Head to head: GM crops debate

The results of the first environmental-impact study of genetically modified crops has found the cultivation of two crops to be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalents.

The production of a third plant was shown to be kinder to other plants and animals than the normal crop. BBC News Online asked for opinions from opposite sides of the debate.

---

Tony Juniper is executive director of Friends of the Earth, which along with other environmental groups, has campaigned against the introduction of GM crops:

The results of the government's GM crop trials will force Tony Blair to show who he really represents - the British people or Bush and the multi-nationals.

GM oilseed rape, beet crops and maize were tested

The trials have confirmed the arguments that we at Friends of the Earth have put forward for some time - that growing GM beet and oilseed rape will cause more harm to the environment than growing conventional varieties, and so should not be commercially grown in the UK.

Britain's wildlife has been in full retreat for more than half a century as more and more intensive farming has assaulted every corner of these small islands.

Driven on in the name of 'cheap' food, not only have the birds gone from large areas of the country, so have the farmers.

The latest escalation in the war against wildlife and small farmers comes in the form of GM crops designed to withstand toxic chemicals that kill all the other plants in the field and that lend themselves to massive agribusiness.

That this impact of GM farming is now confirmed as reality by an official study does not surprise us, but it is good to have an official study that says it Tony Juniper GM tests show wildlife dangers GM test results already in doubt All sides claim GM 'victory' Q&A: GM crop trials

When the wild plants ("weeds' to the chemical companies) are all killed off, the insects that brighten our summers and that are the food of the young wild birds go as well.

The predictable result is damage to wildlife even worse than the 'conventional' crops that have already caused so much harm.

That this impact of GM farming is now confirmed as reality by an official study does not surprise us, but it is good to have an official study that says it.

Perhaps now, finally, we can begin a public debate about how to put the wildlife and the farmers back on the land and to put the GM experiment in its proper place - in the dustbin of history.

---

Paul Rylott is chairman of the Agriculture Biotechnology Council, which has been created by BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta to provide online information to promote a fair debate surrounding the production of GM crops:

The results of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE) confirm what industry has long argued: the flexibility of GM crops allows them to be grown in a way that benefits the environment.

These FSEs were not GM on trial. As the statement by the Scientific Steering Committee said in its news release: "The researchers stress that the differences were not a result of the way in which the crops were genetically modified. They arose because these GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trial new options for weed control."

It was not GM versus conventional farming which was significant, but different approaches to crop type, herbicide use and management practices.

This research highlighted that the impact on biodiversity is all to do with how farmers control weeds; when you want to grow a high quality, safe, affordable food, you have to control weeds that otherwise degrade quality safety and affordability.

The report found no evidence to support the allegations of the pressure groups that current crops would become super weeds Paul Rylott

None of the studies published this year support the banning of any GM crops.

The economic review published by the Strategy Unit argued that while short term economic benefits may be limited (in excess of £50m per year to farmers), future developments could offer even wider ranging benefits to consumers and farmers.

The science review concluded that "the risks to human health are very low for GM crops currently on the market".

The report found no evidence to support the allegations of the pressure groups that current crops would become super weeds, concluding that "they are very unlikely to invade our countryside or become problematic plants".

Even GM Nation? - the public debate, allegedly conclusive proof that British people did not want GM, reported that the more balanced focus groups could see advantages of GM providing cheaper food, helping UK farmers compete with farmers abroad and could also help developing countries.

It is now time to move forward with the responsible case-by-case introduction of GM crops to the UK Paul Rylott

These studies - the result of four years of research at over 200 farms around the UK - are a tribute to the farmers, and the scientists.

The pressure groups claimed that GM crops were in effect 'green concrete' and would 'wipe out' wildlife. These studies show that this sort of scaremongering is not supported by the facts.

On the contrary, this evidence reiterates commercial experience around the world, that GM crops are more flexible and can enhance biodiversity.

It is now time to move forward with the responsible case-by-case introduction of GM crops to the UK. This would allow UK farmers and consumers to benefit from the choice and flexibility that GM offers.