Fears over 'killer crops'
Call for three-year ban on genetically modified plants
By David Hencke, Westminster Correspondent
Thursday December 18, 1997
Four government conservation agencies have called on ministers to introduce a three-year ban on growing genetically modified crops in Britain because of fears of widespread destruction of native birds and insects, and the creation of aggressive mutant weeds.
English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service have warned Jack Cunningham, the Agriculture Minister, of the need for a moratorium until government research is completed.
The plea comes as a cabinet sub-committee, chaired by David Clark, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has approved a white paper setting up a new Food Standards Agency, with a remit for a tougher licensing system to cover genetically modified foods. Their initiative comes at the end of a Guardian series focusing on the issue.
The white paper, to be published next month, is regarded in Whitehall as a second coup for Mr Clark, who has piloted through a stronger than expected white paper on Freedom of Information. Mr Cunningham has also won his own victory by ensuring that he takes the lead over Frank Dobson, the Health Secretary, in presenting the new policy.
The new agency, modelled to some extent on the powerful United States Food and Drug Administration, was promised in the Labour Party manifesto, and Tony Blair, who appointed Mr Clark to draw up plans for the agency, is keen to see it up and running before 1999.
Details of the warning from conservationists came in a letter from Derek Langslow, chief executive of English Nature, released to Friends of the Earth.
In the letter he says he has warned ministers of the dangers of "gene introgression leading to herbicide-resistant wild plants which subsequently become aggressive weeds".
The letter goes on: "There is ample evidence that 'conventional' intensive agriculture has already caused widespread losses of farmland birds and insects, and the introduction of genetically modified crops could increase these losses considerably. The use of herbicide-resistant crops such as oilseed rape could leave few weeds in fields, and less food available to farmland wildlife."
An English Nature spokesman said: "Basically we are worried that many birds that live on the seeds of common weeds would be destroyed. We also think the Government must look before it leaps. Once herbicides have been released into the countryside on a large scale they could cause all sorts of unforeseen effects, including creating new herbicide-resistant weeds, changing the whole balance of the countryside."
English Nature also fears some native insects such as ladybirds could be adversely affected or killed by indiscriminate spraying of the herbicides.
Adrian Bebb, food and biotechnology campaigner for Friends of the Earth, welcomed the intervention from the Government's conservation advisers.
"This strengthens our case for a moratorium," he said. "Since the present government research at the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Environment will not be completed until the year 2000, this means the Government must delay granting the licences."
The Ministry of Agriculture is trying to play down the issue. It has told the farming press that it has received some 300 replies to a discussion paper on the pros and cons of using genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops on farms.
Ministers are also hoping that the companies marketing seeds for genetically modified oilseed rape may not be able to go ahead with commercial planting until 1999, thus saving them a row over delaying licences next year.
Ministers also want to ensure that controls are adequate and that genetically modified foods are labelled as such. Mr Cunningham and Jeff Rooker, the food safety minister, have reversed the previous Tory government's policy of not pressing for such labelling in negotiations with the European Union in Brussels.
Copyright Guardian Media Group plc 1997