Rational Agriculture

Readers of much of the UK press will have found environmental journalists getting somewhat over-excited this week. Headlines included the Guardian's Weed discovery brings calls for GM ban (but then the Guardian is always calling for this), the Scotsman's Green body's fury at 'superweed' in field of GM crops (with the constant state of fury and outrage that many environmentalists find themselves in, I worry about their blood pressure) and, from the Daily Mail The GM superweed - Gene trial spawns a wild plant that won't be killed off (which makes me even more concerned about the health of the average Mail reader, unless they're so used to scare headlines that they've lost their power to shock). Even the Sun was driven to print a story under the headline Superweed - Scientists find mutant GM pest in British countryside (which, at risk of causing offence, I might suggest to be a bit indigestible for the average reader of this illustrious organ).

And the reason for this almost universal shock and horror? Scientists at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology published a report on a study to look for gene flow from GM herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape (grown on a trial basis during the recent government-sponsored Farm Scale Evaluations) to neighbouring plants. In the study, they collected over 95,000 seeds from plants related to rape, germinated them in greenhouses and looked for herbicide tolerance. They found just two (that's right, two) turnip rape plants (a closely-related species) tolerant to the weedkiller in question (glufosinate).

But the observation which sparked the "outrage" was the discovery of one plant (charlock - a common weed, but not closely related to rape) resistant to glufosinate in a field margin. On looking again next year, nothing was found. And, on such flimsy foundations, those people who just know that genetic modification is wrong, who having been looking unsuccessfully for so long for scientific confirmation, have built a story which is essentially a house of cards, ready to be demolished by the first breathe of rationality.

Fortunately, more balanced comments have appeared. Pride of place must go to Professor Joyce Tait in the Scotsman (We need to move past scare stories in the GM debate). Also notable were comments from Brian Johnson of English Nature. Brian has concerns about the potential environmental impact of some GM crops, but he also makes judgements based on the evidence. He was originally heavily mis-quoted by the Guardian, but his letter corrects this. To quote it in full:

"As the scientist quoted in your article (GM crops created superweed, say scientists, July 25), can I clarify that I specifically said the plants found during the research were not, in my view, "superweeds" because one of them appeared to have non-viable seed? I neither said nor implied that the plants found by the researchers would multiply rapidly or have a "huge selective advantage" - quite the opposite.

I did not say "there is every reason to suppose that the GM trait could be in the plant's pollen", but that it was just possible that the GM trait could be carried in the pollen, and the research did not analyse the pollen so we could not know if the trait was there, and, in any case, pollen from hybrids might not be viable.

Dr Brian Johnson, English Nature"

A case of irresponsible journalists clutching at (super)straws?