Local scientists slam UK anti-GM report

Scientists have criticised a new report -- Seeds of doubt: North American farmers' experiences of GE crops -- released by the Soil Association, the UK's main campaigning organisation for organic farming.

While opponents to GE technology, including Greenpeace, have embraced the report, scientists and pro-GM organisations have been less enthusiastic.

The report examined the impact of GE crops on farmers in the US and Canada, the issue of GM contamination of seed stocks and non-GM crops, economic impacts, and legal issues. It claims that GM food crops are not the success stories that they are reported to be.

"In complete contrast to the impression given by the biotechnology industry, it is clear that they have not realized most of the claimed benefits and have been a practical and economic disaster," reads the executive summary in part.

But CSIRO Plant Industry assistant chief Dr TJ Higgins said the document was highly biased and most of the claims made in the document were incorrect. "They say GM crops are not a success story, but when you look at the data, farmers with access to the crops are taking them up," Higgins said. "There continue to be substantial benefits in most regions."

He pointed to Bt cotton, which has demonstrated significant reductions in pesticide use in Australian cotton growing regions, according to a report released recently by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation.

"This article is not balanced and it's very difficult to find any data to support their claims," Higgins said. "For example, trade is not destroyed -- it is increasing, if anything."

A US soybean researcher who visited New Zealand recently, Dr Steve Sonka of the National Soybean Research Laboratory in Illinois, said that while the report was correct in saying that the US share of global soybean exports had declined, it neglected to put it into the context that global exports were actually increased overall, and in fact, the US was exporting more soybeans than it ever had before.

However, GeneEthics director Bob Phelps, a campaigner against GM crops in Australia, said that the document formed part of the whole picture. "It voices the concerns of real growers who are having a hard time managing the technology. It's a valid document as an expression of the voice of people who are not being heard," he said. "I think it stands up well."

Phelps said the GM debate needed to question the costs and claims of the technology and provide a thorough evaluation.

William Rolleston, chairman of the Life Sciences Network and an executive member of New Zealand biotech industry association Biotenz, said the report was politically motivated and was released as the UK was preparing to make decisions about commercial release of GM crops.

The report is available at www.soilassociation.org