Appendix 2- GM crops

The concept of GM crops became apparent to the UK and European public when Monsanto began its ill-fated advertising campaign to introduce its GM seeds to the European market. This was done at a time when consumers had become very anxious about the safety of their food following the BSE epidemic and the consequential appearance of the distressing nv CJD disease. Given that these new crops would seem to be of no direct benefit to the public and were the product of a large multinational corporation then it was not altogether surprising that the public felt they were being disenfranchised. In such a situation they were very susceptible to the campaigns of the ëenvironmentalistí organisations to resist their introduction.

Much of the antagonism to GM crops could have been avoided if universities and research institutes had been encouraged by government to develop GM crops with real benefits for developing countries. Patents could have been used to protect against multinational exploitation and to ensure distribution to developing countries at minimal or no cost (eg as in the case of ëgolden riceí). The Green Revolution was structured in this way with the CGIAR Institutes providing the necessary wheat and rice varieties free of charge. It is not too late to change this situation.

The current policy of the European Parliament and Commission on GM crops has been fanned to a large extent by the slogans of ëenvironmentalistsí and is based on the supposition that GM food may have detrimental effects on health and on the environment. (The directive on the deliberate release of  GMOs, 2001/18/EC) that enters into force on 17 October 2002). A moratorium has been placed on the growing of all GM crops as well as a strict verification scheme to ensure that all imports to Europe are ëGM freeí (this applies even to products such as vegetable oils made using GM technologies that do not contain any GM material). This policy has recently had ramifications for the relief of famine in some parts of Africa where countries have resisted the importation of GM cereals as part of food aid since they are concerned both about health implications and their future access to the European market. These developments all point to the need to have a rational debate on these issues since a policy based merely on anecdote and emotion can have consequences far beyond the confines of the developed nations.

 In this context it may be significant that the European Commissioner for Research has recently called this policy into question.
 
 

14.   Is the production of GM crops unnatural and unethical?

A corollary to the protestations of the anti-GM lobby is the assertion that GM crops are ëunnaturalí and therefore basically risky to consume and to release to the environment-all accompanied by much lurid and scary propaganda.  The contrasting concept of traditional plant breeding as being in harmony with nature belied the fact that such techniques over the last 50 years have utilised mutagenesis approaches which are far more disruptive of the original plant genes than any GM modification. eg  barley seeds (Golden Promise)  were treated with X-rays in the Winfrith reactor in 1956 to yield the UKs favourite variety for brewing-and this variety is also used in the production of ëorganic ë beer! .  Examples abound from within 'conventional' plant breeding of successive techniques being developed that have pulled at the boundaries of species and forced reproduction to occur between two usually separate species. A chronology of these developments is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Chronology of Plant Developments*

DATE                                  DEVELOPMENT

1694   Discovery of sexual reproduction in plants
1719   First recorded plant hybrid (intraspecific hybridisation)
1799   First report of cereal hybrid
1866   Mendel publishes his work with pea crosses
1876   Interspecific and intergeneric crossing (Triticale now grown on 2 million hectares)
1900   Start of hybrid maize breeding in USA
1909   Protoplast fusion reported
1927   Mutation via x rays
1937   Polyploidisation
1940s  Single seed descent technique developed (SSD)
1960s  Embryo rescue refined
1970   Recombinant DNA technology (start of modern biotechnology)
1970s  Double haploid techniques
1983   First genetically modified transformed plants (tobacco)
1990   First genetically modified cereals

*See Perry, J.N. (2001).  Genetically Modified Crops.  pp. 22-91 in: Genetic Engineering, Volume XV in the 'Christ and the Cosmos' series.  Edited by Brenda Beamond.  Proceedings of the Consultation held in London Colney, 20-22 April 2001.  ISBN 0953036057.

 The ethics of GM crops have been studied extensively.  A key work is the 1999 report by Ryan et al., entitled ìGenetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues,î published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.  This substantial report covered the implications of GM crops in terms of the rights, welfare and opinions of the consumer and considered broad ethical issues. They also canvassed opinion from faith representatives in the UK.
 

The  Government-sponsored Polkinghorne Committee also took evidence from Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs on this topic.  There is a large number of Christian organisations and individuals who have contributed directly to the bioethics of GM eg: The Science, Religion & Technology Project of the Church of Scotland, The Evangelical Alliance, The Environmental Information Network of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, The John Ray Initiative, The Christ & the Cosmos Initiative.  The consensus view of all these reports is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong from an ethical point of view with the manufacture of GM crops, so long as they are used to feed the hungry and are not inevitably associated with undesirable socio-economic outcomes, such as the reduction of the power of subsistence farmers to control their own future.

15. Is there a risk associated with GM crops?

First, genetic modification is not, in and of itself, dangerous. Some types of GM crop could pose genuine and substantial environmental or human health risks, while others are safer than their conventionally modified counterparts. The fact that GM techniques are used makes the crop neither dangerous nor safe: it has no meaningful effect on the plant's risk characteristics. What does determine if plants are safe or dangerous is the traits that are transferred to them, regardless of whether this is done with advanced genetic techniques or more conventional methods. In this context therefore it is essential that risk assessments on all novel crops should be carried out on a case-by-case basis regardless of the mode of development.

Second, every risk that has been legitimately hypothesised about GM plants has a perfect analogue in one or another conventionally bred variety. For example, the UK farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) focus on crops that have been genetically modified to tolerate specific herbicides. Concerns have centred on speculation that the herbicide-tolerant plants could become invasive weeds; that the herbicide-tolerance trait could spread to wild plants through cross pollination; or that use of herbicide in conjunction with the crop could damage biodiversity. It should be noted in this context that several rapeseed varieties have been modified with conventional breeding techniques to be herbicide tolerant. Thus, every one of the concerns about GM herbicide-tolerant crops applies equally to the conventionally modified herbicide-tolerant rapeseed crops (which are commercially available). GM is just a more effective and more predictable way of transferring the desired trait. It should be emphasised here that the FSEs are a pioneering venture in that they attempt within the UK to link a proposed change in land management with potential changes in biodiversity. Unfortunately the nature of the trials have been widely misreported and most members of the public do not know that the trials are examining the impact of both GM and conventional methods on species at the lower end of  food chain (plants, arthropods and gastropods, bees, butterflies and the soil seed bank). Moreover the trials are being carried out using seed sown at different times of the year in a variety of climatic and geographical conditions throughout the UK. Such ecological trials could become a cornerstone of our future assessment of GM crops in the UK ( Hails 2002).  The question of transfer of invasiveness of traits to wild relatives has been well assessed for both vertical and horizontal gene transfer and it has been demonstrated that GM arable crop plants resistant to herbicides or insects are not more invasive than their conventional counterparts (eg Crawley et al, 1993,2002). The latter study compared the persistence of conventional and GM lines of four crop species over 10 years in 12 different habitats This finding is also in keeping with an update of a major ongoing project in Canada which aims to identify gene flow from GM rapeseed to related plants and weeds (English Nature Research Report 443, 2002)-Canada has been successfully growing enormous amounts of GM rapeseed for over 10years  (2.4 million hectares in 2000).In addition a recent report (Rieger et al 2002) based on very many measurements in Australia has shown that the highest level of cross-pollination movement from GM to conventional rapeseed was 0.07% -well below the figures of figures of 1 or 0.5% demanded  by the Soil Association for seed ëpurityí in the UK. Claims that GM crops will produce super-weeds ignore the fact that crops have always cross-pollinated with weedy relatives but in doing so they will have no selective advantage and will therefore tend not to persist (Hails 2000). It is also noteworthy that there are at least four herbicide resistant crops available and produced by conventional breeding but no agitation is currently made about their use. There are weeds world-wide with resistance to some 15 different herbicides.  None is of any relevance to the environment since they do not persist in the absence of herbicide. Nevertheless, it is evident that not all of the genetic factors which regulate gene flow and ëfitnessí in plants have been defined. In view of the inevitable introduction of a much bigger range of GM crops into mainstream agriculture the study of techniques to regulate and control the expression of transgenes in general should be vigorously pursued. Given this scenario it would seem highly likely that a transgene specifically inserted into a plant genome could provide a much more stable and safer crop than the very haphazard genetic changes brought about by current conventional plant breeding procedures.

Other topics which could be pursued include the excision of antibiotic genes, better containment of transgenes by improved molecular strategies eg insertion into chloroplasts, seed sterility, transgenic mitigation etc

The introduction of GM technologies (with the use of easily detected markers) has also exposed the paucity of information on the ecology of agricultural systems in general and points to the need for solidly designed ecological studies to ensure that novel crops (GM or not) can be introduced without environmental detriment.

Critics also claim that novel genes introduced into GM plants could produce proteins that are toxic, allergenic or carcinogenic. Currently all GM crops designed for human consumption are subject to rigorous analysis for any known detrimental characteristics-a procedure not required for novel foods produced by conventional breeding(WHO,2001). It is revealing that these analyses have recently pinpointed a gene in soyabean which seems to be mainly responsible for its allergenic properties in some individuals and a new GM soyabean construct has been designed which eliminates this gene and is currently undergoing development.

It must be emphasised that even the most ardent supporters of genetic modification cannot claim that GM will never cause unanticipated problems-hence the need for case-by -case assessment. With the introduction of non-food crops it will be just as important to ensure that each one is submitted to the same rigorous testing to ensure their environmental safety and that there is no cross fertilisation to related food crops. If society demanded absolute certainty of no harm before products could be marketed, we would have to abandon not just GM, but traditional breeding as well. It cannot be stressed too much that all of the GM crops which are currently grown commercially have been exhaustively assessed for food safety by public health authorities worldwide and include the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, National academies of Sciences in America, UK, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and the Third World Academy of Science, the United States Institute of Food Technologists, Swiss Association for Research and Nutrition, American Society of Toxicology, affiliates of the American Council on Science and Health and more than 3,000 scientists and physicians dedicated to consumer education on public health issues.

We conclude from the above that there appear to be no risks either to health or the environment from those GM crops which are currently in production worldwide. Nevertheless, to prepare for future developments we need to pursue vigorously basic plant research to increase our understanding of the regulation of plant genes.

16. What benefits accrue from GM crops?

That there are benefits from the current range of GM crops on offer is certainly the case and we think the government should be more proactive about saying so.  We therefore welcomed the pro-science speech made recently by the Prime Minister to the Royal Society. Current GM crops do offer the potential for reductions in pesticide use that will benefit specifically farmers who are in direct contact with concentrated pesticide chemicals. Herbicide resistant crops also provide an opportunity for developing no-till agriculture and indeed regulations could ensure that use of such GM crops must be accompanied by no-till or minimal-till.. Benefits of GM crops are being felt worldwide; economic estimates suggest the USA has benefited by billions of dollars already (Conway 2000).  We now know that one million of the poorest Chinese farmers with farms on average the size of two acres have seen incomes rise by 20-25% by using GM crops (Huang et al 2002a). In this context it is relevant to note that Chinaís Office of Genetic Engineering Safety has just as strict regulations on GM release as those in the UK and US. The potential for GM crops is enormous and we welcome the possible introduction of GM food vaccines (measles, cholera, hepatitis B, syncytial respiratory virus) due in several years time; the production of wheat without gluten etc. There are very many possibilities for future GM crop products and some of these are listed below (Table 2).

There are other important consequences of using GM crops. The non-profit National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy found that GM cotton, maize and rape allowed US farmers to reduce insecticide and herbicide use in 2001 by 21million kilograms. While it can be argued that organic farming can reduce insecticide and herbicide use even more than GM crops it should be noted that about 20 percent of crop productivity in the industrialised countries of North America and Europe, and as much as 40 percent in Africa and Asia, is lost to insect pests, weeds and plant diseases. Organic production methods would not be able to counteract many of these hazards and therefore would only exacerbate yield losses and substantially more land would have to be brought into agricultural use to compensate. As noted before increased yields could also permit less land to be cultivated for the same food production and thereby facilitate more land being returned to a wild state.

Perhaps of equal importance to Britons is the fact that, unlike many other advances in farming technology, GM crops have been shown to be scale-neutral. The small, family-run farms of which Europeans are so fond can benefit as much as large industrial farms. This could help put European growers on a more equal footing with competitors in other parts of the world. Indeed, studies of South African and Chinese cotton-growers suggest that small farmers actually achieve higher relative benefits from this technology (Huang et al 2002b). Genetic modification can therefore offer tremendous benefits for the environment, for farmers and for consumers - but only if we give it a chance to prove itself.

17.  The Future of GM crops in the UK?

One of the most urgent questions for the future of biotechnology in the UK is a hypothetical one raised regularly by the proponents of GM crops.  "Given that ACRE have already determined that there is no threat to human health or the environment" they ask, "if the FSE should then show that there is a broadly neutral effect on farmland wildlife of GM management compared to conventional, why shouldn't the Government proceed immediately to commercialisation?"  However, whatever is shown by the FSE, we already have plenty of evidence that the increased intensity of farming since the Second World War is the most likely cause of the decline of several important farmland bird species (Krebs et al., 1999, Chamberlain et al. (2000), Robinson & Sutherland, 2002), often through indirect effects mediated through loss of habitat, and decline in weed and invertebrate populations.  In these circumstances, we cannot recommend the unrestricted application of GM management. But fortunately, we know enough to justify an imposition of particular mandatory restrictions on the way GM crops are grown so as to ensure a positive benefit to biodiversity, at the expense of a relatively small amount of yield.  Specifically, pioneering work at Brooms Barn (Dewar et al., 2000) has indicated how delays in spraying weeds in GMHT crops may provide food resources and habitat structure during a critical part of the year for insects and nesting birds and how this may be combined with innovative band-spraying techniques to further improve abundance.  Furthermore, GMHT crops could operate within a reduced-tillage system to protect earthworms and other soil invertebrates (Hails 2002), and in agreed rotations favourable to wildlife.  Required spring-sowing rather than winter-sowing of GMHT crops would do much to provide overwintering food and habitat for birds and beneficial invertebrates (Hald, 1999, in Hails 2002).  Such measures could be combined with obligatory imposition of Integrated Pest Management (Cate & Hinkle, 1993) techniques to reduce pesticide applications, including the use of: biocontrol (van Driesche & Bellows, 1996) the encouragement of the natural enemies of pests; improved forecasting and monitoring of pests; encouragment of pollinators; non-systemic insecticides; alternative pest control using semiochemicals; anti-pest-resistance strategies; conservation headlands as developed by the Game Conservancy (Sotherton, 1991); beetle banks as developed by the University of Southampton (Thomas et al., 1991) and managed set-aside (Firbank et al., 1993).  The success of these techniques is well-documented.  This could become a paradigm for changes that might be imposed on conventional UK agriculture and help to implement the sustainability ideals postulated in the Curry Report.

Even if the public were convinced that GM is relatively harmless, we cannot see how they would accept the commercialisation of GMHT crops unless it were shown to them that there could be positive associated improvements in farmland wildlife.  The maintenance of the status-quo of a steady decline in biodiversity is no longer acceptable, ethically or politically.
This is a rational, non-dogmatic, evidence-based approach, in line with DEFRA thinking.  It is also in line with the outcomes of consumer pressure on supermarkets that have led to initiatives such as Tesco's 'Nature's choice' scheme (Select Committee on Agriculture, 2001, Appendix 27 to the Minutes of Evidence).  It would promote an increase in influence of NGOs such as English Nature, RSPB and the Game Conservancy that have a track record of encouraging the wise stewardship of arable land.  It represents a real and imaginative Third Way for farming - integrating agronomy, biotechnology and ecology.

18. GM crops ñthe political dimension.

As scientists, we have to accept that the controversy over the production of GM crops involves issues other than purely technical ones. The fact that the development of an individual GM plant involves a very lengthy process that has to adhere to a rigorous regulatory regime implies that only large organisations with sufficient capital resources are able to proceed along this road. While such a scenario is, by and large, acceptable in the Americas the introduction of commercial GM crops (along with patent protection) to Europe has had a different reception. There has been great suspicion that the multinational agrichemical corporations (mostly US based) will be able to gain control over the production of food systems in Europe and beyond. Consequently, opposition to GM crops has been seen as a íleft wingí issue and part of the anti-globalisation campaign. While we have some sympathy with this aspect, the problem is that as long as the anti-GM campaign continues to be successful, it is hampering the ability of Europe to exploit these powerful new techniques and at the same time allowing the USA to make substantial advances in the field.  (In this context it was pointed out above that Chinese scientists using public resources have been able to develop very successfully their own GM crops.)  Our solution to this dilemma is to encourage vigorously the UK plant science base to develop GM crops which will be seen by the public to be beneficial to the consumer and not only to the shareholder. In addition, by ensuring that the patent rights (IPR) are retained within the public domain then much more control can be exerted over the commercial exploitation (as has occurred with vitamin A-enhanced rice). Furthermore we must also accept that there is a large gulf between scientists and the public in their perceptions of risk.  The social scientists tell us that negative public attitudes can be firmly formed but if there is later positive evidence to refute the original assertions then it is usually ignored and people continue to adhere to their original perceptions (see Slovic, P.  2000). This is an important facet of the current controversy and it may be that much more effort will need to be devoted to explaining the concept of risk to a wider population.

Table 2- GM crops that could be on stream in a few years time

A) FOOD CROPS

Very many of these food crops are of direct relevance to developing countries and could provide a major contribution to combating some of the effects of poor crop yields in harsh environments.

CROP	TRAIT
RICE	disease resistance, herbicide resistance, salt tolerance, nutrient enhancment e.g. vitamin A
WHEAT	virus resistance
MAIZE	disease resistance
SOYABEAN	herbicide resistance: allergen removal
POTATO	disease resistance
RAPESEED	herbicide resistance
PEANUT	virus resistance
CABBAGE	virus resistance
TOMATO	virus resistance: improved shelf life: cold and salt tolerance
MELON	virus resistance
SWEET PEPPER	virus resistance
CHILI	virus resistance
PAPAYA	virus resistance

B)  NON - FOOD CROPS
 
 
 
 

TECHNOLOGY	APPLICATIONS
ëPharmingí viz. plant-derived pharmaceuticals	A variety of crops have been utilised for these studies eg  maize: tobacco: rice: maize: potato: oilseed rape and the products  include the following: cancer chemotherapy drugs: antimalarials: analgesics: immunoprotective products for use in a range of human diseases such as hepatitis B: respiratory syncytial virus: anticoagulants: thrombin: factor XIII: interferon: human growth hormone: elastin.
Oil products	Higher plants produce more than 500 naturally occurring fatty acids and lipid derivatives which could provide useful starting materials for a wide range of materials including polymers: detergents :lubricating oils.  Knowledge of the lipid metabolism in these systems and the application of GM technologies should allow the production of specific lipids in sufficient yield to make them commercially viable.  In addition  very long chain polyunsaturated acids which have important neutraceutical and pharmaceutical applications and currently are produced  mainly using fish oils could be similarly introduced into plants  such as oilseed rape by GM methods.  Development of biofuels using GM technology is being promoted by the EU.
Paper products	The worldís forests are being depleted significantly by the insatiable demands for paper and paper-based products. Ongoing GM technology has indicated that trees can be produced which have faster growth rates and have significantly higher cellulose and lower lignin contentsñwhich would in turn reduce the amount of chemicals which are needed  in paper manufacture. The use of cellulose-based biodegradable plastics are also being explored.
Phytoremediation	GM strategies offer a means of developing plants which can take up toxic materials such as TNT and heavy metals and could prove invaluable in clearing both industrial and explosive-contaminated land.

These are just some of the GM products which are being developed but it should be pointed out that although the UK is among the world leaders in plant gene technology the UK economy will not benefit if research and development is not supported.
 

Cate, J.R. & Hinkle, M.K. (1993)  Integrated pest management: the path of a paradigm.  Special Report of the National Audubon Society, Washington DC.

Chamberlain, D.E. et al. (2000)  Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of  agricultural intensification in England and Wales.  Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 771-788.

Conway,G et al (2000)  Crop Biotechnology: Benefits, Risks and Ownership. Proceedings of GM Food Safety: Facts, Uncertainties and Assessment. Edinburgh 28Feb ñ1 March 2000  OECD 2000

Crawley,M.J. et al (1993). Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats.  Nature, 363 ,620-623.

Crawley,M.J. et al (2002). Transgenic crops in natural habitats.   Nature,409,682-683

Dewar, A.M. et al. (2000)  Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on  aphid infestation and yield.  Pest Management Science, 56, 345-350.

Dewar, A.M., May, M.J. & Pidgeon, J.D. (2002b).  Management of GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beet for potential environmental benefit to farmland birds.  Institute of Arable Crops Research, Annual Report 2001 - 2002, pp.44-47.

van Driesche, R.G. & Bellows, Jr., T.S. (1996)  Biological Control. Chapman & Hall, New York.

Firbank, L.G., Arnold, H.R., Eversham, B.C., Mountford, J.O., Radford, G.L.,   Telfer, M.G., Treweek, J.R., Webb, N.R.C. & Wells, T.C.E. (1993). Managing set-aside land for wildlife. HMSO, London, pp 146.

Hails,R.S, (2000). Genetically modified plants-the debate continues.  Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15,14-18.

Hails,R.S. (2002) . Assessing the risks associated with new agricultural practices.  Nature  418, 685-688.

Hald, A. B. (1999).  The impact of changing the season in which cereals are sown on the diversity of the weed flora in rotational fields in Denmark. Journal Applied Ecology, 36, 24-32.

Huang,J et al (2002a) Plant Biotechnology in China. Science 295,674-677.

Huang,J et al (2002b) . Enhancing the crops to feed the poor. Nature 418, 678-684.

Krebs, J. et al. (1999) The second Silent Spring?  Nature, 400, 611-612.

MAFF (1998) Reducing Agrochemical Use on the Arable Farm.  MAFF, London.

Rieger,M.A. et al (2002). Pollen mediated movement of herbicide resistance between commercial canola fields. Science 296,2386-2388(2002).

Robinson, R.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2002)  Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain.  Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 157-176.

Select Committee on Agriculture, (2001), Appendix 27 to the Minutes of Evidence.
 
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmagric/149/14903.htm

Slovic, P. (2000).  The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, London

Sotherton, N. (1991)  Conservation headlands: a practical combination of intensive cereal farming and  conservation.  In: The Ecology of Temperate Cereal Fields (eds. L. Firbank et al.), pp. 373-397.  Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.

Thomas, M.B. et al. (1991)  Creation of 'island' habitats in farmland to manipulate populations of beneficial arthropods: predator densities and emigration.  Journal of Applied Ecology, 28, 906-917.

World Health Organisation (2001). Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on the allergenicities of foods derived from biotechnology. (http://www.who.int/fsf/Gmfood/consultation_Jan2001/report20.pdf).

General Recent Review References

Nature Biotechnology, vol 20, pp 537,542,548,567,575,581,622 (2002).

Nature vol 418, Insight:Food and the Future pp 668-707(2002).