GM-free Scotland

The UK Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) showed that growing GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) sugar beet crops could have a detrimental effect on farmland birds. The 'weed free' management of these crops resulted in fewer early season invertebrates and fewer late season seeds, both of which form a vital food supply for birds.

Scientists at Rothamsted Research's Broom's Barn Research Station have been working on alternative management strategies for GMHT beet which would allow GM crops, birds and farmers profits to co-exist.

A press release from Rothamsted stated:

'New research, published today in the Journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B demonstrates an extremely cheap and simple mitigation approach to avoid any adverse impacts on bird populations. This is achieved by simply leaving two crop rows in every 100 unsprayed. Research team leader, Dr. John Pidgeon, said “... This demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that GMHT beet can be economically and environmentally beneficial. It's a win:win situation for sustainable agriculture”.'

He points out that simple ways forward were not found during the GM debate and that we now have the methodologies to achieve economically beneficial change, together with environmental precaution. Dr. Pidgeon finishes by stressing that “We need to move forward pragmatically, on the basis of evidence and not remain trapped in irrational thinking that prevents progress”.

GM Watch expresses reservations about any research emanating from Broom's Barn, which has a long history of close collaboration with the biotech industry, including Monsanto press tours of ongoing research. The research centre has also been associated with hyping trial results to the media. For example, beet-growers form the independent farmers' group, FARM, have mentioned that a previous Broom's Barn paper on the economic benefits of GMHT beet exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of conventional herbicide regimes.

The paper published by the Royal Society describes how the authors adapted a model, based on a combination of three powerful systems safety analysis techniques and developed by the petrochemical industry, to investigate the effects of alternative management of GM crops. They then used the data obtained from GMHT sugar beet during FSEs as a case study in their model. From this, it was calculated that leaving two rows in every hundred unsprayed could mitigate weed seed production losses, and leaving four rows in every hundred unsprayed could mitigate weed biomass loss, while tilled margin effects could be mitigated by trebling the field margin width. The reduced seed bank in the sprayed portion could be addressed by leaving the field fallow once in every 35 years.

The authors noted the frequent debate about the quantity and quality of knowledge relevant to the GM issue, and pointed to the potential of their model to bring new clarity and confidence to the GM debate.

OUR COMMENT

These authors seem a little muddled.

While stressing the need for evidence-based progression and for an escape from irrational thinking, they have invented a mathematical model derived from the work of others for use in a non-agricultural situation, and applied data from a previous study which was designed for a different purpose, to this model. The results of their calculations are described as “new research” demonstrating conclusions “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The use of models is usual and useful in science. However, after developing the model, it must be verified by controlled scientific experiments to see how good its predictive power is. It is a little unusual to use the results of a model as 'proof' of anything. Proof beyond reasonable doubt only comes in science when several experiments give mutually supporting data and so add up to the same conclusion.

The authors even seem to suggest that their model can be used in place of debate as a simple way to move forward. Using whatever hypothetical values scientists have managed to extract from their models instead of doing the experiments would, indeed, be a very simple way to by-pass the lack of quantity and quality of relevant knowledge on GM.

The model conveniently predicts that reduced seed bank problems could be addressed by leaving the field fallow once in every 35 years. To test this bit of the model over (a reasonable) three cycles, would take over a century: a win:win situation certainly for the model's promoters because it's not really ever likely to be tested. This may be pragmatic, but it's hardly a source of new clarity and confidence.

GM Watch's concerns about the 'science' coming from Broom's Barn seem to be justified.

As frequently stressed by GMfreescotland, if you want to be really informed about the GM issue:

READ WIDELY so that you learn to spot ignorance, propaganda and deliberate deceit, and

READ WISELY so that you learn to spot the names and organisations who profess a sound scientific background and independence, but seem to know only the script the biotech industry has taught them.

GeneWatch's Biotech Brigade (see www.gmwatch.org) is a useful way to check out any suspicious sources of GM information you come across.

SOURCES:

• www.rothamsted.ac.uk Press Release 18.04.07
• GM Watch profiles May 2007
• Farmers Guardian 20 04.07
• Pidgeon et al. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274 pp.1475-9 22 June 2007