nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
12.08.98
Low yields from GM crops - Farmers Weekly 4 December 1998
The UK's Farmers Weekly 4 December edition runs a four page
special on GMOs
(p56-59). Farmers Weekly is one of the British agricultural
journals most
enthusiastic about GMOs.
The 'special' draws attention to consumer concerns about GM food,
but its
main feature headline is: "Path is clearing for GM crop
expansion in UK."
Attention is drawn to claimed benefits of this technology.
However, it
draws little attention to agronomic problems growers are
experiencing
with GM crops in North America (for more information on these
visit
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm ).
Elsewhere in the edition (p.14) there is an article on "GMO
backlash from
Church and consumers". The article reports on a GMO debate
at the Smithfield
agricultural show in London at the end of which there was a show
of hands
which revealed that exactly half the farmers in the audience
would not plant
GM crops. It would be interesting to see how that figure might
change were
farmers to be made more aware of the agronomic problems arising
with GM
crops.
The editorial ("High time to explain GMOs to
consumers") on p5 argues that
UK farms could be put at a competitive disadvantage by not
proceeding with
this technology. However, this is not an obvious logical
conclusion that
can be taken from the facts illustrated in its four page GM
special feature:
1.(p.59) The feature confirms EU resistance to GM food "is
already hitting
sales to the EU of GM crops, crop products and foods containing
GM
material." This is a reference to imports into the EU. This
means that EU
resistance to GMOs is keeping US products out of Europe leaving a
bigger
share of the domestic market to EU farmers.
In the context of impending CAP reform and WTO talks imports of
agricultural
produce from the US are the biggest threat to the financial
viability of EU
farmers. Far from reducing EU commercial competitiveness, keeping
GM-free
will help EU farmers to compete against US imports much of which
will be
unsaleable in the EU.
2. (p.58) The latest crop trials from the NIAB (The UK's National
Institute
of Agricultural Botany) show yields from GM winter oilseed rape
and sugar
beet were up to 7% and 8% less than high yielding conventional
varieties when the
crops were managed using conventional weed control techniques.
In the case of sugar beet the gap closed slightly when a total
herbcide (in
respect of which the beet had been genetically modified to be
resistant) was used on the GM varieties . However, this produced
only a 2%
improvement in yield in 1997 and 1998 (mainly because there was
less of a
growth check than with the conventional herbicides), leaving the
GM crops
still substantially lower yielding than the unmodified varieties.
The results from these trials reveal that these GM varieties will
not
produce higher yields and may only be financially worth using for
farmers where weed
infestations are high. Financial calculations are based on
theoretical 10%
price premium for GM seed.
Given the non-existent yield benefits and attendant risks to
human health
and the environment, it is necessary to question the validity of
justifying the use GM crops to
deal with weed problems that may be caused by poor management.
This appears to be the first report in the popular farming press
of GM trial
crop performance results for varieties grown in the UK. In global
terms (viz esp the United
States) they are unusual in that they appear to come from a
source other than
directly from the biotechnology companies themselves.
(Natural Law Party Wessex)