Organic farmers worry over GM food ban lift

The future of organic farms could be in doubt if a ban on growing genetically modified crops is lifted, as it is expected to be next week.

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, controversies about the technology continue. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for widespread public suspicion.

The results of a study found on average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

In November last year, S&D spokesperson on health and climate, MEP Matthias Groote, said: "The Parliament has given itself a strong mandate in the upcoming negotiations with the Council of the EU.

"It is a fact, that the overwhelming majority of European citizens do not support the cultivation of GMOs. This position must be reflected in the final outcome of the negotiations."

But Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said the Select Committee had 'swallowed the pro-GM line'.

"Unfortunately for the Committee, after they had finished drafting their report, the government’s Food Standard’s Agency released the results of their latest public opinion research, which they’ve been carrying out for many years. The latest in this series of polls found that public concern about GM is increasing, and it is at its highest level since the FSA’s polling began.

“The Select Committee’s report also talks about Golden Rice, suggesting that this GM crop intended to deliver vitamin A to people in countries where there is vitamin A deficiency is somehow being held up by opposition from environmentalists (as well as strong opposition from local rice farmers in the Philippines and elsewhere, which the Committee do not mention).

"In fact, the government authorities in the Philippines who are responsible for developing so-called Golden Rice say it is still years away from commercial use, not because of opposition from local farmers and environmentalists, but because in the most recent trial, its average yield was lower than other comparable varieties of rice already preferred by local farmers. Even if this latest problem can be overcome, the vitamin A in Golden Rice has still not been tested to see if it works or if it is safe, both points the Committee neglects to mention.

“In our evidence to the Committee, the Soil Association reminded them that the UK Government had spent millions of pounds of public money over five years, researching whether GM crops would be beneficial or damaging for British wildlife. This research found that, overall, GM crops would have a negative impact on farmland, birds, wildflowers and other wildlife, something which the Committee, despite its emphasis on the importance of scientific evidence, fails to mention.”