SCRI Annual Report 2003/2004 - Scottish Crop Research Institute

Director’s Report
Sensitivity over GM crops extends to their use as animal
feeds. The major UK retailers attempt to source
non-GM products but recognise that for such products
as fats and oils, carbohydrates, micronutrients, and
additives it is difficult to have full traceability. Current
and future GM crop market dynamics : the case of soybeans,
published by Brookes West
(graham.brookes@btinternet.com), noted the rise in
the demand for non-GM soybeans and warns of the
possibility of price rises whilst the prices of GM soybeans
and meal fall in line with its global increase in
production and yield efficiency. The extra costs will
either have to be transferred down the supply chain, or
further pressures will be placed on the feed and livestock
production sectors. A thriving market is developing
for authenticity testing.
A valuable, albeit incomplete, forward look on
biotechnology was produced by the Agriculture and
Environmental Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) in
April 2002, entitled Looking Ahead. An AEBC Horizon
Scan (aebc.contact@dti.gsi.gov.uk). It was intended to
be an internal awareness document, strongly focused
on the UK, and drew on a series of consultations.
Although virtually all the points raised in the consultations
were relatively well-rehearsed in numerous
debates and articles, including this series of Annual
Reports, over the past six years, there was a polarisation
of views, interesting because no commercial production
of GM crops is permitted in the UK. Mention
was made of mergers and acquisitions in the crop seed,
agrochemical, pharmaceutical, and small-company
biotechnology sector, such that there are now very few
multinational agrochemical and seed companies (e.g.
Syngenta, Bayer/Aventis, Monsanto, Advanta,
DuPont/Pioneer, Dow, BASF) – but there was no
detailed appraisal of the sharp contraction of the UK
R&D effort in these areas in both the public and private
sectors, a trend likely to continue for the short to
medium term. Likewise, there was no audit of the UK
intellectual property and competitive positions.
Transboundary issues, such as product segregation,
smuggling, gene flow etc. were considered in brief.
Herbicide tolerance, pest resistance, fungal resistance,
viral resistance, bacterial resistance, abiotic-stress resistance,
increased yield, food-product quality, animalfeed
quality, plants as factories, other non-food crops,
smart plants, trees, fish, insects, other animals, bioremediation
and phytoremediation were assessed fairly
naïvely in terms of the aim of the work, possible benefits,
possible risks, and ‘further issues’. Noteworthy of
comment is the way in which the AEBC volunteered
itself to cover all aspects of biotechnology, including
social, economic, legal, and political trends, and offer
what it regards as authoritative reports. Meanwhile, as
science budgets have been squeezed, an increasing proportion
of R&D spend has been directed to policy
issues relating to potential adverse effects of GM technology,
reducing the research effort in cutting-edge
innovation. Presently, the diversity of approach to
GM crops throughout the world and the low level of
harmonisation of regulatory processes means that the
debate will continue, unresolved, for a few years yet.
Many of the arguments for and against GM food are at
cross-purposes; absolutes (as in virtually all areas of
human activity) are rare; emotions run high; political
and economic viewpoints can rarely be reconciled;
rational analyses of risks, benefits, and existing technologies
tend to be ignored; intolerance is rife; and
some confuse research with commercialisation. The
reader is recommended to consult Genetically Modified
Food and the Consumer, edited by A. Eaglesham, S.G.
Pueppke, and R.W.F. Hardy, National Agricultural
Biotechnology Council Report 13, 2001. In this, an
account is given of a meeting held to discuss the safety,
ethical, marketing, and environmental issues that influence
the acceptance of agricultural and food biotechnology
by consumers. The risks of not developing
biotechnology are greater than failing to develop or
impeding its development without just reason. In the
UK, the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit produced a
Scoping Note, The Costs and Benefits of Genetically
Modified (GM) Crops, following an announcement by
the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs in May 2002
(http://www.strategy.gov.uk and GMCrops@cabinetoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk).
This study will run alongside a
review of the scientific issues raised by GM crops and
feed into a protracted debate on the potential impacts
of growing GM crops in the UK. In 1998, the EU
stopped approving new applications for imports of
GM food, a moratorium that was only lifted in
October 2002, and which was de facto illegal under EU
law and WTO rules. No GM crops are permitted to
be grown commercially in the UK, and the results of
the Farm-Scale Evaluation trials, in which SCRI is
involved, are eagerly awaited.
The Marketing Battle over Genetically Modified Foods by
B. Wansink and J. Kim (American Behavioral Scientist,
44, 1405-1417, 2001), describes current models of
consumer behaviour to point out the ineffectiveness of
both proponents and opponents of biotechnology in
educating consumers. Their analysis of fallacious and
accurate assumptions is relevant to the UK debate.
2001-2002.
78