Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 26 January 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.59
News
Farmer defies GM 'ban'
Environmentalists see red over maize harvest in formerly GM-free Wales.
In what may be the first example of direct action in favour of genetically modified (GM) crops, a farmer has defied the Welsh government by growing modified maize.
Farmer and agricultural consultant Jonathon Harrington says he grew small amounts of two kinds of GM maize on his farm near Hay-on-Wye, and also gave seeds to two local farmers.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
As Mr.Jonathon Harrington said the issue should be thoroughly discussed as it involved several issues including the farmers' right to grow whichever he wants.
Planting of GM crops or their use in the Human food chain is still matter of debate and controversy. There are no definite guidelines going by the published data. The industry is of course confident that it is good for use. Doubts persist mainly because no definite answers are there on their long impact on humans, environment and other life forms.
I have no idea why the anti-GE movement is taken so seriously by local and national governments. In my experience they don't even know what it is they're opposed to. If you talk to them or read their literature it soon becomes apparent that they don't know how to define GE. Their definitions wander all over the place. You can easily find some members of this movement who have a definition that is so narrow that it would not include crops that scientists whould consider to be GE. On the other hand you can find people whose definitions are so broad that they encompass crops currently being grown by the organic food cult. Last year I heard one local activist admit publicly that she "didn't know what scientists meant when they used the term GE". Yet she still wanted it stopped!! Journalists out there who want to have some fun at the expense of these nutters should ring them up and ask them if they think crops that were developed with the aid of induced chromosome duplication qualify as GE. You are bound to find activists who say yes without realising that such crops, e.g. triticale, are on sale in organic food shops everywhere.
I'll tell you why the anti-GE movement is taken seriously, Mr Chisnall -- it is because it is composed of rather sensible people who have an instinct that the precautionary principle is something that should be adhered to, and who have a more sophisticated understanding of scientific methods and ethics than people like you give them credit for. I, for one, am fed up to the teeth of so-called "scientists" (actually many of them are technicians who pretend to be scientists) who seek to claim the moral high ground -- asserting that the GM enterprise is underpinned by sound science, while opponents are driven by ignorance, emotion and even hysteria. Well, I call myself a scientist too, and when I look at the "science" that underpins the GM approvals process, for example, I am appalled. This is for the most part industry-led advocacy science, and science which is non-replicable. It is selective, manipulated and designed to demonstrate "no harm." I will not accept that material, published or not, as valid -- and neither should anybody else who has respect for scientific ethics. As for Mr Harrington, what does his little stunt tell us about the ethics of CropGen, Monsanto and the other parties involved behind the scenes? If they are not ashamed of their involvement, then they should be -- for this man has planted a mysterious GM crop which he knew would fail, in a location (or maybe three locations) which remain secret, in clear defiance of the wishes of his neighbours and fellow-farmers and against the democratically established policy of the Welsh Assembly Government. His action is completely irresponsible in that he has planted MON810 hybrids inside a protected area (the Brecon Beacons National Park) without providing reference materials to the authorities, without any prior research into local ecological effects on non-target organisms, and without having any monitoring plan in place. Although he claims (but has not proved) that his planted varieties are on the EU Common Seeds Catalogue, he has almost certainly broken the law. He has also put material into the food chain without -- apparently -- any measures to ensure traceability or labelling. His actions have nothing at all to do with farming, or science -- and everything to do with politics. And he seems to think that this is all going to help the GM cause.........!!!! Well, thank you very much, Mr Harrington. You have just given the anti-GM movement the greatest fillip it has had in years.
Brian John:"it is because it is composed of rather sensible people who have an instinct that the precautionary principle is something that should be adhered to, and who have a more sophisticated understanding of scientific methods and ethics than people like you give them credit for." I disagree. I've been to meetings of the local anti-GE movement, I've read their books, I've read their magazines and their websites and the one thing that keeps coming thorugh time and time again is that you do not know what you on about. You all appear to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect big time and have the self-belief that that you are competent as assessing the relevant scientific claims when in fact you do not. Most people in the anti-GE movement are unaware of the context, for example, that we have on occasion transferred DNA (chromosome fragments) between species before modern GE technqiues were invented. Most of them are unaware that nature inserts DNA at random into plants (e.g. wild maize) on a scale that dwarfs anything we're doing in the lab. Most of them also show a kind of socio-epistemic naivity - they don't realise that the magazines they read are often not telling them the truth. I've personally heard one former scientist, who used to work on GE but now opposes it, speak utter twaddle because she couldn't be bothered doublechecking claims against pubmed. She quite happily claimed that there had only been 6 or 7 studies on monarch butterflies and Bt corn and they all showed that butterflies were at risk, she quite happily claimed that there had been no feeding studies on GE crops, and that scientific research showed organic food to be superior to normal food. She never realised that the magazines she was reading this stuff in were getting it wrong and was convinced, like you Brian, that she had an understanding of scientific methods and ethics that was better than her former co-workers and other pro-GE scientists even though she clearly didn't. The full text of the Dunning & Kruger paper is available for free btw. Follow the links from the wikipedia article. And I still stand by the claims in my previous comment - that most people in the anti-GE movement don't have a coherent understanding of what GE is and which crops qualify as being GE or not. This fact alone tends to undercut your argument.
Kindly don't demean us, Michael, by assuming that you understand the science behind GM while others (ie your opponents) don't. The truth is probably that you have an understanding of science in your area of expertise, as do I. There are obviously unqualified people who feel qualified to speak -- that's democracy for you. All I'm saying is that there are many scientists whom I greatly respect who are happily signed up to the anti-GM cause, because they are gravely concerned about what they have discovered. It doesn't help to label them as Luddites or as people who have no capacity for rational thought. If the GM industry is to get anywhere, it has to win the argument, and it has to win the hearts and the minds of the general public. And it is not going to do that while it persists in science which is secretive, manipulated to particular ends, associated with commercial advocacy, and non-replicable. Are you aware of the number of independent research projects into GM varieties that have had to be abandoned because the GM patent owners have simply refused to make seed samples and reference materials available to them? OK -- you can justify that "non-cooperation" if you like, on grounds of commercial confidentiality etc -- but to me this represents the darker side of science. And I will continue to refuse to accept ANY science that is non-replicable.