![[Image]](pict4.jpg){kind=small}
(2)
"Farm Scale
Trials"
(2)
"Farm Scale
Trials"
Main Worries of Farm Scale Trials
Farm Scale Evaluation of GM Crops 2nd Interim Report, 1 March 2000
There are four types of GM crop systems being evaluated: fodder maize, sugar and fodder beet, winter oilseed rape and summer oilseed rape. In Hemel it is winter and summer oilseed rape. The trial programme will be finally complete in 2003 and results will be published either at the end of 2002 or in 2003. The GMOs are being released by Aventis Cropscience UK Limited, Fyfield Road, Ongar, Essex CM5 0HW.
Winter 1999: Three farm scale trials of winter oil seed rape are underway in England, one here and two in Lincolnshire, despite the admission by all concerned that the plantings are illegal. Each are approx. 25 acres in area and were planted mid September, to flower in spring 2000. The stated aim is to test the effects of the GM crop in conjunction with Liberty herbicide against normal rape seed and weedkillers used as per current agricultural practice.
The GM rape has been engineered to be resistant to the weedkiller glufosinate, trade name Liberty, which is manufactured by Aventis. This herbicide is a broad spectrum i.e. it kills all green plants, apart from those engineered to be resistant. The trials attempt to measure the effect on the environment of this loss of biodiversity within the field.
The way the trials are set up is to split a field in two and plant non-GM rape in one side and GM rape in the other (as opposed to paired fields where each crop is grown in a separate field). The GM rape is treated according to SCIMAC (a biotech industry body) guidelines and the non-GM rape is left to the discretion of the farmer. The Soil Association has described this as "little more than a comparison of one herbicide system with another". The trials measure the diversity and abundance of plant and invertebrate life within the field. As there are likely to be in excess of 1000 species of invertebrate in a field the experiments focus on particular groups which are thought to be sensitive such as butterflies, bees, slugs and snails and beetles. Soil bacteria and earthworms are not being looked at. The trials are not looking at the direct effect on mammals or birds. No attempt is being made in the trials to monitor escape of pollen outside the field. This is despite the fact that cross-pollination is considered inevitable (endorsed by the John Innes Centre's report) and the separation distances recommended by SCIMAC are insufficient. Specifically pollen from GM oil seed rape was found 4km away, whereas the SCIMAC guidelines call for same species separation of only 50m.
The experiment is being conducted by Ian Woiwod of Rothamsted. It has become apparent that the crop has failed. Indeed by the 18th of March 2000 most of the field bar the edges had been ploughed up.
Part of the crop on 13th February 2000 - not looking very healthy?
However the experiment is still continuing as there is enough surviving growth for his purpose! The reason given is that this is a pilot study - it would be more of a problem if any of the crops failed in the evaluations proper. The control field is being resown as it has also failed apparently - though it looks a lot healthier than the GM crop.
The remains of the crop on 15th April. What's been attacking it? Not me guv'ner. Probably pigeons.
The site of the 1999 FST is the shaded area (grid reference TL 069 118). It is at the south end of Gaddesden Row village. The sites are more than a mile from Mr Fiddaman's own property, Wood Farm, Piccotts End.
In addition to the farm scale trial there to be a small scale research plot of the same GM oil seed rape at the site. This is marked with a p.
NB 2000 update . . . X marks the grid reference TL 068 115 of the spring 2000 planting
Spring 2000: After much delay caused by wet weather Mad Bob finally got his oilseeds planted on Tuesday 2nd of May.
Autumn 2000: 6 ha due for planting August to October, grid reference TL 055 103 - this is actually at Wood Farm in Piccotts End and not in Gaddesden Row as previously.
Spring 2001: Farmer Bob Fiddaman has agreed, once again, to host a farm-scale trial of oil seed rape. The release will be in the field containing the grid reference TL 066 114. The size will be up to 5 ha. Back at Gaddesden Row.
Winter 2001 - another crop announced - the fifth. Grid ref TL 049 101 Great Gaddesden Hertfordshire.
Also an NSL trial nearby at TL 051 102.
Spring 2002 - another crop announced - the sixth. Grid ref TL 053 100 Piccotts End, Hertfordshire.
Winter 2002 - another crop announced - the seventh. Grid ref TL 048 098 Great Gaddesden Hertfordshire.
Crop Flattened by Activists:
The Genetic Engineering Network received the following communiqué on 13/07/00:
"We are pleased to announce the termination of the 'Farm Scale Trial' of genetically modified spring oilseed rape (GM SOSR) at Wood Farm, Hemel Hempstead.As active citizens we have taken practical measures to limit the wanton vandalism of our countryside and our food supply by the UK Government in complicity with the chemical companies. Approximately 90% of the GM plants, which had begun to flower, were destroyed.
"We make no apologies for infringing the property rights of Aventis, the world's biggest biotechnology company, and of the farmer Mr. Bob Fiddaman, a willing tool of the agrochemical industry.
"The 'Farm Scale Trial' programme masquerades as an environmental assessment, while being itself a major cause of GM pollution.Its true purpose is to gain acceptance of the inevitability of the commercial growing of GM crops, thus increasing the profits of Aventis, Monsanto et al.
"Our action is a practical rejection of the priority of commercial profit over human and environmental safety." (end communiqué)
PHOTO TAKEN 15/07/00 Control in background is standing, GM crop in foreground has been flattened though not exactly destroyed.
From the internet, author unknown:
"To all farmers growing or preparing to grow GM crops- KNOW THIS:
On the night of 25/8/00 we sabotaged farm machinery belonging to Bob Fiddeman, NFU spokesperson on biotechnology. Four of his tractors and his
'dominator' combine harvester had wires cut, locks glued, and corrosives poured over connections.
NO GMOs was sprayed over the machines.
The aim was not to cause maximum damage but to send you a message. If you continue your complicity with the corporations, your business and private property WILL be attacked.
Up until now those resisting GM technology have been patient with you- NO LONGER.
Your security preparations will do you no good- Fiddeman has already had crops on his land attacked and the farmhouses were only 20 feet away from the machinery. Floodlights, alarms, dogs, security guards- it makes no difference to us- we are committed.
If we can hit his machinery then we can hit yours.
If you have crops in the ground- plough them up.
If you have not yet planted- don't start.
YOU DO NOT WANT TO ENTER THIS CONFRONTATION.
If you do not wake to the public's hatred of GMOs and to your responsibilty to the living earth; you will instead wake to your machines and property in pieces.
The colonisation of the seed will be resisted."
Farmer Colin Peters is believed to have planted a field of 10 ha or less of genetically modified oilseed rape at Redbourn, not a farm scale trial but something called a Bright trial? A license for this was issued in 1998. There is also a Farm Scale Trial of LL Chardon forage maize at IACR Rothamsted grid reference TL 118130 which reportedly has been 99% destroyed in covert action.
MAIN WORRIES OF FARM SCALE TRIALS (newsletter from Lyng, Norfolk)
A. Soil contamination
GM material may remain in the soil after harvest and affect other crops and weeds growing in it. The pro-GM lobby claims the risks are too small to be taken into account but this is very rash, as so little research has been done. Scientists have identified very little of what exists in the soil now and acknowledge it is impossible to predict how artificial genes could react with bacteria or fungi in large scale trials. Both the DETR and AgrEvo (now Aventis) confirm that the Lyng GM maize was ‘harvested and ploughed into bare land’, (although no one will say where), so we now have at least two potentially contaminated sites in Lyng.
Incredibly, a scientist involved in the monitoring of these trials has told us that NO monitoring is expected of this land into which the maize was ploughed. Research with GM sugar beet has detected genetically modified DNA remaining in the soil for up to two years. This lack of monitoring seems quite extraordinary in view of Tesco’s (and others’) policy of not buying produce grown on GM trial land. Tesco has now confirmed to us in writing that produce from this ‘bare land’ is also unacceptable.
B. Cross pollination
A new study (Jan 2000) has shown that maize shows a medium to high level risk for cross pollination with other maize crops (pollen has been recorded at up to 800m). However, the DETR will not say what testing has been done on the maize fields surrounding the trial site (at least two being within 800m).
C. Land values and compensation
The issue of falling land values and compensation for contamination of other farmer’s crops has still not been addressed. NFU Mutual Insurance states it cannot offer insurance to cover farmers for either cross pollination, the loss of GM-free status or the loss of the value of farmland through GM pollution. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors warned the Government last March that farmers planting GM crops risk a fall in land values.
* * * *
Recipe for genetically modifying a plant
1. Grow the gene you want to transfer into the plant in some bacterial DNA.
2. Attach a ‘marker’ gene to it, which acts as a ‘tag’ to show whether transfer has been successful. Markers are usually antibiotic resistance genes ? and although currently inactive, when taken up by bacteria in the soil have potential to mutate and become reactivated.
3. The plant would naturally ‘reject’ this newcomer, (as a patient might reject a transplant), and inactivate it. So another ingredient is added, a piece of DNA from a virus, called a ’promoter’ which keeps the new gene active and ‘switched on’. Unfortunately, the promoter doesn’t just keep our new gene switched on, but may work on other nearby genes. (Also these fragments of viral DNA can be more successfully taken up by bacteria, as they’ve lost their protective ‘coat’).
4. To transfer the gene into the plant, a "gene gun" is used which shoots it into the plant’s DNA. Another way is to add the gene to a virus or bacterium, one that can infect the plant and sneak our gene in at the same time. Either way, there is no control over where it ends up in the plant’s DNA.
We now have a new genetically modified plant ?made from mix of (a) a gene from another species, (b) an antibiotic- resistant marker taken from a bacterium, and (c) a promoter taken from a virus. None of these combinations have ever occurred before in nature. We are introducing organisms to the environment which have never previously existed.
* * * *
Potential problems with genetically modified crops
1. Creation of new and unknown viruses and bacteria, which could spread. There is now plenty of evidence that DNA released from live or dead cells is not as easily broken down as was previously thought; 2. Reactivation of dormant viruses and build up of antibiotic resistance.
3. Unpredictability - we know that foreign genes introduced into plants can behave differently from the plant’s own genes because the new gene is inserted randomly into the plant’s natural DNA. This could lead to effects such as over-production of unwanted chemicals/toxins. For instance, yeast genetically modified to ferment faster was then found to produce thirty times more of a toxin. No long term testing has been done on the GM crops that are being grown and eaten. Don’t forget, when Dr Pusztai famously produced his worrying initial findings on GM fed rats, (for which he was hounded from his job), he said the reason he’d started his research was because he could find only one previous study ? a paper by Monsanto (1996) on soya, which was unsurprisingly favourable. Dr Pusztai’s work has since been published in the medical journal The Lancet. The Government refuses to repeat his experiments, which would be the normal procedure.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. Isn’t GM an extension of traditional plant breeding?
Of course selective breeding of plants has gone on for thousands of years with plants of the same or closely related species being crossed to produce better characteristics. These methods have even bred some plants with natural herbicide resistance. Genetic modification is entirely different. It allows genes to be crossed between organisms that could never breed naturally. A gene from a fish, for example, has been put into a tomato. The introduction of genes from distantly related species has never, ever happened before.
2. What is the danger concerning antibiotic resistance?
Many GM crops contain genes that provide resistance to a range of antibiotics. The maize at Lyng contained an ampicillin resistance gene which is commonly used in both human and veterinary medicine. The British Medical Association has spoken out strongly against the use of these genes, concerned that they could be taken up by bacteria in the guts of humans or animals.
3. Surely GM crops will lead to less herbicide use and greater yields?
New research by the US Dept of Agriculture shows that GM crops do not necessarily result in reduced herbicide use or produce higher yields. In fact, in one study, 7 of 12 farmers growing biotech varieties used at least the same amount of herbicide as those growing non-GM crops. In the same study, farmers growing Monsanto's Roundup Ready (herbicide resistant) soybeans used 2-5 times more herbicide per acre compared to the other popular weed management systems with non GM soybeans. In another, researchers found that in 12 out of 18 areas studied there was no increase in yields from GM crops.
Farmers are well aware that weeds become resistant to herbicides used year after year, which leads to greater applications or a change of herbicide.
4. Will GM crops help the Third World?
A regular claim made for GM technology is that it will end starvation in the Third World. This is not true. More than 22 leading African agriculturists and environmental scientists representing their countries at the UN have issued a statement to counter the arguments put forward by the biotech companies. This says these companies are using the poor to emotionally blackmail sceptical Europeans by making claims that are blatantly untrue and unproven, ‘We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century.’ Also Christian Aid believes that GM crops are irrelevant to ending hunger and that this new technology puts too much power over food into too few hands.
The Cash Bribe: £10,000 offered to GM triallists
Farmers were offered up to £10,000 each to take part in the government's farm-scale trials of genetically modified oilseed rape, it has emerged. Additional payments mean farmers growing GM rape this year stand to receive more than three times the money made by conventional rape growers.
Farmers Weekly, March 24th 2000 - Johann Tasker
FARM SCALE EVALUATIONS OF GM CROPS: EFFECTS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF FIELD SCALE RELEASES OF GENETICALLY-MODIFIED HERBICIDE-TOLERANT CROPS ON THE ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY OF FARMLAND WILDLIFE
from DETR 2nd Interim Report, 1 March 2000 Hertfordshire - Hemel Hempstead
This was a paired field site. The conventional crop was treated with a graminicide on 26th November and Liberty herbicide was applied to the GM crop in early February. Vegetation assessments were made on 1st November and are due to be re-done in March. There has been very poor establishment in some parts of the fields. Arthropods, Carabidae and gastropods were sampled on 15th October and are due be re-sampled in April.
Back to The Dacorum Green Pages CONTENTS