over
40 years of practical experience, coupled with in depth scientific
knowledge. English Nature is committed to maintaining and
enhancing biodiversity and natural heritage - our wealth of wildlife.

2 Are GMOs harmful to the environment?

The answer is that they may or may not be, we do not yet
know. Given this uncertainty, and the possibility that serious harm
could result if we get things wrong, we must exercise great care if
any commercial releases are to be allowed. We know that the
effects on wildlife of agricultural intensification over the last 40
years have been harmful, and GMO technology could be the next
agricultural revolution - a revolution as far-reaching as the
development of DDT.

Potential risks include:

* the direct toxicity of GM crops to wildlife (eg Bt
crops to butterflies and moths). Recent American research
indicates that butterfly survival rates can be adversely affected by
GM pollen;

* the transfer of genes to native species either
deliberately or inadvertently. The creation of herbicide resistant
grasses uncontrollable by herbicides could result in traditional
flower-filled hay meadows being over-run;

* the potential for changes in agricultural methods
enabled by GM crops. Fields of herbicide resistant crops could be
sprayed at the growing stage, eliminating all weeds on which
wildlife relies for shelter and food. This would pose a particular
threat to such typical farmland birds as skylarks.

Even though biotechnology could be used to benefit
wildlife, there are no incentives for industry to produce such crops
and no mechanisms in place to ensure that new crops are used in
ways which protect and benefit wildlife.

There are at least 25 research projects currently under way
in the UK which are investigating the effects of GM crops on the
environment.

3 What is English Nature*s position on commercial
growing of GM crops?

English Nature is not opposed to genetic modification as a
plant breeding technique, but is concerned about widespread
release of certain GM crops. Our advice is that there should be a
breathing space of at least three years (preferably five) before the
commercial release of GM herbicide tolerant (HT) and insect
resistant (IR) crops to allow time for research into their effects on
biodiversity to be completed and assessed.

4 Has any research been done on the effects of
Herbicide Tolerant (HT) and Insect Resistant (IR) GM
crops on the environment?

We are not aware of any field research done either in
Europe or in the US on the effects of growing these crops on
biodiversity. There are a few laboratory-based studies which raise
questions about adverse effects on wildlife.

We can make predictions about the effects on biodiversity
from linking agricultural research on the efficiency of GM crop
systems with what we know about the effects of *conventional*
agricultural intensification on biodiversity. For example we know
that the herbicide methods used with new GMHT crops remove
about 98% of all weeds. It is very difficult to achieve this efficiency
with conventional weed removal systems. There is a lot of
research on the effects of highly intensive farming on birds, insects
and plants which proves that highly efficient herbicide (and
insecticide) systems cause serious damage to biodiversity. We
fear that commercial adoption of GMHT crops and the impact of
associated herbicides and insecticides will cause further severe
declines in farmland biodiversity. In other words, it is at least as
bad as current intensive systems, and under some circumstances,
worse. We need to learn the lessons from the past 30 years of
increasing agricultural intensification to set the framework for this
new technology.

5 Who is doing research?

Most of the research on the effects of growing GM crops
on biodiversity is being sponsored by DETR and MAFF, although
some is also being funded by the biotechnology industry. Current
research programmes cover only a small part of what needs to be
done to ensure ecological safety. English Nature has presented
the Government with a list of suggested additional research.

6 How long will the research take?

At least three years.

The earliest that most of these ecological research projects
will be completed by is 2002. It will take a further year for the
results of various projects to be integrated and assimilated by the
regulatory system. That is why we have called for a delay in the
commercial release of GMHT and IR crops of at least three,
preferably five, years.

7 Won*t GM crops reduce the amount of pesticides
and therefore benefit wildlife?

It is not always the amount of pesticide which damages
wildlife, but the type used and the timing of application.

Conventional weed treatments using pre-emergence and
selective herbicides should achieve success early in the season
but leave weeds later on. The herbicides used on GMHT crops
would be broad-spectrum chemicals such as glyphosate (eg
RoundupTM) and glufosinate (eg LibertyTM) which, when applied
during the growing season, kill almost all weeds in the field. We
know that on very intensive farms, conventional weed treatments
are very damaging to biodiversity, but many farms are not so
intensive and tolerate relatively weedy fields.

In the USA, treatment with broad spectrum herbicides
applied to growing GM crops appears to have increased cases of
spray drift damage to adjoining non-GM crops. If these methods
are transferred to the UK, we fear further damage to hedgerows
and field margins which provide the most valuable remaining
refuge for wildlife in the farmed landscape.

8 Will genes from GM crops spread to wild plants?
Recent research from DETR and other information
indicates that spread to native species is likely.

Some GM crops, such as maize and wheat, have no wild
relatives in England and it is very unlikely that genes from these
could spread to wild plants. Others, such as oilseed rape and
sugar and fodder beet are closely related to a number of wild
plants. Recent research shows that GM pollen spreads to these
plants and that fertile hybrids are formed. We do not yet know
what the impact of these hybrids could be on wildlife and
agriculture - will some become aggressive weeds invading either
farmland or natural habitats? Will the hybrids prove *fitter* than
their wild relatives and replace them? Will some hybrids be
insect-resistant, denying wild insects their food and leading to
declines in insect-eating birds?

We do not know the answers to these questions. Some
research has recently been started in Europe to investigate the
impact of gene escape on biodiversity, and we do not want
decisions to be taken before the results of the research are
known.

9 These crops are widely grown in the USA. What
is the effect on wildlife there?

The American situation is very different. In England,
wildlife and farming share the countryside. In many parts of
America, intensive farming and wildlife are sharply divided and
zoned to the point of mutual exclusion. About 70% of land in the
UK is farmed, in contrast to the US where around 35% is farmed.
If we are to honour international biodiversity undertakings and
conserve our native species, we must farm in ways which allow
them to use the whole countryside. Transferring the industrialised
farming of the US to the European landscape could have further
devastating effects on our wildlife. In some areas such as East
Anglia, northern France and parts of the Netherlands this has
already happened and we have seen reductions of up to 75% in
farmland bird populations over the past 25 years. English Nature
wants to reverse this decline, and to see both a healthy
agricultural economy and flourishing wildlife.

10 Is the regulatory regime for GMOs adequate?

Recent changes announced by Government should result
in a regulatory and advisory structure which gives better control of
GMOs, but there is much still to be done to incorporate testing for
risks to biodiversity into the system. The forthcoming review of the
European Directive governing release of GMOs (EC 90/220) is
crucial to this process. It is important that the UK Government
plays a leading role in the review, especially where potential
effects on the environment are concerned.

11 Is the SCIMAC voluntary code of practice for
GMHT crops enough to protect biodiversity?

The Code is very limited in its purpose and is not designed
to protect biodiversity in the face of widespread release. It does
not set out to protect wildlife within the crop and the field margins.

Even if growers followed the Code to the letter, they could
eliminate all wildlife from their fields. The Code is intended to
protect the integrity of the supply chain and should not be seen as
the solution to the biodiversity risks.

12 Should there be statutory control of growing GM
crops?

Voluntary codes of practice in agriculture have rarely
worked as intended. They failed for pesticides and for
straw-burning, eventually being replaced by strong legislation.
Biotechnology is such a powerful way of producing radically new
crops that we believe statutory on-farm controls are essential.

13 What action is English Nature seeking?
We are pressing Government and the biotechnology
industry for a delay in commercial introduction of GMHT and IR
crops until research is completed and results assimilated.
We are calling for more ecological research to be started
now.

We are working to change the regulatory system to include
much greater consideration of the potential effects of GM crops on
wildlife.

We believe that only statutory control of how GM crops are
grown will ensure that wildlife is protected.

Home / Overview / News Cuttings / Other Related Articles / Contact