Publication date: May 2004

Summary
A coalition of 15 public interest groups from around the world, including Europe, North and South America and India (the Amicus Coalition ), have joined together to ensure the WTO hears the public's voice in the challenge by the US, Canada and Argentina over the European Union's de facto moratorium on the approval of genetically modified (GM) foods and crops.

Farmers holding genetically modified soya plants

An influential committee of MPs has today announced that the Government should not commercialise GM maize on the basis of the results of the recent Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE). Amidst rumours that Tony Blair has already decided to give GM maize the go-ahead, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) unanimously agreed that the GM maize trials were "unsatisfactory, indeed invalid." They urge the Government to carry out further tests on GM maize, but this time comparing it to less intensive forms of farming like organic.

The report, written by a cross-Party group of MP's, examined the design of the FSEs and recommended that:

"It would be irresponsible of the Government to permit the commercialisation of GM crops on the basis of one narrow component of the entire evaluation of GM technology."

"The scope of the trials was very narrow and the results cannot be regarded as adequate grounds for a decision to be taken in favour of commercialisation."

"The issue of liability be settled before any GM crops are allowed to be commercially grown in the UK."

"It is vital that the Government permit no commercial planting of GM maize until that crop is thoroughly re-trialled against a non-GM equivalent grown without the use of Atrazine."

"Problems evident in north America have not been taken seriously enough"

Greenpeace campaigner Ben Ayliffe said:

"The EAC have concluded that the GM maize trials were practically worthless. The Government can't try to cook the books on GM maize any more. It's clear that Tony Blair wants to press ahead with GM as soon as he can, but the Government must respond to this report before making any formal decision on commercialising GM maize."

The launch of the EAC report coincides with the publication of a letter by pro-GM scientists at Rothamstead Research in the journal Nature, which claims that GM maize is better for wildlife than non-GM maize that has not been treated with the banned weedkiller Atrazine. The research is based on further analysis of the FSE results and found that the banning of Atrazine means that the benefits to wildlife of GM maize would only be slightly reduced.

In response, Ben Ayliffe added:

"I am amazed the Rothamstead research was published in Nature. It is totally unconvincing."

For more contact Greenpeace on 020 7865 8255

NOTES
The Environmental Audit Committee is a cross-party body with the remit to "consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development: to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by her Majesty's Ministers; and to report thereon to the House." Environmental Audit Committee

The FSEs concluded that growing GM maize was likely to cause less damage to farmland wildlife than growing conventional maize. This is because conventional maize is treated with the chemical Atrazine, which is so toxic it's now been banned in Europe.

The key assumption in the Nature letter about farmer's behaviour derives from Greenpeace evidence to ACRE. This points out that the herbicide use on GM maize in the FSEs trials almost certainly aren't relevant. It is totally unconvincing to make assumptions about changes in farmer behaviour for the conventional maize but to ignore actual evidence for changes in GM maize management. The letter "Ban on triazine herbicides likely to reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize cropping" can be read on the Nature website.

GM - No thanks! Greenpeace volunteers destroy a field of GM crops at Lyng in Norfolk

UK research confirms that GM crops will harm the environment

In October 2003 a study published by the UK Royal Society substantiated Greenpeace's warnings that genetically modified (GM) crops can be harmful to the environment; this according to a three years study carried out by that independent scientific organisation. For years Greenpeace had warned about the risks GM crops pose to environment and challenged the benefit promises of industry as being myths.

On 16th October 2003 the UK Royal Society revealed the conclusions of the UK Government's experiment with GM crops in farm-scale trials. The results of these experiments clearly show that GM rapeseed and GM beet can be harmful to the environment. There are huge uncertainties about the negative effects.

"These trials were a political fudge that did not begin to address the possible catastrophic effects of planting GM seeds could bring about. But even within their limited scope the conclusions clearly show that the alleged benefits of the use of GM seeds do not exist. For years, the GM corporations have been claiming that their crops would reduce weed killer use and benefit wildlife. Now we know how wrong they are," said Dr. Doug Parr, Science Director of Greenpeace UK.

In spring 1999, following widespread calls for a halt to the development of genetically modified (GM) crops in the UK, the Government launched a programme of farm-scale trials. The UK Government did not believe that GM crops themselves presented any direct threat to the environment and so the GM farm-scale trials were not designed to consider environmental impacts, such as genetic contamination or impact on soils. Despite the limited scope of the study, it is clear that the use of GM seeds pose significant risk to the environment.

Although the trials indicated that GM maize could benefit wildlife there are doubts about the validity of these results because the weed killer use on GM maize was compared with that of a herbicide used on the conventional maize which is due to be banned because of its toxicity and high environmental impact.

There are different approaches to meeting the demand for environmentally sustainable agriculture. One example comes from China, where efforts to achieve ecological farming show a possible solution which governments should explore. Angus Lam, an expert in ecological farming for Greenpeace China said: "The UK farm-scale trial makes it clear that the world should close the door on GM for good. GM food is not the solution to world hunger".

In October 2003 Greenpeace in China, together with around 80 other institutions and organisations from Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, launched the first Chinese Farming Solutions website (1), which presents an array of successful ecological farming stories from China. Greenpeace calls on governments to ban risky GM crop trials and to support the real solution to world hunger.

The successful ecological farming stories from China can also be found on www.farmingsolutions.org in English. The webpage is a joint project by GP, Oxfam, ILEIA and PAN Africa