We are also encouraged by, and welcome the wider remit given to AEBC and the inclusion of consideration of direct and indirect effects; and of social, agronomic and economic impacts.  So far, we have been told that the only admissible comments on the FSE can be scientific objections based on proof of harm to human or environmental health.  It is not possible for the local community to fund independent research at 2 weeks notice!  And it is certainly not a precautionary approach to allow an open-environment experiment to go ahead on the basis that no harm has yet been proven.

The FSE are part of the process to deliver GM crop plants into wide agricultural use.  Therefore, the decisions taken on these experiments will relate also to the potential widespread introduction of GMs in the Highlands and elsewhere.  As these FSE are the only planned measurement and assessment of environmental risk prior to unrestricted commercial use, the experiments must also consider and monitor impacts that could arise from commercial scale use.  The current FSE cover tens of hectares: commercial use will cover hundreds of square kilometres - the impacts and risks must be considered at both the experimental and commercial scale of planting.

We think that there are clear, direct and unacceptable risks arising from the FSE.  That these risks have not been properly assessed prior to the decision to plant, and are not being measured by the monitoring programme in place.  We also believe that there are wider environmental, economic and social risks that have been excluded from the decision to plant.  We are unwilling to wait for these dangers to become manifest, and quite probably irreversible before decision makers recognise them as real. We therefore request that the decision to allow planting is revoked, prior to the flowering of the crop. It is our view that FSE shall only take place in the Highlands & Islands once five key tests have been passed: in effect, when local consent to carry out genetic experiments in our environment has been given.

Herbicide use
The planted FSE crop of winter OSR is genetically engineered to be resistant to glufosinate, marketed as ‘Liberty’ by Aventis who also produced the mutated plants and will sell the GM seed, if approved.  There are 7 gene fragments inserted, including the PASBar itself; promoters and vectors, from plant or bacterial origins, all naturally present only in other species which would not naturally cross with OSR.  The main trait for which the plant is bred is glufosinate resistance, so that this broad spectrum herbicide can be applied to the field to kill all plants except the modified OSR crop.

There are several concerns about this change in use of ‘Liberty’ and the effects it will have on the local environment, human health and farm practice:

•  Toxicity: glufosinate is quoted by the manufacturers as having a half-life of 20 days, and in some conditions this is up to 60 days.  It is highly soluble in water and has been shown to leach into groundwater.  It is toxic to aquatic life. In particular it is highly toxic to shellfish larvae at concentrations as low as 0.5 ppm. The mode of action of glufosinate also makes it very toxic to mammals and other higher animals as well as plants.  The LD 50 oral dose for dogs is 250 mg/kg but it is known that glufosinate-containing products are up to 2.5 times more toxic to animals through dermal exposure.  These concerns are particularly relevant in the context of the Munlochy FSE given the hydrological profile of the trial site.  The trial field and those immediately around it are the source and upper catchment of the Suddie burn.  This small burn, a tributary of the Avoch burn is only some 3 miles from source to sea, where it discharges into the Moray Firth.  The Firth is designate under the European Habitats Directive as Special Area of Conservation on account of its marine life, most notably the resident population of bottle-nosed dolphins (one of only 2 such found in UK waters) which occupy top spot in the local marine food chain.
•  Potency: claims that the amount of herbicide used would be reduced, ignore the fact that any reduction in volume or frequency would be attributable to an increase in ’Liberty’s potency and ability to kill all plants in the field, and the longevity of its effectiveness to prevent new weed emergence.  To our knowledge, the pattern, timing and concentration of herbicide application is not prescribed or controlled during the experiment.
•  Quantity used: research in Canada where herbicide-tolerant GM crops are in wide commercial use, has shown that herbicide use increases with GM crop planting.  This is for a number of reasons: farmers can apply more without damaging the crop; to contend with ‘volunteer’ crop plants and weeds that have developed resistance to the herbicide used; less use of cultural controls such as crop rotations, and advice from herbicide sales companies. Aventis have invested in new glufosinate production facilities to meet expected rising demand for their product, and their underlying aim in entering the GM market is to increase their herbicide sales potential - there is no incentive to reduce herbicide use, and herbicide use will increase with prolonged and widescale use.
•  Biodiversity: Special derogation has been granted by the Pesticide Safety Directorate for the winter application of glufosinate for FSEs. This despite concerns about potential run off adversely affecting water quality, and harmful effects on beneficial soil organisms and fungi which may result from winter application.  Despite these officially acknowledged dangers the FSE programme makes no provision for monitoring either water quality effects or disturbance of the soil ecology which may result from this novel, and hitherto specifically proscribed agronomic regime.

As highlighted by RSPB, SNH, JNCC, EN and others, the use of GMOSR and its herbicide partner may adversely affect biodiversity by further increasing agricultural intensification.  Farmland bird numbers have already declined seriously: there are now 60% less corn bunting and 30% less tree sparrow, than 30 years ago. The effects of GMOSR will include: increased toxic herbicide effects; changed seasonal crop patterns; reduced plant and seed food for invertebrates and birds.  The limited timetable of the FSE programme, together with the very narrow research protocols and restricted monitoring criteria built into the FSEs make it highly unlikely that the results obtained during the trials will provide a good indicator of the potential long term effects which introduction of the GM crop and its associated agronomic regime may have on biodiversity.  To claim that they will, ignores many stark lessons from history, and is disingenuous in the extreme.

Gene flow
OSR is a brassica plant bred from wild plants which grow in the UK, and is well known for its ability to produce large amounts of widely dispersed pollen (ask any hayfever sufferer); to cross-pollinate with related species of plant; and for high proportions of reproduction by ‘out-crossing’ (i.e. not self-pollinating).  OSR is also often seen outside fields in ‘escaped’ patches on waste land, and is a farmers’ nightmare for its ability to shed seed and put up ‘volunteer’ plants in subsequent crops.  This ability to spread its genes has been shown to enable GMOSR to spread and cross-pollinate in the surrounding environment.

AEBC states that: “cross-pollination can only be minimised - not prevented - and if there are safety implications associated with genetic modifications, then the committee would advise that a consent should not be granted for the release”, and that potential adverse effects may be “direct, indirect, immediate or delayed”.  The safety implications of GMOSR in the Highlands are:
 

• Into crops: Introgression will occur with other nearby OSR crops.  Estimates of the pollen falling on a neighbouring crop at 100m (the revised cordon announced from MAFF on 7 February 2001, doubled from 50m) range between 0.8% and 5%, with 2-6% of plants being pollinated.  OSR produces more than 40,000 seeds per square metre - at the lowest estimated rate of gene flow, an OSR crop at 100m cordon will produce 6 cross-pollinated seeds carrying the herbicide resistance in every square metre.  This is not a theoretical risk - this is the expected geneflow.  OSR will also cross-pollinate with garden grown food plants including: garden radish (Raphinus raphanistrum) and mustard greens (Brassica juncea) - which I have in my own garden.
• Into wild plants: wild turnip/field mustard (Brassica campestris) grows in many OSR crops and is one of the main ‘weeds’ to be controlled.  It is already hybridised with non-GM OSR and it is confidently assumed that it will hybridise with GMOSR.  The gene flow of genetic modification for herbicide resistance into the Scottish native flora is inevitable.  Furthermore, because wild turnip does not self-pollinate it is more likely to cross-pollinate with any ‘escaped’ or ‘volunteer’ OSR plants.
• Widespread pollen dispersal: OSR pollen travels large distances and can be transported by wind, bees, birds, tractor tyres and on clothing or cars.  Measurements of windborne OSR pollen dispersal show viable pollen to be frequent at 800m, 1500m and upto 4000m from the nearest pollen producing crop.

Agronomic effects
Farmers growing GMOSR or non-GM OSR in the area may find growing problems of:

• Herbicide resistance in weeds - anticipated that this will occur, requiring increased herbicide concentrations. Also dual weed-HT to gluphosinate and glyphosate (following Round-up Ready GM crop releases) will lead to ‘superweeds’ that require stronger and more frequent applications to control.  Stronger weeds and higher herbicide use.
• ‘Volunteer’ weed seeds - GMOSR ‘volunteer’ seeds will emerge and be herbicide tolerant, as a result of the FSE at Munlochy.  MAFF trials have already detected herbicide resistant plants occurring as ’volunteers’ in following crops.  OSR volunteers are already a major problem with OSR requiring pesticide spraying before planting the next crop.  HT OSR will no longer be controlled by this means and will become a major weed threat.
• Farmers liability - farmers in the Black Isle would be unable to claim for the costs of GMOSR contamination.  NFU Mutual Insurance states: “ A decade or so ago the insurance industry as a whole adopted a standard exclusion clause for damage caused by gradual pollution, which now includes GMO’s. This means that no insurer provides insurance cover for the risks of GM crop contamination”. No compensation if it fails.
• Financial returns: Compared to the £1200 per hectare thought to be offered to the FSE farmers, the returns to farmers are not good.  Seed costs for GMOSR are 196% that of conventional OSR and must be bought annually and not saved.  The contractual obligations of farmers to the seed/herbicide/biotech supplier will restrict farmers freedom to make choices on how they farm.  Farmers in Canada, faced with similar situations after 5 years of widespread GM crop growing experience, are now suing the biotech companies for poor product performance, and in December 2000 NFU Canada decided to pursue a policy to rid their industry of GM and to seek to go GM-free, as a fairer route for farmers and as a better market image for their products.
• No demand: farmers face a considerable risk in marketing their product following GM experimentation.  There is currently no demand for GM food crops in the UK or EU, with premia currently being paid for GM-free crops from other countries.  Secondly, the lack of clear segregation and labelling of GM crops, plus the expected geneflow of GM into neighbouring crops, mean that even non-participating farmers may lose revenue due to widespread contamination and loss of consumer trust.  Third, prices may also fall for GM-contaminated farmland and neighbouring farmland - several of the major farm management factoring companies in Scotland have already advised their clients not to permit tenants to plant GM crops, due to loss in potential land value.  Fourth, recent announcements by most major multiple retailers that they will require GM-free feeding of all own label animal products, closes the last home market for GMOSR and similar products in the UK.
• Glufosinate use: farm workers will be most at risk from the toxic effects of ‘Liberty’ spraying.  Glufosinate resembles one of the brain’s chemicals, glutamine, which transmits nerve impulses.  Recent experience with exposure to organophosphates cautions against even low level exposure to other neurotoxic chemicals.  The dermal absorption characteristics and increased toxicity displayed by glufosinate-containing products are particularly disturbing features from the point of operator safety.
• Cattle feed: cattle are often fed OSR residues, after oil extraction.  The glufosinate that is metabolised by the plant to render it harmless to the plant, is held as a metabolite by the plant, and 10% of that ingested has been shown to convert back into glufosinate when fed to rats.  Currently, glufosinate treated crop residues are banned from animal bedding or feed use. Either cattle and other animals will be exposed to toxic risk if the plant residue is used, or large amounts of a toxic waste by-product will be produced, which will not be able to be used by farmers, and will have to be stored or burned.  It is not known what the fate of the current FSE crop will be: the oil could go into the human food chain; the residue to cattle.  Disposal of the crop and residue has not been considered.
• Farm practice: the ability to grow OSR and control all weeds, combined with the desire to reduce the area affected by HT-volunteer OSR in cereals, will likely lead to growing OSR in the same field for several consecutive years.  This reduces good land management practices such as rotation of crops to control weeds; reduces the diversity of opportunities for wild plants to flourish, and adds to soil erosion risk.  Current CAP support is aiming to reduce farm surpluses and provide incentives for good land management and wildlife enhancement - GMOSR cultural practice runs counter to this.

• Organic standards: require that no GM crops, products or contamination is allowed on certified organic holdings.  There are currently at least 87 registered organic holdings in the Highlands & Islands, with several on the Black Isle within pollen range of the FSE.  The continued organic status of these farms is put in jeopardy by the FSE and the move toward commercial planting.
• Separation distance: on 6 February the Soil Association advised certified organic growers and MAFF that a 3km segregation zone was required to ensure non-contamination. MAFF revised the limit from 50m to 100m for GMOSR, at which it expects a 1% contamination rate. The Soil Association expects the revised cordon will lead to 5% contamination, and that contamination of organic holdings is inevitable.  At the annual organic farming conference on 6 Jan 2001, Michael Meacher (Environment Minister, England) stated that organic farmers “will have to make do” with 99% GM-free, and that GM contamination would have to be accepted by organic producers and consumers.  This remains unacceptable to Organic Certification bodies, removes choice to be GM-free from organic consumers, and is awaiting guidance from UKROFS on the implications for the one buoyant sector of Scottish agriculture.  OSR seed remains viable for over 5 years in the ground, so any segregation distances will need to be applied to all sown fields and ‘volunteer’ crops, for a period of at least 5 years.
• Organic OSR: contrary to the belief among ACRE, SCRI, Aventis and other involved, organic OSR is grown in Scotland. A 28ha planting is located 7km south of the Munlochy trial site.  The production methods and potential market for organic OSR in Scotland is currently being developed and tested: GM proximity could destroy the product status and consumer trust in the market before it has even been established.
• Seed dispersal: even if GM pollen dispersal does not hybridise with plants on organic farms, then seed dispersal is likely to reach and contaminate them.  This could be through mistaken seed storage and labelling (already seen in Scotland in 2000); through bird dispersal; through vehicle traffic between farms; or through transport spillage, which is quite common and has led to many ‘escape’ patches of OSR.  "Volunteer" OSR has recently been confirmed growing on Ailsa Craig, a small granite island in the Firth of Clyde, which is separated from the nearest planting of OSR by several kilometres of open sea
• Organic choice and status: Levels of contamination acceptable to organic farmers and consumers is ZERO GM contamination.  GM free is not 99% or 99.9%, but 100% GM free.  The oil from approximately 100,000 OSR seeds are crushed to make 1 litre of ‘vegetable oil’: an oil containing extract from 100 or even 10 GM seeds is not GM-free, and is therefore not organic.  Consumer choice for organic and GM-free food requires no GM contamination whatsoever.  The John Innes Institute recently reported that: “if the level of contamination of seed production crops acceptable to organic farmers is less than the level indicated by the MAFF standards, then a new set of isolation distances and other procedures will need to be considered.  If no level of contamination is acceptable then this clearly cannot be guaranteed….neither source of contamination, pollen or seed, can be entirely eliminated”. However, the report then concludes with: ”the need for acceptable levels of contamination of organic crops (needs) to be decided, and measures identified to achieve them.  It is important to define acceptable levels because complete isolation cannot be guaranteed” (my emphasis).

Local choice
Issues relating to local decision making and arrangements for proper and adequate consultation with legitimate interests within local communities have been well covered by the Highland Council in their representations to AEBC.  We believe that it is not acceptable for the issues of local democracy and the locus of decision making to be ignored by the regulatory process. It should be a requirement of companies wishing to gain from the development of GM crops to seek the permission and positive consent of local communities in areas which will be affected both at the trial stage and following commercialisation.  This would place an onus on such companies to convincingly demonstrate the safety and potential economic benefit of these new crops to the people who will have to live and work with them.

Conclusion
The risks posed to the Highlands environment and farming businesses (both conventional and organic) are considerable: they are immediate and direct, in the toxic effects of ‘Liberty’ herbicide application and leaching; they are immediate and indirect, in the threat posed to the organic status of existing organic farm businesses; they are delayed and direct, in the inevitable problems of herbicide resistant ‘volunteer’ and native weeds; and they are delayed and indirect, with the long term impacts on the pure market image of H&I farm produce and environment.

By comparison, the decision to allow planting of GMOSR on the Black Isle was based only on “safety to human health and the environment. No other criteria are considered in the decision making process”.  The FSE monitoring programme is even narrower, confining itself only to the issues of impacts on weed populations, birds and macro invertebrates, and only within the planted trial area, for a limited period of 2 years.  These are issues requiring research, but cover only one small fraction of the real range of issues.  In the process of setting up a trial to examine these issues, the FSE is opening up a host of potentially high risk chains of causal actions and delayed effects.  The current trials will expose the Highlands & Islands environment and farm businesses to all of the risks, whilst answering only one or two of the many unanswered questions. The potential harm of the experiments is not limited only to narrow and discrete scientific questions.  And although the trials are the major assessment tool prior to commercial release, they do not consider the cumulative physical or socio-economic impacts of planting of 000’s km2 of GMOSR.

Under Section 107(6) of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990, “harm means harm to the health of humans or other living organisms or interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property”.  There are wide-ranging social, ethical, economic and scientific issues and impacts arising from the Munlochy FSE.  There was no specific consideration of harm to the Highlands and Islands during the decision to consent the release of GMOSR on the Black Isle.  The range of harm considered excluded many of the most damaging and long lasting impacts in the area, and ignored the potential effects on existing farm business and the extended impacts of widespread planting, following the trials.

Additionally, the issues of local democracy and the locus of decision making have been ignored.  There is a democratic deficit, when the decision on conducting experiments that take place here in the Highlands, are made following decisions by committee in London, based on Directive instructions laid down in Brussels, in response to moves to expand market control from companies in the USA.  In short, we are being exposed to all the risks, arising from decisions into which there has been no local input, and any potential financial benefits that may arise will accrue to trans-national companies based overseas.

H&I GM Concern believes that it should be the other way around: that the companies wishing to develop GM crops in our environment should seek the permission and positive consent of the community in the area affected.  That the various regulatory committees and bodies should act to ensure that this is done fully, transparently and satisfactorily, and so that companies comply consistently with the response of this and other communities.  Only if agreement and consent is reached between the company proposing to release the GMO and the community affected by its release, on the full range of issues, will permission be given to trial a GMO.

For the trial release at Munlochy we put forward five criteria which must all be satisfied, before local consent shall be given.  That the GM crop and trial shall be:

1. 1. Safe: that is demonstrably safe, from the fullest range of trials possible in closed environments, and from the experience of trials on similar crops in other areas (and not merely the absence of proven harm)
2. 2. Useful: that there is demand for the technology from the farming sector in the area, not just from the biotech company developing it, and that there is a ready market for the end product based on consumer demand
3. 3. Locally beneficial: provide clear and quantifiable benefits to the Highlands and Islands economy, and does not threaten the current operations and markets of existing businesses, directly or indirectly
4. 4. Full liability: that the company developing the organism accept full and everlasting liability for any impacts, direct and indirect caused by the crop, and make bond arrangements in advance of planting
5. 5. Publicly acceptable: that the release is consented to by the local community, local political representatives and businesses, after full deliberation and agreement on extent and conditions of release.

We therefore ask that the decision to allow the planting of GMOSR is reviewed in light of the full range of impacts, and wider ranging definition of harm now established.  The geneflow and widespread impacts will accelerate with the flowering of the crop, in 10 weeks time.  We therefore believe that AEBC should act promptly to advise Government that the consent to plant should be rescinded and the crop removed and destroyed before the Highlands & Islands environment is exposed to irreversible harm.
 
 
 

H&I GM Concern

13/02/01