Scottish Crop
Research
Institute

SCRI Annual Report For 1998/99
(Press Notice)

The Institute continues to thrive, producing high-impact scientific research and development with unrivalled value for money and productivity. SCRI will be celebrating 50 years at its site in Invergowrie this summer, and will be holding a special Open Day, on 10th June 2000, to mark the occasion.
As in the past, the Report includes a number of review articles, split between the major areas of research. In addition, the Director of SCRI, Professor John Hillman, provides what many consider to be the most comprehensive review of global and UK perspectives of factors influencing agricultural, biological and environmental sciences.

Speaking on the future for biotechnology as we enter the new millennium, he says (page 11) "At the fin de siècle … there was a general and blatant lack of appreciation of the difference between the activity of science - the pursuit of truth and understanding - and its use, which can sometimes raise ethical issues, and discomforting truths and choices; almost invariably, though, science provides the forward momentum for improvement of the human condition." He continues (page 38), "Biotechnology in all its guises affects all areas of human activity, and no nation can afford to ignore the huge potential of the range of biotechnological developments coming on stream."

A very topical issue, at the moment, is contamination of oilseed rape crops by pollen from neighbouring transgenic crops, and the question of how far pollen will travel. An article by Dr Geoff Squire and colleagues is entitled "Gene flow in the environment - genetic pollution?" Dr Squire, who is leading the research team responsible for the studies on large-scale plantings of herbicide-tolerant spring-sown oil seed rape, comments (Page 51) "Since 1993, work at SCRI on the assessment of ecological risk has concentrated on oilseed rape. A number of important questions were asked by government concerning the distance travelled by pollen and genes, the persistence of feral (wild) populations… and the general likelihood and extent of gene flow across an agricultural region." One outstanding question was whether wild rape, descended from one variety, could hybridise in a subsequent year with a new variety. Genetic fingerprinting of a persistent wild population showed that it descended from a source crop last sown 12 years previously. Corroboration of gene flow was obtained by showing that an adjacent oilseed rape crop, flowering in 1998, crossed with the wild descendants of the original variety.

A study, using mail sterile bait plants (which represents a "worse-case scenario", as plants are, under normal circumstances, far more likely to get their pollen by either self-fertilisation, or from their near-neighbour, rather than more distant plants), showed that: pollen moves over at least 4 km; the pollen is still alive at these distances and can pollinate flowers; it can be carried by both wind and insects; some wild populations can persist for at least 10 years; and wild populations can receive genes from new crops of oilseed rape. However, transfer of herbicide tolerance is not necessarily a hazard. It only becomes one when there is a need to control the hybrid plants with the herbicide to which the plants are tolerant, and that is rarely the case. All the scientific evidence shows that wild populations are unlikely to dominate the arable community and, so far, wild transformed oilseed rape plants have failed to take advantage of their new niches, whereas many other (non-transformed) weed species have.

Dr Squire concludes, "The movement of seed and pollen will have to be measured and managed much more in the future than it has been. This will be so whether GM crops are grown commercially or not. Crop products are becoming more specialised and there is an increasing general need for purity."

In contrast to genetic modification, "Organic Farming" has received considerable public support during the past year. It is appropriate, then, that Dr Donald MacKerron and colleagues have written a review on the subject entitled "Organic farming: science and belief". He writes (page 62), "There can be little argument that the adoption of organic farming practices will lead to a number of benefits. So, a project funded by MAFF found that the number of earthworms increased markedly, and stability of soil aggregates increased giving a more freely draining soil with better structure. However, these benefits were associated with an altered and better crop rotation. Almost certainly, it was that rotation, rather than lower inputs per se, which led to the improvements. Equally, it is clear that the elimination of agro-chemicals in arable land areas will lead to increased populations of insects and other biota. What is less clear is whether the changes will be beneficial to people in any real way."

A survey by MORI in June 1999 showed that one third of the public had bought organic food in the previous 3 months; over half because they believed it to be safe and healthy. MacKerron writes (page 63), "This attitude is, presumably, based on the perception that hazards in foods derive from agrochemical additives, whereas microbes, not chemicals, are the major source of foodborne illnesses." He goes on to show that most of the claims made of organic food are unsubstantiated, and many are unwarranted.

The Soil Association has described the introduction of genetically modified plants into UK agriculture as the "most serious threat ever to the objectives and progress of the organic farming movement in developing and introducing viable systems-based approaches to agriculture". Genetic engineering, which offers the prospect of introducing resistance to pests and diseases more effectively, and more quickly, without the use of a battery of agrochemicals, would appear to be compatible with the principles of organic farming, even if the proponents of the movement do not presently recognise it as such. MacKerron says (page 69), "The zero-tolerance approach to pollen is clearly incompatible with the coexistence of GM and organic crops. The only way to achieve it would be to ban GM crops entirely - or to abandon organic farming. There must be other ways."
If you have any general queries regarding the report, please do not hesitate to contact either myself, or Dr Bill Macfarlane Smith, or alternatively please contact the individual scientists identified above.

The full report is available online at: http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/Document/AnnReps/AnnRep.htm

For more information, please contact: Tim Heilbronn, Deputy Head, Scientific Liaison and Information Services