GM-free Scotland

News | September '07 | Agri-chemicals and realism

In 2006, a large scale study of 57 of the world's poorest countries reported that traditional farming techniques such as crop rotation and organic farming increased crop yields by an average of 79% without the risks and costs attached to the use of agri-chemicals. The authors were cautiously optimistic about the use of low-tech farming to help the world's poorest farmers out of poverty. However, they admitted uncertainty as to whether such methods would be able to meet the growing demand for food on a global scale. Indeed, low yields and the lack of available suitable fertiliser are common objections to organic agriculture; for example, it was recently suggested in the press that organic methods require four times the land area of conventional fields.

However, the organic food industry continues to make significant marketing advances, year on year.

The pro-GM lobby sensing a serious threat in the success of organic farming (to which the very idea of GM plants is anathema) has gone into competition with it.

The number one biotech industry tactic, has been persistent attempts to discredit its rival. For example, organic farming is described as a “myth” ”posing real risks to health”, promoted by “deluded”, “blinkered souls” who want a return to “primitive”, “unscientific” ways of farming, and produces food “two or three times” more expensive.

Tactic number two has been to sell GM as the environmentally friendly option. No-till agriculture, thanks be to GM herbicide-tolerant crops, will save our soils from erosion and save our planet from the carbon emissions caused by ploughing. Adverse side effects of agriculture on biodiversity also will be avoided, thanks to the very GM crops designed to kill it. This last claim comes from the results of a large study which pulled together data from 42 studies in several countries. It reported that fields of 'Bt' crops (genetically engineered with inbuilt insecticides to reduce the need to spray with chemicals) contained a greater abundance of invertebrates than conventional fields. One vocal pro-GM scientist took the opportunity to stress “This paper clearly shows that GM ways of (protecting crops against insect pests) are less damaging to insect wildlife than the use of chemical insecticides”.

What is the scientific reality of avoiding chemicals in agriculture?

Modern-day organic methods are constantly evolving, and are certainly not primitive nor unscientific. Organic farmers are not deluded nor blinkered: they have proved themselves good businessmen just like any other farmer. You can probably work out for yourself whether organic farming's customers fit the pro-GM lobby description.

The Soil Association has investigated claims that organic foods are associated with food poisoning, and found “no evidence”. Likewise, the Institute of Science in Society has closely followed all attempts at anti-organic propaganda (see, for example www.i-sis.org.uk/IMIOF.php on mycotoxins).

The pro-GM scientist quoted above conveniently ignored provisos given by one of the study's authors who pointed out that “The answer you get about whether Bt crops are having side-effects on the environment depends on what you compare them to. If you compare them to insecticides they come out looking pretty good.” In China the science shows that the use of Bt crops cuts down chemical use, but the author points out that that may not always be the best comparison. “For field maize here in the US there weren't a lot of insecticides being used to begin with. You could make an argument that the proper comparison is to maize grown without insecticide”. In that comparison, GM maize comes off slightly worse in terms of harming non-target species. He also made comments on the detrimental effects of monoculture. “If people have in the past done crop rotations to control certain insect pests (as they have in maize) Bt technology can allow them to stop doing those rotations and that could encourage more monocultures.” (Comment. During the UK's Farm Scale Evaluations, whose purpose was to 'scientifically' measure the effects of herbicide-tolerant GM crops on biodiversity, comparisons with non-chemical agriculture were also avoided.)

In the rush to 'prove' how good GM is, the biotech industry (and regulators, unfortunately) have ignored important research comparing organic with non-organic farming practices.

A study published in July 2007 looked at a world-wide dataset of 293 examples of organic:non-organic yields. These were used to model the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. The nitrogen fertilizer available through leguminous cover crops (used instead of chemical fertilisers) was also evaluated. The conclusions reached were that organic methods could produce enough food for the current population, and even potentially an even larger one, and that sufficient nitrogen could be fixed by cover crops to fully replace synthetic fertilisers.

Contrary to biotech industry insinuations, neither chemical herbicides to destroy the weed-cover, nor herbicide-tolerant GM plants to withstand the herbicides are actually necessary for no-till farming. In small-scale trials spanning several years and using mechanical roll-down prior to planting organic crops, yields were higher than all comparator (organic and non-organic) plots. Tests have also demonstrated that judicious tillage coupled with organic fertiliser gives the best soil improvement and increase in soil carbon, surpassing continuous no-till systems.

Regarding the reality of costs, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has released the results of studies showing that organic farming is more profitable, even taking into account the initial conversion costs and possibly lower yields. The pro-GM suggestion that organic food is two to three times more expensive you can evaluate for yourself in your local shops and supermarkets (you might like to take into account a growing number of studies which are demonstrating the increased nutrient value of organic food; for example, one 10-year study found anti-oxidants were 79-97% higher in organic tomatoes).

The Institute of Science in Society has been pointing out that the environmental benefits touted by the biotech industry for GM crops will, inevitably, become a thing of the past as pest resistance develops in response to the huge scale of the crops. Bt crops will be swarming with the very insects they are designed to control and awash with more dangerous insecticides. 'Roundup Ready' plants, resistant to glyphosate, will become obsolete in fields of superweeds.

Aware of the inevitability of Roundup resistance, the next generation of herbicide-tolerant crops is already under development. These are genetically transformed to resist another weedkiller, 'Dicamba'. Dicamba is not a new herbicide, nor friendly: it is an old companion of the 'Agent Orange' defoliant used in the Vietnam war. It is a mutagen, a suspected carcinogen, and is persistent in the environment. (Comment: environmentally friendly GM? Not for long.)

OUR COMMENT

If you're using a lot of chemicals and excessive tillage to start with, you will have a very damaged ecosystem with poor biodiversity. In this case, GM crops will improve the situation. This improvement, however, will be temporary: pest resistance followed by increased use of chemicals, soil degradation and compromised plant health are all inevitable outcomes of the intensive farming promoted by GM crops.

Suggestions that organic food fail to promote health, and meet yield-, environmental- or cost- requirements are not standing up to scrutiny.

As this article was being written, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation released a report strongly suggesting that a worldwide shift to organic agriculture can fight world hunger and at the same time tackle climate change, and provide a real long-term solution.

Find out more about modern organic agriculture at the Glasgow Organic Food Festival:

Saturday 13th October, 10 am – 6 pm

and

Sunday 14th October, 10 am - 5 pm

The Old Fruit Market,

Candleriggs, Glasgow

For more information check out www.soilassociation.org or 'phone Soil Association Scotland 0131-666 2474

GMfreescotland.net will be running a stall on the balcony there. Don't forget to come and say hello.

SOURCES

About Us | Contact Us |2007 GM-free Scotland