SPICe

GM CROPS IN SCOTLAND science

briefing
16 December 2003
INTRODUCTION
Genetic modification of crops is the latest in a long series of technological 03/02
developments for producing higher yielding, more easily managed
cultivars. Although most of the crops grown in Scotland today have been
produced by classical plant breeding methods a significant number have
also been generated from mutations induced by chemicals or radiation
(usually x-rays). Public concern with GM technology largely stems from
the fact that the methods used and often the new genes themselves
involve micro organisms and are thus thought to have crossed biological
boundaries in an ‘unnatural’ way. This has produced an outcry from
certain vocal groups who invoke phrases such as ‘Frankenstein crops’.

THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT SCIENCE INFORMATION SERVICE

The Scottish Parliament Science Information Service is a unique partnership between
the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Scottish
Parliament Information Centre (SPICe). Its purpose is to ensure that all Members of
the Scottish Parliament have access to reliable, rapid and impartial information on
science, engineering and technology-related issues in order to help inform
parliamentary activities.

The service is provided through a network of 52 Topic Coordinators who are scientists
established in their field. It is intended to provide expert information and interpretation
to MSPs and their staff to enable them to make their own judgements.

SPICe Science Briefings are compiled for the benefit of Members of the Parliament
and their personal staff. Authors may be available to discuss the contents of these
papers with MSPs and their staff who should contact Denis Oag on 85369 email
denis.oag@scottish.parliament.uk. Members of the public or external organisations
may comment on this briefing by emailing us at spice.research@scottish.parliament.uk
However, researchers are unable to enter into personal discussion in relation to SPICe
Science Briefing Papers.

Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in SPICe Science
briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that
briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent
changes.
www.scottish.parliament.uk

1
PUBLIC CONCERN WITH GM TECHNOLOGY
There is no doubt that there is genuine public concern and the whole handling of the debate has
been muddied by the approach adopted of some scientists and biotech companies who believe
that the case for GM should not be questioned. There is genuine confusion in the public’s mind
as to both the potential benefits and also the hazards. Many people fear health hazards, hence
the reaction of major supermarkets not to stock GM foods. However, anyone who has been to
the USA in the last 7 years will almost certainly have eaten GM soybean products and there is
no substantiated evidence that there have been any adverse effects of these on human health.
Also, most of us are probably wearing products made from GM cotton.

GM CROP TRIALS
The extensive crop trials that have just been concluded in the UK were undertaken to look at
effects on the environment and biodiversity. There is clear evidence that under the
management conditions used there were adverse effects in the plots with GM oil seed rape and
beet, but not corn. In the GM plots, numbers of weeds were reduced, so that seed supplies and
nectar were less available for herbivorous animals and invertebrates such as butterflies. On the
other hand invertebrates living on detritus increased in numbers. These results have been
interpreted as vindicating the anti GM lobby. However others suggest that the data are better
seen as reflecting the particular management regime rather than GM crop plants themselves.
The data generated by these trials (in spite of attempts to sabotage them) are internationally
regarded as an important resource. For example, effects on the numbers of weed seeds in the
soil will be compared with long term trends showing that seedbanks have been diminishing
steadily with intensification of agriculture.

Another aspect causing concern is gene flow (via pollen) from GM plants to wild species, to
non-GM crops and to honey. The organic sector is particularly worried about this. However,
more analysis of the crop trial and other data is necessary to decide how real these fears are.
Scotland is already full of weedy rape from non-GM material.

OPTIONS FOR SCOTLAND

At the moment there is no strong economic evidence that GM crops will be an advantage to
farmers and indeed with public resistance there may be no market for them. However it is
important to remember that the trials conducted were solely using herbicide resistance genes.
There are genuine worries that if, in future, several resistance genes were incorporated, then
‘gene stacking’ could occur leading to widespread herbicide resistance in wild plants. There
have been no UK trials on crops engineered to contain natural insecticides, notably a gene from
Bacterium thuringensis, a micro organism that can be purchased for use in a spray. This gene
has been successfully incorporated into cotton. Woody plants such as poplar have been
engineered so that converting them into paper pulp requires fewer strong chemicals that are
harmful to the environment, yet trials on these have been stopped after intervention by GM
protestors. There are prospects for inserting blight tolerance genes into potatoes. If the
incidence of blight increases in Scotland, would we wish to use such a GM crop? There is no
simple answer to these questions.

One option would be to declare Scotland ‘GM free’. Advocates say this would protect
Scotland’s environment. Others say this would stop any possible future developments. It could
also have an adverse effect on our local biotech research (as distinct from major multinational

providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament

2
companies), an important component in our economy. Already scientists working in this are
relocating to other countries such as Australia where there is a less restrictive approach to the
issue, even though agriculture is very important to their economies and they are protective of
their unique biodiversity.

Another point of view is that the best policy for Scotland may be to adopt a very precautionary
approach. That would mean if any GM crops are to be released they should be considered on a
case-by-case basis, with very strict controls on their management. This is not restrictive enough
for some who believe that the risks posed by the crops are too great.

The debate around the issue and the solutions will continue for some time yet.

A summary of the scientific papers resulting from the field trials ‘ GM crops: effects on farmland
wildlife’ has been published ISBN: 0-85521-035-4 and a broad ranging discussion can be found
on the web site of the Environmental Data Service Ltd. www.endsreport.com

providing research and information services to the Scottish Parliament

3