Science in the Development of Agriculture.

2.  As scientists, our major concern is to ensure that there is a rational debate on the future of agriculture. Progress should be made on the basis of proper objective analysis and not driven by pressure groups with narrow agendas.  We believe knowledge, not anecdote or emotion, should form the basis of policy.
 

The application of science to the practice of agriculture has yielded extraordinary dividends. Over the last 50 years the Green Revolution has facilitated a threefold increase in cereal yields per acre of farmland; this has enabled the feeding of the current world population of six billion.  It is estimated that at least one billion people owe their survival directly to the advances of the Green Revolution: unimaginable misery and starvation would have resulted from the lack of such advances in plant breeding (for a review see
Nature vol 418, Insight: Food and the Future pp 668-707. (2002)

However, further advances using conventional plant breeding have now all but ceased.  Although the world population doubled in the last 40 years, arable farmland increased only by some 7%. By 2025, the UN estimates that the world population will have increased to 8.3 billion, reaching 9-10 billion by 2050. These increases will occur primarily in India, South East Asia and Africa. As populations become more prosperous meat consumption increases and the production of cereal feeds will need to double by 2025 to cope with demand. The combination of this scenario with the need to protect our remaining ecosystems, bio-diversity and forests leads to the inescapable conclusion that agriculture should be made as efficient as possible. We need to grow two seeds where only one was possible before - new technology is likely to be the major contributor towards this goal.

Even in Mexico, the home of green revolution wheat, three million acres of virgin forest are cut down every year to provide land for extensive (and inefficient), low-income peasant farming, a clear illustration of the problem.  Forests lock up carbon dioxide, deforestation releases it again. Supporting inefficient farming will only exacerbate the situation and accelerate global warming. Humankind uses an estimated half of the best arable soil for agriculture; the remainder is under tropical forests and can only be used for arable agriculture with detrimental environmental consequences. Agriculture currently occupies about 30% of the earth's surface, although much of this is rough grazing on nutritionally poor soils.

Enormous challenges confront the world community over the next two decades!  The desperate need is to feed an extra 3-4 billion people on existing farmland. This must be accompanied by rapid economic growth in developing countries so that their peoples can benefit from the life style currently enjoyed by the developed world. While politicians have a major part to play in meeting these daunting challenges (e.g. in the use or misuse of agricultural subsidies) they, in turn, will ultimately depend on the creative forces of science and technology to generate new ideas and new technologies that confront and mitigate apparently insurmountable factors. However, science has met these challenges many times before and stating the problems has the merit of focusing effort on possible sustainable solutions. There are many who will point out that the UK does not have a problem with food supplies and that the effects of poverty and famine can be overcome by purely political solutions. This rather parochial view overlooks the need to care for the whole planet; and in any case our well-being cannot be decoupled from the rest of the world since global changes will affect us too.
 

 In this context we should note that the UK has an excellent science base and the stimulation of the science budget, announced recently by the chancellor, Gordon Brown, should help to place UK scientists in the vanguard of those investigating solutions to these problems.

AGRICULTURAL  PRACTICES.

3.   The current state of UK agriculture is seen by some to be unsatisfactory.  However, we believe that blanket condemnation is unhelpful because the many farmers who possess considerable managerial competence require positive support. There is also much controversy over the ways in which farming  practice should change. In the UK we are in the fortunate position of being able to access secure sources of food, a situation confirmed by visiting any large supermarket. To some extent this means that the average UK consumer is sheltered from this debate except in so far as their perception of food safety is concerned. Current discussions about the future of farming are driven by the anxieties generated following the foot and mouth epidemic and the likely restructuring of the farming industry resulting from possible changes in European farming subsidies. A number of reports have been commissioned by the government to address these issues. While Scientists for Labour concur with many of the recommendations made by the Curry, Spedding and AEBC reports, we are concerned that some reports did not deal adequately with the scientific aspects, particularly those items comparing different farming systems. This is a key issue since very many claims in this area seem to be based on prejudice rather than evidence.

Comparison of Farming Systems

To our knowledge only two lengthy UK investigations have compared (on the same farm with the same farmer) integrated, conventional and organic farming systems.  Several studies have been completed in the US and one recently in Switzerland. However climate conditions, yields and even interpretations of farming techniques are very different and of no great relevance to the conditions faced by farmers in the UK. The two UK studies were at Boarded Barns Farm at Ongar in Essex and at the CWS farm at Stoughton, covering a 10-year and a 7-year period respectively. At Boarded Barns,  ten volumes of measurements (one volume for each year) were made, largely by university and Institute personnel. Unfortunately, the information from this study is only available in summary in the published scientific literature (Higginbotham et al., 2000). However, Scientists for Labour has had direct access to the whole 10 volumes of data from the organisers. The CWS experiments, organised by Alistair Leake (who spoke at the meeting referred to above ñsee section 1), have been published in a number of papers (Higginbotham et al., 2000; Ogilvy et al., 2000; Jordan et al., 2000a,b; Leake 2000). Both investigations concluded that the system designated ëIntegrated Farm Management (IFM)í-as described below- was the best way forward for UK agriculture.

Conventional agricultural practice, while outstandingly successful in providing plentiful supplies of cheap food, has contributed to depletion of hedgerows and field margins, with knock-on effects on desirable wild life. Furthermore, it adds environmentally detrimental amounts of nitrogen and phosphate to soils and waterways. However, it must be pointed out that high yielding crops have also helped to prevent world-wide environmental degradation because half the worldís forests would otherwise have been lost to achieve current food yields. Sustainable high yield crops are therefore critical to the future of agricultural practices.
 

Thus, there is a need to direct farming into practices that are environmentally sensitive and that maintain both farm income and high yields thereby keeping food prices low. The use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides/pesticides to control weeds, fungal infections and insect pests is currently essential to maintain yields.

Integrated Farm Management (IFM) achieves all these goals and is a relatively recent and important development. IFM is a ëwhole farmí policy, providing the basis for efficient and profitable production that is economically viable and environmentally responsible. IFM integrates beneficial natural processes (eg. bio-control) into modern farming practices using advanced technology (eg. Integrated Pest Management-IPM)). It aims to minimise environmental risks while conserving, enhancing and recreating that which is of environmental importance.

A leading advocate of IFM in the UK is the LEAF organisation (Linking Environment And Farming; www.leafuk.org).  The LEAF farming audit is stringent, requires managerial  ability of the highest quality and also requires the highest standards in animal welfare and landscape provision.  Mineral fertilisers are targeted to optimise use by the growing crop and to minimise nitrate run-off.  Crop rotation is used along with soil maintenance incorporating, where possible, organic manures. Pesticide use is governed by the principles of  IPM that seek to utilise best knowledge of pest behaviour and to maintain natural levels of pest predators. Pesticides are targeted and are not used prophylactically: best practice controls pesticide use and then only as a last resort (i.e., when infestations will cause economic damage). Specific retention of wildlife refuges (hedgerows, grass verges, beetle banks etc) ensures the maintenance of desirable bird and small mammal populations.
 

Brussel Sprouts - in abundance

Wildlife Refuge

While the yields and profit margins are a slightly lower (a few percent), the benefits in terms of biodiversity are very significant-this has been adequately demonstrated in the reports described above.  DEFRA has so far provided only minimal support to LEAF and we would recommend that it should provide the necessary information, encouragement and circulars to increase adoption of IFM.

No Till or Till ?

It has become recognised in recent years that ploughing is a damaging soil treatment, although necessary in many forms of agriculture to control weed populations that would otherwise substantially diminish yields. Tilling disturbs the soil architecture and the organisms that maintain biodiversity. However, with responsible use of non-persistent herbicides such as glyphosate, coupled with minimal or no- till, IFM has generated a new form of agriculture  termed ëconservation agricultureí.

Current scientific measurements, although limited, have indicated that conservation agriculture (in comparison to organic farming for example), reduces fossil fuel consumption to one third, sees substantive increases in bird territories and soil invertebrates of many kinds, halves nitrate run-off, soil erosion all but disappears and the soil, advantageously for global warming, turns into a carbon sink which is reversed when the soil is ploughed (Leake 2000). A number of other organisations have contributed to this concept of conservation agriculture, particularly the Game Conservancy in their work on field margins described in their report: ìWhere the birds sing - The Allerton Project: 10 years of conservation on farmlandî(Stoate and Leake (2002). Other NGOs such as English Nature, Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB and BTO have also highlighted the importance of this approach. It would be inimical, however, not to pay tribute to the government research institutions for their tremendous input into our overall understanding of the ecology of the  countryside (eg. McKerron et al,2000:Marshall 1998). Unfortunately their work (e.g., in organic farming and comparison with other systems) does not receive the publicity it deserves

We recommend DEFRA to consider funding further research into conservation agriculture so that a broader scientific perspective of these currently exciting possibilities can be gained.  It should be pointed out that the simplest way to develop conservation agriculture with all the environmental advantages is to use GM herbicide-resistant crops.  Currently some 70% of US farmers who use GM crops practice some form of conservation agriculture. It seems most likely that environmentally sensitive agricultural techniques will find their way in to general use through this route.

Scientists for Labour strongly supports the Integrated Farm Management approach and urges the government to provide incentives to stimulate its wider application in the farming industry. In particular, implementation of many of the recommendations in the document "Arable cropping and the Environment", published jointly by DEFRA and HGCA in January 2002, as direct policies would see these desirable ends advanced.

 4.    Use of Pesticides/herbicides

Cereal yields have doubled in the UK since the last war, almost entirely because of the application of artificial fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. In this context it is pertinent  to note that it has been claimed that the 50% reduction in UK stomach cancer rates in the same period could be directly attributable to increased fruit and vegetable consumption (Coggons and Inskip 1994; Department of Health 1998).  Many other investigations have also shown that a diet high in fruit and vegetables exerts strong protective effects against many cancers and also limits obesity - a current major concern.

It is also known that price determines consumption and that currently only 25% of the UK population consume sufficient fruit and vegetables in their diet to provide adequate protection. It is therefore imperative to keep fruit and vegetable prices sufficiently low to be attractive to lower income groups (see below for further discussion on this topic).

Against this background we are very concerned that some environmentalist groups have been campaigning against the use of all synthetic chemicals in agriculture and are doing so by casting doubt on the safety of fruit and vegetables produced by conventional farming. While their claims have been refuted by the Food Standards Agency, the general public are not aware (or perhaps not convinced) of the studies and conclusions of the relevant independent bodies monitoring our food and the environment.

Pesticide residues in food products have been regulated and monitored by the UK Pesticide Directorate for many years. Their aim is to protect the health of humans, creatures and plants, to safeguard the environment and to ensure that methods of pest control are safe, efficient and humane. Pesticide use is determined by weighing the benefits they confer against possible adverse effects. The regulations are mostly presented in concert with European Commission directives. They take the form of setting maximum residue levels in food products that are based on 'good agricultural practice' and the optimal levels for efficacy and also take into account possible application of pesticides in combination. They do not imply that the pesticides pose a hazard when present above these levels. In practice, the levels are set at values that are substantially below those that could potentially affect human health. Since it is not feasible to test adverse effects directly, the latter values are based on the expertise of toxicologists. Considerable use is made of the animal testing system derived by Bruce Ames and his colleagues that measure morbidity and tumour formation in laboratory rodents. This regulatory system has functioned very successfully since the inception of the Directorate and there have been no reports of morbidity directly associated with the correct use of pesticides and herbicides.

Scientists for Labour would recommend that more publicity be given to the work of the independent committees that deal with pesticides and with cancer. This should enable consumers to make a more reasoned choice.

Organic Farming

As a result of the very successful campaigning activities of the Soil Association and other European organic associations the practice of organic farming has become a significant feature of UK (and European) agriculture.  It is claimed that organic farming sustains the ìhealth and fertility of the soilî by using natural methods of pest and weed control while applying only ìnatural fertilizersî. It is also claimed that organic farming results in low levels of environmental pollution and enhances wild life habitat. A central dogma of their policy is the prohibition of all genetically engineered food and products. To ensure that organic products are not ìcontaminatedî by GM organisms they stipulate that organic farms must be a defined distance from any GM crops. In doing so they are, in effect, imposing restrictions on the activities of other farmers and justifying their policies by making unproven assertions about the properties of GM-derived pollen and that GM crops will lead to the production of ìsuperweedsî.
 

A recurring theme of those advocating the production and consumption of organic food is that, since no ìchemicalsî are involved, organic food is more nutritious and healthier. These assertions are coupled with reports of the hazards of consuming conventional food that are produced with the aid of ìa cocktail of chemicalsî. This campaign has been very successful in that almost 80% of organic food has now to be imported from Eastern Europe to meet the demand in the UK - notwithstanding the increased costs involved. We consider these claims in more detail in Appendix 1.The government has also provided substantial support to farmers wishing to convert to organic methods.

This rush to organic production is taking place in spite of the complete lack of evidence to support the claims of the Soil Association. Furthermore, the findings of the Food Standards Agency (and the British Nutrition Foundation) are that there is no difference in the nutritional characteristics of organic and conventional foods. Furthermore, the evidence from the extensive studies described above indicates that there is no difference between organic and conventional farming in terms of biodiversity. The Boarded Barns Study also showed quite clearly that the type of crop grown had an impact on biodiversity (Higginbotham et al 2000). This is illustrated in the Figure below which compares beetles associated with conventional beans compared to conventional wheat and organic wheat crops.

The ongoing field trials comparing the effects of GM and conventional crops on biodiversity will provide valuable additional data on this topic.

Another aspect of the pressure to adopt organic practices is the effect on price of fruit and vegetables and the clear indication that a diet high in fruit and vegetables exerts strong protective effects against many cancers (Ames and Gold 1999, 2000). There is also strong evidence that price determines fruit and vegetable consumption- as income increases more fruit and vegetables are consumed (Lutz and Smallwood, 1995; Patterson and Block, 1988). It is also known that poorer families respond to increased fruit and vegetable prices by consuming more carbohydrate-rich and fat-rich foods with consequent direct health damage (Lutz and Smallwood 1995),often leading to obesity problems.

However, Scientists for Labour are well aware of the political need for the government to respond at least in the short term, to the public pressure stimulated by the ëenvironmentalistí lobby. In so doing it must be clear that adherence to the anti-GM dogmas of the Soil Association may have a detrimental effect on future rational development of agricultural practices and that there could be other deleterious effects. In Appendix 1 we expand our views on the practice of organic farming.
Scientists for Labour believe that there is a place for accommodating different approaches to land utilisation, whether by conventional, integrated management, organic or GM but that a long term strategy  -based on sound evidence and the need for sustainability - should be pursued to achieve this objective.

6. GM crops

GM crops are currently a topic of controversy.  We believe the government's current approach of analysing the impact of GM crops on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the UK environment, is the correct one. We support the Governmentís use of independent and academic expert committees such as ACRE and ACNFP and consider that they have worked diligently to provide sound and impartial advice on GM issues.

As scientists we are ready to concede that the scientific case for developing GM crops has been submerged by the vigorous propaganda mounted by the Soil Association and by organisations such as Greenpeace. Their campaigns have been based to a considerable extent on fostering the natural anxieties of the public about the quality and resourcing of their food and the role of multinationals in controlling the food chain. As an integral part of these campaigns they have also been successful in labelling any scientists who speak out in favour of the development of GM crops as being in the ìpockets of the agribusinessesî. This linkage is also true of any government statement that can be construed as supportive of GM science. It must also be noted that there is a significant anti-science agenda in this campaigning. Their constant reiteration of the dangers of  ìcontaminationî of our food stocks by ëGM pollen and organismsí has also met with considerable success in the minds of many of the population who are not in a position to refute their arguments.

Given this scenario we are very concerned that the opportunities afforded by the development of GM crops will be lost in both Europe and the UK as a result of the demonisation of GM science. In particular, basic plant science in the UK has been at the forefront of many of the advances in our understanding of plant metabolism and of its application to crop protection using GM techniques. However, more recently research and development in the UK agrochemical/biotechnology sector has decreased significantly (especially between 1999 and 2000) probably in large measure as a result of the negative attitudes engendered by these campaigns. Nevertheless, given the requisite support there is no doubt that the UK could become a key player in the production of disease resistant plants, novel nutritionally enhanced foods and also of non-food crops (e.g. ëpharmingí). Many of these crops would be of tremendous benefit to developing countries. In Appendix 2 we consider in more detail the characteristics of GM plants and provide information on the benefits of developing them in a safe and environmentally sensitive fashion.

It should be emphasised that an important inhibitor of the future development of GM crops is also the Soil Association dogma that the separation distances between organic and GM crops should be maintained and increased. If their demands are met then the proportion of arable land potentially available for GM crops will be significantly reduced (Perry, 2002).

Scientists for Labour are well aware of the political hazards (in the current climate) of promoting GM crops but we firmly believe that it can be carried out if there is a clear strategy based on rational dialogue with the public and vigorous promotion of government-funded research within the context of sustainable and environmentally sensitive agriculture, that will be seen to be of benefit to the public in the longer term.  In the next 50 years agricultural practices will shape the surface of the earth in terms of its species, biogeochemistry and its utility to society. Scientists for Labour believes that the UK has both the expertise and intellectual capacity to be at the forefront of the new technological approaches to farming. To achieve this we must not succumb to the anti-science agendas that are advocated by some vociferous opponents of progress.

Scientists for Labour urge the government to vigorously support research and development of the agricultural sciences as the most rational strategy for meeting the future and current demands for sustainable agriculture.

We believe that many areas of plant research require increased support to allow the UK to meet the challenges of the rapidly changing scene in agriculture. Many (but not all) of  the problems arising in this context could be tackled using GM approaches.

                                                      CONCLUSIONS

 We believe that within the next few years the UK must decide whether it will be able to take its rightful place at the forefront of the innovative and imaginative approaches that the sensitive use of gene technology and of basic science can offer in agriculture.

                                                     REFERENCES

Ames, B.N. and Gold, L.S. (1999). Pollution , Pesticides and Cancer Misconceptions. In ì Fearing Food; Risk Health and Environmentî (eds J.Morris and R.Bate). Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford. Pages 19-38.

Ames, B.N. and Gold, L.S. (2000). Paracelsus to Parascience; the environmental cancer distraction. Mutation Research 447, 3-13.

These two references summarise 20 years of experimental investigation by Bruce Ames and many collaborators into the vexed question of pesticides and cancer.  Their results place public fears firmly in their place and point directly to serious omissions such as micronutrient inadequacy as an important contributor to diet related cancer. The details of some 200 investigations on the effect of a diet high in fruit and vegetables on cancer rates are also summarised in these articles.

Coggons, D. and Inskip, H. (1994) Is there an epidemic of cancer? British Medical Journal 308, 705- 708.

Department of Health. (1998) Report on Health and Social Subjects. Volume 48. ìNutritional Aspects of the Development of Cancerî.The Stationary Office.

References to the Boarded Barns studies and CWS studies at Stoughton can be found in the following and the references enclosed within the publications below. The financing of Boarded Barns was underpinned by Rhone-Poulenc (now Aventis Crop Science).  Scientific  information was gathered by scientists from 7 universities, three colleges of agriculture, four government institutes and five NGO's and one organic research centre.  A glossy summary (Food for thought; sustainable food production for the 21 century consumer) can still be obtained from Aventis Crop Science, (www.aventis.co.uk).

Higginbotham, S., Leake, A.R., Jordan, V.W.L. and Ogilvy, S.E. (2000) Environmental and ecological aspects of integrated, organic and conventional farming systems. Aspects of Applied Biology, 62, 15-21.

Jordan, V.W.L., Leake, A.R. and Ogilvy, S. (2000a). Agronomic and environmental implications of soil management practices in Integrated Farming Systems. Aspects of Applied Biology, 62, 61-67.

Jordan, V.W.L., Leake, A.R., Ogilvy, S. and Higginbotham, S. (2000b). The economics of integrated farming systems in the UK. Aspects of Applied Biology, 62, 239-245.

Leake, A.R. (2000). Climate change, farming  systems and soils. Aspects of Applied Biology, 62, 253-261.

Marshall.E.J.P.(1998). Guidelines for the siting,establishment and management of arable field margins,beetle banks,cereal conservation headlands and wildlife seed mixtures.IACR-Long Aston and MAFF.89pp

McKerron et al (2000). Organic Farming:Science and Belief, excerpted from the 1998 Annual Report of the Scottish Crop Research Institute,Invergowrie

Ogilvy, S., Jordan, V.W.L., Leake, A.R. and Higginbotham, S. (2000). Crop protection strategies for Integrated farming  Systems. Aspects of Applied Biology 62, 231-239.

Perry, J.N. (2002).  Sensitive dependencies and separation distances for GMHTP crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences 269,1176-1179.

Stoate,C. and Leake,A.(2002). Where the birds sing. Game Conservancy Trust& Allerton Research and Educational Trust,Loddington 68pp

A number of papers show that the relative amount of fruit and vegetables people eat increases in step with their income. These two are illustrative.

Lutz, S.M. and Smallwood, D.M. (1995) Limited financial resources constrain food choices.  Food Review 18, 13-27.

Patterson, B.H. and Block, G. (1988).  Food choices and the Cancer Guidelines. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 282-286.