CropGen

Ecologists Urged To Challenge 'Green' Activists

As the GM debate enters what is likely to be a week of high drama, ecologists around the world are being urged to challenge the right of green activists to speak on behalf of the environment and diversity.

In an open letter to hundreds of ecological scientists, Dr Detlef Bartsch of the University of Aachen throws down the gauntlet: In the past, environmental organisations have fought against environmental threats like rain-forest destruction and trans-border hazardous waste export with reasonable, scientifically sound arguments. But todays campaign against gene technology has no base in ecologically-sound science.

Dr Bartsch is asking ecologists to unveil the obvious political agenda behind this campaign. He accuses the 'green groups' of manipulating data so it does not reflect reality in the field and cites the Monarch butterfly studies as an example.

Dr Guy Poppyan ecologist at the Institute of Arable Crops Research Rothamsted and a member CropGen panelsaid: This initiative is long overdue. Ecologists have been sidelined in GM debate by groups who claim expertise but demonstrate flagrant disregard for scientific process.

People have been conditioned into believing that the UK farm-scale trials are only about assessing environmental risk, ignoring the fact that one of the principal objectives of biotechnology is to deliver environmental benefits such as reduced use of chemicals and more efficient use of land.

On Monday Lord Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace, stands trial to answer charges that he took part in the destruction of a GM trial site last year. On Tuesday the first of the DETRs public meetings on the farm-scale trial sites will be held in Lincoln.

For more media information please contact Steve Marinker, Naomi Grant, Penny Hawley at the CropGen media office at Countrywide Porter Novelli on 020 7853 2393.

Editors note:
Text of Dr Bartschs letter.

Dear friends,

Ecological scientists advice to Environmentalists: Don't dismiss the ecological benefits of green biotechnology

In the recent past, environmentalist organisations, like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Institute of Applied Ecology Freiburg, have fought against environmental threats like rain-forest destruction and trans-border hazardous waste export with reasonable, scientifically sound arguments. But today's campaign against gene technology has no base in ecologically-sound science. Without any doubt all new technologies raise questions about new risks, but in case of gene technology there is substantial evidence for positive environmental effects, with decreased pesticide use and healthier food.

Genetically modified (GM) corps are not necessarily unsafe. Scientists at the Chair of Ecology, Aachen University of Technology, Germany, have carried out field tests with GM sugar beet transformed with virus- herbicide- and antibiotic tolerance genes. Together with colleagues from the Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, (Braunschweig, Germany) and Oldenburg University we have shown that these "gene-beets" pose no threat to genetically susceptible wild relatives (1), humans, or theenvironment (2).

The international campaign of Greenpeace and other groups against GM crops like Bt-maize deliberately neglects the beneficial effects of these plants for the environment. In contrast to traditional pest control, Bt-maize is the ideal solution to pest control since it combines biological theory and modern agricultural practice (3). A bacterial toxin, which is already in use for decades as a pesticide by organic farmers, is now produced by the plant itself and this considerably reduces the amounts of chemical pesticides that are needed. What this means for the environment is that Bt-maize, and many other GM crops, can be produced in a more ecologically friendly way than existing crops. As an example, US colleagues have demonstrated that some tested Bt cultivars were less contaminated by the toxic and highly carcinogenic compounds (mycotoxins) produced by moulds compared conventional maize (4). In addition, the use of other pesticides can often be reduced (5). There is still much development work to do, and Ecologists can help the safe development of this technology.

Unfortunately, many environmental activists have chosen to publicise only potential adverse effects of GM crops during their campaign. Much of their source material are biased reports with insufficient data produced by other environmental associations. The pattern is always the same: Natural phenomena like gene transfer or pollen movement between organisms are declared as a phenomenon related only to GM crops though this happens through out nature. Combined with unproven allegations about allergies and antibiotic resistance effects, the dangers are grossly inflated or laboratory data is manipulated so that it does not reflect reality in the field (e.g. monarch butterfly). Scientific data that do not fit into this picture are ignored, providing the necessary ammunition for scare-mongering campaigns. In the United Kingdom, Greenpeace has had the policy to physically destroy biosafety research projects (8) such as those from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and other public research institutes (6, 7).

We regret the missing fairness and the slanted opposition by Greenpeace to new technical developments. Ecology as a science should try to unveil the obvious political agenda behind this campaign. We should not miss out on chances for responsible use of gene technology. We kindly ask colleagues to support of our initiative through distributing this open letter to other scientists and interested members of the public, please with a copy to Bartsch@rwth-aachen.de.