open i

There can be no doubting the success of anti biotech activists in sustaining the perception that genetically modified crops pose a significant threat either to the environment or to public health. One of their favoured means of doing this is to misrepresent serious scientific research. (520 Words)

The most recent and perhaps most blatant triumph was by English Nature which put one over on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), other media, and the British public.

As English Nature, which "promotes the conservation of England's wildlife and natural features," is "funded by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs," a serious breach of public trust is implicit.

In a press release English Nature, referencing "an extensive study" it had commissioned, claimed that "genes from separate GM varieties of oilseed rape can accumulate ('gene stacking') in plants that grow from seed spilled at harvest," and "they are on the road to becoming nuisance weeds."

This phenomena resulting from out crossing and was first identified in Western Canada in the 1970's with conventional varieties of canola/oilseed rape. As would be expected it also occurs in genetically modified rapeseed, first being observed in these crops about four years ago. A visit to any prairie provincial department of agriculture web site will provide simple advice for addressing this long standing challenge through conventional agronomic practice.

It might be concluded from this that English Nature was had by the author of the report. Reference to the report indicates the reverse. The summary of the report indicates that with proper agronomic practices the challenge of out-crossing and consequential gene stacking will not present a significant challenge in the UK. In essence, the press release, while referencing the study, failed to reflect its findings.

Armed with the news release, and seemingly not wanting to spoil a good story by consulting even a four paragraph executive summary of the study which was directly referenced in the news release, the media produced such headlines as "Rise of GM superweed 'a disaster for wildlife'", "British scientists turn on GM food" and "Rogue GM plant warning."

The BBC's Radio 4 performance was particularly note worthy. At breakfast time it featured an interview in which an English Nature staffer was encouraged to compound the fallacies of the news release. By lunch time Radio 4 had moved onto a talk show featuring irresponsible reporting of scientific information.

More critical than any disciplinary action that the Secretary of State for DEFRA may choose to take quietly against English Nature, is a public apology by her to the scientist whose research was misrepresented. Without such action the whole basis of public trust and the confidence of scientific community will be undermined. It would also put in doubt the resolve of the British government with a science based policy.

February 6, 2002