open i

The terms attached to the recent decision by the British government for approval of commercial cultivation of a genetically modified (GM) variety of fodder maize represents a major victory for environmentalists. The conditions attached to this recognized the issue of bio diversity for the first time as a criterion for approval of the herbicide regime. In short they must not be too effective.(625 words)

That environmental activists almost universally condemned the decision reflects its reality. It is the beginning of the end of the debate which has been a great attention grabber and money spinner for them.

The government has bitten the bullet early so it will have one less difficult issue to face in the lead up to what may yet be a challenging general election campaign. And finally farmers who are being urged to be internationally competitive will eventually have access to technology which has been available to their international competitors for almost a decade.

In her statement to House of Commons, the Rt. Hon. Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs approved the growing of a variety of fodder maize but did not approve varieties of oilseed rape and sugar beet. But both the acceptance and rejections had significant and congruent bio diversity riders.

The rape and beet were not rejected for any issue relating to the manner in which they had been bred, but because the herbicide regime with which they were grown in Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSE) was more effective in an agronomic context than conventional varieties. The converse was true for fodder maize resulting in its approval.

Further the statement also specified that the government's opposition to the rape and beet was specific to "the management regime tested in the Farm-Scale Evaluations." And further, the approval of the maize would only last until 2006 and "the phase-out of atrazine in the European Union." Atrazine was the conventional herbicide used on the maize in the FSE, which proved to be more effective in an agronomic context than the GM herbicide regime.

The statement found no fault with genetically modified crops themselves. It recognized that after seven years of use there were "no verifiable ill-effects from extensive human and animal consumption of products from GM crops." And that "current GM crops were very unlikely either to invade the countryside or to be toxic to wildlife."

The statement almost certainly sets precedents for future approvals. The use of genetic modification in the breeding of a variety is not sufficient reason to prohibit the approval of commercial cultivation of a crop variety in the UK. But its impact on bio diversity, if it is a herbicide resistant variety, is.

This might seem to be a Catch 22 situation, crops with greater bio diversity in an environmental context, dirtier crops in an agronomic context, would conventionally be expected to be lower yielding. Every pound of seed grown for the birds would seem to mean similar or greater loss in crop for the market.

The reality, however, is that GM crop weed management systems are robust enough to provide a great deal more flexibility in their application than their conventional counterparts. Conventional herbicide as often as not either rely on weeds not getting established in a crop or their elimination before they are of any environmental significance. Simply put with GM herbicide systems weeds can be allowed to make a contribution to bio diversity before being controlled to allow crop development.

This provides a very clearly defined way ahead for herbicide resistant genetically modified crops.

While this is certainly not the first biotech contribution to the environment, it is certainly a high profile one. Hopefully, it will result in greater public recognition of the continuing contribution of science to the environment. It is needed.

March 11, 2004