25.11.98
GMOs in ESCS 'European Alert'
(Forwarded by Natural Law Party Wessex)
The article below on the land management implications of growing
genetically
engineered crops appeared in the November 1998 Edition of
'European Alert',
published by the European Society of Chartered Surveyors (ESCS).
European
Alert is distributed widely across Europe and within the European
Commission)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Platform ....
-------------------
Mark Griffiths FRICS, European Rural Policy Advisor to the RICS
[Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors], gives food for thought
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food is fast turning into a nightmare for the European Union, and
rightly
so. The last thing that Europe’s farmers need is a new
generation of
genetically engineered ‘super crops’ claimed to produce
higher yields with
minimal husbandry, but which post-BSE European consumers will not
buy
From the farmer’s perspective the case for growing
genetically modified (GM)
crops rests largely on their ability to produce higher yields and
margins.
However, after two or three years of practical cropping
experience in North
America there is now evidence that some GM crops may actually be
producing
lower yields and margins than their conventional equivalents -
certainly
there is data to this effect in the case of soya, oilseed rape
and cotton.
Even if GM varieties in the EU perform better than those in the
US (we have
yet to see), careful consideration needs to be given to the wider
implications of their use. Because of consumer food safety
concerns
supermarkets may only wish to deal with GM-free farms. The
consequential
possibility of lost markets for GM growers and litigation with
neighbours,
landlords, banks, merchants and consumers is not something to be
dismissed
lightly.
This is because there are a number of special practical problems
associated
with GM crops. First, in field and in store they look no
different to
traditional crops. Secondly, some GM crops are capable of cross
pollinating
over 2.5 kilometres, so GM cropping on one farm may end up
affecting the
GM-free status of another. Thirdly, once GM crops have been grown
on a
farm, inherited modified genetic sequences in crop volunteers and
related
weed species are likely to persist on the farm even after the
crop has been
harvested and sold. In effect, once GM crops are grown, GM-free
status could
be lost on a permanent basis.
So what is the extent of the practical and financial consequences
of
potential GM land contamination ? First, the reform of the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) will mean that farm gate prices will be
much more
dependent on market demand for agricultural products. It will no
longer be
easy to off-load products that the market does not want into
intervention
storage. Secondly, in the post Agenda 2000 scenario what the
consumer wants
and does
not want suddenly becomes of critical importance to the farming
industry. A
MORI opinion poll in the UK, published in June 1998, revealed
that 61% of UK
consumers do not want to eat GM foods.
EU farmers should not feel they are missing out. The performance
of some GM
crops is collapsing so fast that US agronomists now advise
farmers not to
grow more than 60% of their crops with GM built-in insecticide
traits, for
example. The previous year the recommendation was 80%. Is this
technology
sustainable, and who benefits from it?
The debate is far from over. However, until it can be proved that
GM food
ingredients pose no threat to the health and safety of EU
citizens can any
government afford to gamble with our futures?
--------------------------------------------------
ESCS may be contacted in Brussels on 00 32 2 230 1225
-------------------------------------------------------------