Tony Blair, the British prime minister is business-agriculture friendly. Well, to be more precise, he is business-friendly, period. He wanted Britain to introduce genetically-modified (GM) crops for commercial planting.

So does his Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, and his Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury, the owner of the super chain store Sainsbury's. Sainsbury has sponsored the John Innes Research Centre, the government's GM research facility. A clear case of conflict of interest, you may have noticed.

But there was opposition from the British public - and the European public in general. To convince the British public of the error of their ways, Blair's government then proposed several GM studies: farm trials, economic analysis, science review, and a public debate. At least that was what he hoped.

Now the results have come in. One after another, the results have not been kind to Blair. The British Independent newspaper reports on Dec 29 last year that the farm trials show that pollen from GM crops interbreed with its non-GM crops.

This results in genetic contamination and the loss of the original crop variety. This also results in food contamination since every cell would contain the GM genes. The GM crops also interbreed with wild relatives, thus transferring the GM genes.

If the GM genes confer herbicide resistance, the wild plants could result in 'super-weeds', making them difficult and expensive to remove. This has been discovered in Canada in the case of rape seed - called canola there - and its wild relative.

Devastating trials

The farm trials study is so devastating to the government's case for GM crops that ministers sought to bury it by publishing the information on a government website on Christmas eve. That is the one day in the year when no newspapers are being prepared.

For the economic benefit, it is expected to be small. The Independent reports on July 12 this year on the economic analysis that "the demand for any GM products, and therefore their value, is likely to be small because consumers do not want them."

The report describes the finding as "a conclusion expected to be extremely unwelcome for Tony Blair."

The scientific review committee, chaired by the chief scientist Sir David King unexpectedly emphasised the uncertainties and potential dangers of the crops rather than the advantages, reports the Guardian newspaper on Oct 2.

It urged caution, more studies and the need to protect the consumer and the countryside. It further stated that there are risks involved, and these could increase with future development of the technology. Because there are many uncertainties involved, each crop can only be treated on a case-by-case basis as to its impact.

A most important impact of GM crops is on wildlife, according to the science review. The most planted GM crop is one that is engineered for herbicide resistance, where it can stand liberal doses of herbicide. This encourages excessive use of herbicide, for example, Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide (that is, it destroys all plant life) Roundup since farmers know their crop will be safe.

But these liberal doses destroy the ecosystem on which wildlife depends. The fear of wildlife devastation by English Nature, a conservation body, was the main reason why the study was initiated. It seems, their fear was not misplaced.

And according to David Byrne, the European health commissioner, in response to the scientific review, "a threat to British wildlife from GM crops would be sufficient grounds for the UK government to ban the growing of such crops," reports the Guardian Oct 3.

Public scepticism

As for the public debate, it confirms the public's scepticism of the technology. The exercise, regarded as the largest of its kind in the world, lasted six weeks, involving 450 meetings. It was chaired by Prof Malcolm Grant, chairperson of the National GM debate.

According to the Independent on July18, the professor admitted that there was widespread scepticism about their benefits. The scepticism, he said, was partly because people did not trust the agricultural research done by what they saw as private, profit-making companies such as Monsanto, rather than government's agricultural research stations.

The GM industry touted their crops will produce higher yields, lower costs and thus more profits. But according to Zac Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, writing in the Observer on Oct 19, none of these have come about.

Things were so bad that, he said, the US and Canadian National Farmer's Unions, the American Corn Growers Association, the Canadian Wheat Board and 200 other agricultural organisations, many of which were once enthusiastic supporters of GM, have signed a petition calling for a moratorium on the next generation of GM crops, wheat.

So, now that the results of his own proposed studies have come in suggesting, at the very least, a further moratorium on GM crop planting, does that make Blair see the error of his ways? Not him.

Reportedly, he is planning to go ahead. Some mere studies are not going to deter a man who is convinced of his own righteousness. Just as the case of Iraq. But just as in the case of Iraq, if he went on with his GM introduction, that could be his final undoing.


Dr ROSLI OMAR is an academic interested in the impact of science and technology on society and environment (being bred on the white heat of technology creed himself), be they dams, genetic engineering, or machines. He believes that science and technology, as used at present, is sustaining an unsustainable development - the worst of all possible paradoxes.