Scotland’s ban on GM crops a threat to the country’s science, say researchers

The Scottish government’s plan to ban cultivation of all genetically-modified (GM) crops flies in the face of scientific evidence, will put many areas of research at risk, and cut Scotland off from innovations that are making farming more sustainable elsewhere in the world, according to 28 universities and research bodies from across the UK.

In an open letter sent to rural affairs minister Richard Lochhead this week, researchers call for a meeting to discuss their concerns. The signatories say the political decision to ban GM crops threatens the freedom and integrity of science.

The letter follows Lochhead’s announcement earlier this month that he plans to use an amendment to European Union rules which came into force in April, allowing governments to restrict or ban cultivation of GM crop plants.

The decision has also been criticised by Anne Glover, former chief scientific advisor to the president of the European Commission, and before that chief scientist in Scotland, who said that with appropriate choice GM technology can offer one approach to sustainable farming, by reducing the need for chemical inputs - which benefits the consumer, the farmer and the environment.

“I am not aware of the full context of the Scottish government ban on GM crops, so it is not possible to make detailed comments. Generally it would be hard to justify a ban on the grounds of safety, as GM technology for plant breeding is supported by a global scientific consensus with regard to safety,” Glover said.

Glover’s comment on “appropriate choice” reflects the fact the existing GM crops are unsuitable or inappropriate for cultivation either in Scotland, or much of the rest of the EU.

However, signatories of the protest letter to Lochhead point out that GM plants in development include potatoes that are resistant to blight, a fungal disease that is a serious problem in Scotland. In wet years, there is significant infection, requiring repeated spraying of potatoes with fungicides.

New plant breeding methods

The letter also highlights new, directed methods for adding desirable traits that are being introduced into the armoury of conventional plant breeding techniques. These may be classified as genetic modification in future, yet they hold the potential to generate GM crops and other GM organisms that are relevant to Scottish agriculture.

One example of new techniques being pioneered in Scotland comes from the Scottish start-up Synpromics Ltd of Edinburgh, which this week announced the closing of a £2.1 million venture funding round. The money will allow the company to proceed with the commercialisation of its synthetic promoter technology, which enables precise control over the expression of genes.

Amongst other applications of this ability to turn genes off and on within specific cells, Synpromics is looking at how to use the technology to control traits in crop plants.

Lochhead made no reference to the science when he confirmed the Scottish government intends to take advantage of the new EU rule allowing opt-outs from the cultivation of EU-authorised GM crops, but said the ban, “will protect and further enhance our clean, green status.”

There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and allowing them to be grown would damage the country’s clean and green brand. This would amount to “gambling with the future of our £14 billion food and drink sector,” Lochhead said.

The disingenuousness of this comment is highlighted by the example of blight-resistant GM potatoes, which rather than damaging the “clean, green status” could enhance it by reducing the use of fungicides. “For Scotland to deny to its farmers such a critical innovation and to deny consumers the possibility of reducing pesticide use is irresponsible,” said Maurice Moloney, Chief Executive Officer of the Global Institute for Food Security in Canada and former Chief Executive of the UK crop research institute at Rothamsted.

Using science in policy

The ban has also been criticised by another former Scottish chief science advisor, computer scientist Muffy Calder, who left the post at the end of 2014 and is yet to be replaced. For critics of the GM ban this highlights a vacuum that is excluding scientific evidence from policymaking, and putting Scotland at risk of undermining the standing of its science.

“We ask urgently for a meeting where researchers can discuss [their] concerns with you and consider ways to protect the freedom and integrity of science, and its use in policies, in Scotland in the future,” say the signatories of the letter to Lochhead.

Joe Perry, former Chair of the European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel, called for governments to stop equating an anti-GM stance with care for the environment. “GM crops can be of benefit to the environment if regulated sensitively. Furthermore there is no reason to ban them on safety grounds,” Perry said. “Blanket bans like this are irrational.”

Another leading plant scientist, Ottoline Leyser, Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at Cambridge University, which is applying advanced tools to the understanding of plant growth and development, said it is ironic for Lochhead to justify the decision by stating he is not prepared to “gamble with the future” of Scotland’s food and drink industry. “That is exactly what he is doing,” Leyser said.

“In the short term, this is a zero risk, eye-catching announcement that will have no impact whatsoever, because there are currently no approved GM crops available that are suitable for cultivation in Scotland. In the long term, however, when products such as blight resistant potatoes eventually reach the market, Scottish farmers will find themselves at a serious disadvantage,” said Leyser.

The over-riding sentiment was summed up by Huw Jones, Professor of Molecular Genetics at Rothamsted, who said, “This is a sad day for science and a sad day for Scotland. GM crops approved by the EU are safe for humans, animals and the environment and it’s a shame the Scottish Parliament think cultivation would harm their food and drink sector.”