The following letter on the GM crop trials, published in the press in Norfolk UK, is from Dr Jeremy Bartlett who has a doctorate in plant genetics from the John Innes Centre, often described as the UK's leading plant biotech institute (for more on the JIC see --
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/johninnes.htm)
Evening News | August 31, 1999
I am writing in response to your request for readers' views on genetically modified crop trials in Norfolk (Evening News, August 20).
I believe there are two fundamental questions that we must ask about these trials.
Firstly, what will the trials achieve and, secondly, if there are risks involved, are they worth taking?
The trials are supposed to provide evidence of whether GM crops can be safely grown in this country.
However, scientists from English Nature have described them as fundamentally flawed, which is a view that I share.
Numbers of wildflowers, earthworms and beetles in the trial fields are being compared with those in nearby fields of non-GM crops.
No monitoring is being done on the effect on soil fungi and bacteria, in spite of concerns by leading scientists that horizontal transfer of genes will take place from GM crops to soil microbes.
Deer, crows or other animals could easily eat or carry off GM material, but again this is being ignored.
The effects of GM crops on their surroundings are likely to be subtle and may only become known after several years.
Yet the plan is to grow GM crops for one year on a particular site then monitor for three years -- hardly long enough to detect any long-term changes or damage.
As a report from Norwich's John Innes Centre has shown, cross-pollination of GM with non-GM crops is inevitable.
Oilseed rape, being planted in the latest trials is especially prone to cross-pollination and GM varieties have already been shown to cross with relatives such as wild radish.
What are the benefits?
Not more profits for the farmer. GM crops are very expensive to develop and biotechnology companies charge a premium for the seeds and also profit from selling the herbicides to which the crops are resistant. In contrast, nongenetically-modified crops, such as soya from Brazil, can fetch a premium price.
Not higher yields.
In studies in the United States, yields of GM crops have been found to be between 12 and 20 per cent lower than non-GM varieties.
Not fewer chemicals.
The growing of Roundup resistant soya beans in the United States has led to an increase in the application of this herbicide, usage doubling since 1998.
The British public has soundly rejected GM foods and most British farmers have rejected GM crops. Indeed, the National Farmers' Union in Scotland has described growing genetically-modified crops as "commercial suicide".
The Government seem to be the only people backing GM crops. But it is easy for them -- it is our money, as taxpayers, that they are wasting.
Dr Jeremy Bartlett, Helena Road, Norwich.
