An edited version of this letter was published as the week's reader's opinion in the July 10 1998 edition of the leading British agricultural journal
Farming News
Poor GM crop results highlight commercial risks
Sir,
It is not surprising that the results of your survey (26th June) show that your readers do not feel they have enough information to grow GM crops safely. That is because there is a great deal of information regarding the risks to public health and the environment associated with these crops which the biotechnology companies would prefer were not discussed in public.
Problems are arising because the scientific basis on which the Genetic Modification of crops is being developed is inherently flawed. The risks are also economic. These are now being exposed in the commercial usage of GMOs with a huge chasm opening up between GM promises and GM results.
Monsanto has recently announced to growers of its Ingard GM cotton in Australia that it is withdrawing its "value guarantee" following two seasons of "mixed results". According to Cyanamid growers of GM soya in the US last year experienced falls in yield averaging 20% compared to high yielding non-modified varieties, and according to a director of the Ontario Canola Growers Association oilseed rape growers in Canada have been experiencing up to 27% yield reductions with GM strains.
To counter these poor comparisons the biotechnology companies are steadily buying up traditional plant breeders (most recently Monsanto has agreed to buy Cargill's international seed business) with a view to phasing out non-modified varieties, just as earlier this century the US car industry tried to buy out rail road companies to close down its most direct competition. Once traditional seeds disappear no one will ever know that the GM varieties are poor in comparison.
Why replace a good product with an inferior one? Simple. The patents and user contracts that attach to GM varieties make it illegal for farmers to save their own seed - a situation that cannot be achieved with traditional plant breeding. With GM varieties farmers have to go back to the multi-nationals for permission to grow each and every crop.
The farming community is being hood-winked, and public health and the environment is being placed at considerable risk in the process. Genetically modified crops are for dreamers and biotech shareholders only.
Mark Griffiths BSc FRICS FAAV
Environment Spokesman, Natural Law Party.
Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? - some
realities behind biotechnology myths
Why consumers are concerned about GM foods
Why GM technology in agriculture is flawed
Earlier letter in Farming News on lack of markets for GM crops
GM crops a threat to future viability of farming in Hampshire
Dorset farmers react in support of NLP GM warnings
Natural Law Party campaign to ban genetically modified foods in
Wessex
