Rational Agriculture

We hear a lot about the negative impact of farming on the environment, so it's refreshing to see some good news reported. The BBC, bless their hearts, put up an interesting piece on the encouragement of wildlife on farms (see Farm pioneers return of wildlife). It features Marek Nowakowski of the Farmed Environment Company, an enthusiast for planting unproductive areas of farmland, field margins etc with seed-bearing plants to attract insects and provide food for birds.

The interesting thing is how successful such interventions can be: given the food, wildlife flourishes. Which goes to show that the countryside hasn't been turned into some sterile desert by agriculture. Wildlife must be there in the first place for it to thrive when more food is available. And it seems to be as simple as that: provide the food and birds and animals find it and build bigger communities.

All this builds on other pioneering work. See, in particular, project Buzz (run by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) and Operation bumblebee (with seed supplied by Syngenta), both under the guidance of the estimable Mr Nowakowski.

The UK Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has just published a report on the wider implications of the Farm-Scale Evaluations of GM crop management (now out for consultation: go ahead and support it!).

The committee's analysis and conclusions bring a welcome and refreshing breath of fresh air to the whole debate. In particular, they make the point that any change in agricultural practice in principle should be assessed for its impact, without the breeding process (eg GM) being singled out for special attention. They point out that herbicide tolerance would have the same effects whether GM or "conventional". Equally, they use the examples of the introduction of Japanese knotweed and the change from spring to autumn sowing to illustrate how major impacts can occur with absolutely no regulatory oversight.

Now, of course, good sense is not what environmental activists are interested in: this is a challenge to their deeply-held beliefs about the evils of modern agriculture, private industry, or indeed anyone who doesn't wear sandals and subscribe to organic box schemes. Sean Poulter, in the Daily Mail of 17th March (read this at your peril: it should have a government health warning) includes the following enlightening quotes:

But Pete Riley, director of the national GM Freeze campaign, warned: 'ACRE seems to be more keen on promoting biotechnology than protecting the environment, which is its primary duty.' Friends of the Earth's Clare Oxborrow added: 'This new line from ACRE is utterly bizarre. The farm-scale trials picked out all the negative consequence of GM farming. If they had not been carried out we would not have the evidence of harm.'

This can be roughly translated as "My mind is made up: don't confuse me with facts": a truly post-modernist response. Hopefully, good sense will prevail, and ACRE's sensible advice will be put into effect, notwithstanding the squeals of those who find commonsense too much to stomach.

The Soil Association, beloved of Guardian readers, has been on a roll for the last few years, getting token quantities of organic produce in our supermarkets (a tip: if you're in a hurry, go to the organic section, there's never anyone there, unless you shop in Waitrose) and hyping up the growth figures for what remains a niche market. Sincere as they are, it's always nice to have a laugh at their expense, and a perfect opportunity was provided today.

As I ate my (conventionally-produced, but cheaper and equally healthy) breakfast, it brightened my day to hear that Patrick Holden had criticised the government for not being prepared to vaccinate chickens against bird flu. This, from an organisation which bans all "synthetic" inputs to organic farms and only allows farmers to treat sick animals with conventional medicines (that is, ones which work) if all else fails. What next, a Damascene conversion to weedkillers? Perhaps someone could make a radiation-induced mutation (not genetically modified, that's against the rules) in a plant so it produces its own Roundup(R)?

The motivation, of course, is financial. If bird flu becomes a real threat, free-range chicken flocks would have to be brought indoors, which means organic producers would lose their status and ability to charge premium prices.

Anyway, the irony of this brightened my day, as I hope it will yours. For more, see Bird flu preparations criticised.

Readers of this blog will have seen a previous posting on the report of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution regarding the effect of pesticide spraying on bystanders (Crop spraying no problem for bystanders). The eminent members of the Commission, having been lobbied hard by activists (and, to be fair, a number of people who quite genuinely believe that pesticides are the root cause of their health problems) decided, in the complete absence of evidence of harm, to recommend a 5 metre buffer zone between spraying of fields and neighbouring properties.

The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides has now given its response: see today's BBC report Row over risk of farm chemicals. In particular:

'While agreeing with some of the recommendations made in the report, Professor David Coggon, chair of the ACP when the response was written, said the committee strongly disagreed with the recommendation of placing a five metre buffer zone alongside residential property to protect against possible adverse health effects.

"We agree that there is scientific uncertainty, but we think a buffer zone is arbitrary and a disproportionate response to the uncertainty," he told the BBC News website.

The ACP committee argues there are already wide margins of safety built into the current regulatory system, but says the RCEP failed to take these into account when writing its report.'

So, the government's official advisory committee on pesticides thinks the RCEP is talking out the back of its head. You might hope that would be the end of the story. Sadly, I don't think so.

I reproduce the following short article from the Financial Times in its entirety. It speaks for itself. This seems to be a victory of sorts for the anti-GM brigade but, in reality, a meaningless one. The problem is, of course, that it reinforces misleading information and unwarranted concerns.


Got milked?

Clay Harris

January 7 2006

There's been a lot of debate recently over how much choice consumers want but it's rare to find a retailer who admits offering a completely meaningless one.

J Sainsbury is "trialling" a new sort of milk: from cows raised on a diet that contains no genetically modified feed. It admits that scientific studies carried out by several "well-respected organisations" have found there is no GM DNA or protein in milk from cows fed on a GM diet. But it brags that it is the only big retailer to offer this choice.

No doubt sales will be helped by a garish flash alerting shoppers to the fact that its new product is from GM-free cows; just the sort of labelling to suggest there is something wrong with milk from GM-fed cows.

Raising doubt where there was previously none is the sort of marketing strategy that incenses government ministers trying to promote Britain as a place where science is taken seriously.

That must surely be the view of the science minister, Lord Sainsbury, who is still the supermarket chain's largest shareholder, although his shares are held in a blind trust.

We hear so much about the supposed problems associated with modern farming that the positive news is often given a low profile. It's good, then, to see a report in the Farmers' Weekly telling us that Pesticide residues in water show significant decline. According to this, there was a 19% reduction in the number of surface water samples failing to meet the drinking water quality standard in 2004, following an 18% decrease the year before. The vast majority of groundwater samples in the UK also fall below the limit.

And the limit in question? That's 0.1 part per billion: 1 part in 10,000,000,000. Or, to put it another way, the equivalent of 1 second in 317 years! Since residue limits are set in a highly precautionary way, we are talking about very remote theoretical risks from water, even before suppliers have spent large sums of money removing the tiny residues of pesticides.

This also shows that farmers are adopting a sensible and responsible approach to pesticide use. The message: don't worry unnecessarily about things which really are no problem at all.

According to a BBC story, Mali has a "David and Goliath GM struggle". The reason? There is a move to consider introducing Bt cotton varieties, which would resist pests and require less spraying. That sounds quite sensible, to evaluate available technology and decide whether or not to use it. Siaka Dembele, of the country's agricultural research institute (the IER), says that they have seen figures showing that improved yields are possible, and are now embarking on a 5-year study, together with USAid, Monsanto and Syngenta to see whether this could be beneficial for Mali.

But some people are trying to stop this. According to the article:

"That's an absurd proposition," says Asseto Samake, a professor of genetics and biology at the University of Mali. "The claims they are making for this cotton are absolutely false."

"Our farmers in West Africa achieve record production using just their digging sticks and regular seeds and they have great difficulty selling what they produce, because subsidies in America and Europe have made the world price for cotton fall.

"So why do they come now with their GMOs and technology to solve a problem that they created? It's a big farce!" adds Ms Samake, who is a member of the Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage that formed when word leaked from IER about the USAid-funded project on BT crops.

Hidden in the knee-jerk anti-GM reaction is some truth: agricultural subsidies do distort the market, and do disadvantage farmers in Mali and elsewhere. But this has nothing to do with GM or any other agricultural technology. The "Coalition to Protect Mali's Genetic Heritage" is another environmentalist, anti-globalisation front, led by people with strong beliefs and closed minds. They cleverly represent themselves as David in the struggle against the American Goliath.

Perhaps Bt cotton won't work in Mali. But, if there's money available for the project and local scientists and farmers want to do the evaluation, why should anyone want to stop them?