Rational Agriculture

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.