Professor Howard Davies, Director of Science Co-ordination at SCRI, was recently interviewed on the subject of GM crops in Scotland. The interview coincided with the announcement that scientists at SCRI had won a share of a £400,000 project to research techniques relevant for the safety assessment of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). The research is being funded by the Food Standards Agency.

Question: At the moment, Scotland doesn’t have any GM crops, is there a cost to that policy in your view?

It is more a question of where the policy places us for necessary development. You’ve only got to look at the global situation to realise where the technology is going. Already after 11 years of commercial GM crop production the global net economic benefits to biotech crop farmers has been $27 billion; $13 billion for developing countries and $14 billion for industrial countries. In 2005 the figure was $5.6 billion.

There are more than 100 million hectares of GM crops being grown worldwide with 10 million farmers growing GM crops, so the fact that we in the UK and Europe, let alone Scotland, are not using the technologies means we are in danger of falling way behind the game. Already Europe is facing shortages in animal protein feed based on soya products. This may lead to real problems in providing pig and poultry feed.

Question: So we’ll be left behind. Can you cost that – can you spell out exactly what that cost will be to Scotland?

It is very difficult to give you hard figures. In fact, looking at the GM crops currently available on the market Scotland probably isn’t missing out that much. Farmers need to give their view though.

However, there is significant pressure to reduce agrochemical usage, for example pesticides, fungicides and fertiliser on crops, so it’s getting much, much more difficult for the farmer to meet the ever exacting standards required. GM technologies can help to replace a chemical solution with a biological solution giving significant savings.

As an example, last year I think there was a reduction worldwide of more than 200 million tons in the quantity of pesticides used thanks to GM technology. It’s more an issue of what Scotland really needs to help its agriculture rather than what is out there now that we can grow. We need more debate on the opportunities and challenges.

Question: They are talking too about the introduction of biofuels to Scotland and GM bio-fuels would be better than any other; presumably we’d miss out on that front too?

Well if you are going to go into the biofuels market you have to produce the crops cheaply. That means using lower inputs and as I’ve already said, GM technology could have a role to play in such ventures. GM technology can also be used to help process the crop into biofuel more efficiently.

However, you have to consider where most of the biofuel crops will be grown and processed and I suspect that for crops such as oilseed rape the scope for major increases in production in Scotland will be limited. So one has to place this issue into some sort of perspective.

Question: So will it have any knock-on effect on the whole bio-tech reputation for Scotland if we do not have GM crops here?

Scotland has a wonderful reputation in the life sciences area and biotechnology in the life sciences area. But basically the agri-biotech industry as I would call it has left the shores of Britain. We no longer have an active, agri-biotech industry in the UK, let alone in Scotland, so we are already suffering ‘brain drain’ together with ‘business’ drain.

Question: What would you say though to people who have a fear about GM crops. They say, ‘The risk is small, but really we are not prepared to run that risk.’ What would you say to reassure them?

The fear is understandable because it has been fuelled, I think, by a lot of misinformation over the years. But we are now entering the eleventh year after the first introduction of commercial GM crops worldwide and so far there has been no indication of any safety issue – either to human or animal health, or to the environment.

Having said that, no technology is risk free, even traditional breeding has its issues from time to time with products being withdrawn. I should add that in Europe the risk assessment of GM crops prior to market approval is probably the most stringent anywhere in the world. We know more about what’s in GM crops than any other crops on the market.

Question: What would you say then to the new, SNP government which comes in pledged against GM crops?

I would say, probably in terms of Scotland’s needs there is no desperate rush to go into GM production as the current range of commercial GM crops are probably not of any major advantage just now. However, that’s a question more for the farmer, particularly in terms of weed control with herbicide resistant GM crops.

But it is imperative we do not throw the baby, that is the technology, out with the bathwater. We must keep an open mind in terms of what the technology can do for us. As climate change starts to kick in, as the need to use fewer agri-chemicals takes effect, farmers and producers will need other options in terms of producing quality crops that we have all been used to buying from our retail sector and at a price most can afford.

Again the issue is what the technologies can really do for Scotland if focused and handled correctly. It is not merely an issue of accepting the products of multinationals. If we do not maintain an innovative and relevant research basis, which can make best use of the technologies, then Scotland along with other parts of Europe, will become increasingly dependent on imports of GM products from other countries.

GM crop trials of potatoes with genes to produce resistance to late blight control were recently authorised to take place in England. Late blight caused the Irish potato famine in 1845. Currently, as far as we are aware, there are no plans for GM trials in Scotland.

Further reading

Making Sense of GM: What is the genetic modification of plants and why are scientists doing it? Sense About Science website (2009).