The 2008 Climate Change Act commits the UK to 80% statutory greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) reduction by 2050. The agricultural industry is responsible for approximately 25%, 50%, and 80% of global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) respectively. In the UK farming and land use are accountable for 7.4% of total UK emissions and therefore represent a good opportunity to make progress toward GHG reduction targets.

Reducing GHG emissions within the agricultural sector however faces significant obstacles driven by the growth of the human population. As human population numbers rise, more people need feeding, and as the wealth of nations increase so does the demand for meat with the ‘westernisation’ of diets putting pressure on the agricultural industry to produce more food. Furthermore, the dwindling availability of land suitable for farming limits expansion of the industry. As a result, agriculture must as increase productivity by 70-100% by 2050 in order to avoid future food security crisis.

The combination of increasing food production on limited land while reducing GHG emissions consequently presents a unique scientific challenge. To address this, a meeting attended by the BES was held at the Royal Society in London this week to discuss the options for ‘Reducing green house gas emissions from agriculture’.

Expert speakers gave presentations on how to create ‘climate smart agriculture’ and discussed potential solutions and opportunities including:

• Improving land management through intensification of agricultural practices to avoid further carbon dioxide release from expansion into remaining suitable land such as tropical forests.
• Improving soil management to conserve stocks of nitrogen and enhance carbon capture/sequestration.
• Reducing unnecessary over use of nitrogen fertilizers responsible for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions.
• Replacing fossil fuel use with bioenergy feedstocks.
• Exploring genetic modification of rice cultivars and cattle to reduce methane production.
• Altering rice cultivation management practice and cattle diet to reduce methane production.
• Improving manure management to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
• Decreasing food wastage and changing western dietary behaviours by encouraging people to decrease meat consumption to reduce demand.

The meeting highlighted that reducing emissions across the agricultural industry provides a significant opportunity to help achieve the UK emissions reduction targets. Speakers additionally drew attention to the fact that the agricultural industry has until present, not been a central part of climate change talks, and suggested that the future inclusion of agriculture as a central part of the climate change agenda would be beneficial. Speakers further noted that subsequent policy should consider all demands on land, provide incentives for implementation of more environmentally friendly practice across farming, and include raising awareness to encourage decreased meat consumption in western society.

The BES Policy Team attended yesterday’s launch of a POSTnote on Genetically Modified Insects (GMI), and their future potential benefits and possible risks for disease and pest control, with speakers higlighted several issues and challenges that may be faced by the use of GMI.

For example, Dr Jon Knight raised the issue of scale; if the release of GM insects were to be conducted at a national level, there would be several implications for regulations due to their likely spread across country borders. He did, however, point out that GMI methods can be very similar to existing pest control methods already in use, such as the release of alien biological control agents.

On a related issue, Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher pointed out that whilst those involved in developing GMI’s can learn from the problems faced in the development of GM crops, there are several important differences, such as in mobility, the degree of domestication of the two, and the fact that GM insects are specifically designed to spread genes. She also highlighted the importance of the precautionary principle on the issue, stressing the importance of not pressing the GMI issue before the science suggests the technology is ready to be used, and risks have been adequately assessed.

Can GM technology cure the world’s growing pains? On Thursday, 21 January, the BES attended an evening meeting at the British Library at which members of the public, academics, industry representatives and food producers gathered together to discuss this question, considering the contribution which GM crops might make to securing the world’s food supplies. The ‘cafe scientifique’ style event, the latest in the ‘Talk Science’ series organised by the Library’s science, technology and medicine division, was led by Prof. Rosie Hails, CEH and Chair of the Natural Capital Initiative.

Prof. Hails’ main point, in an opening talk which focused on the relationship between agriculture and the environment, was that assessments of the costs and benefits of GM crops have focused too rigidly on biodiversity as an indicator of environmental impact, at the expense of considering other parameters. In assessing these crops, a more holistic viewpoint should be adopted, with consideration of a whole suite of ecosystem services.

Prof. Hails outlined the results of farmscale evaluations, set up in the UK to assess the impact of GM crops on biodiversity. The trials had shown that growing herbicide resistant GM crops did have an impact on biodiversity, as competing weeds were removed. However, if other ecosystem services are taken into consideration, on balance it might be worth adopting these crops and mitigating the impacts on biodiversity in some way – through the introduction of diverse field margins for example. Herbicide resistant crops might be more compatible with low tillage systems and the consequent benefits of these systems for soil structure, nutrient, water and carbon retention may mean that these crops have an overall environmental benefit compared to standard methods of growing crops. Greater data is needed on the environmental impact of GM crops, taking this more holistic view.

Prof. Hails made another important point, not often raised in debates around GM: that GM crops are introduced into variable economic and social conditions. For example, evidence supports the conclusion that those who grow Bt cotton in China (engineered to express a protein toxic to the cotton borer) spray less insecticide. However, it is also possible that because Bt cotton seed is more expensive than non-GM seed, some farmers may adopt a highly protective attitude to their crop and spray it regardless. Prof. Hails stated that ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) has developed a matrix which assesses a suite of costs and benefits, including social factors, in more detail.

During the course of the ‘Question Time’ style discussion which followed Prof. Hails’ presentation a number of points were put to an audience member representing Monsanto. It was clear that protectionism and monopoly of GM technology by a few large agrochemical companies was a point of contention and source of unease for many. The point was made that EU regulations, currently very strict, should be relaxed to allow small and medium sized businesses to capitalise on GM technology and develop competing products.

Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference yesterday the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor John Beddington, made clear the Government’s view that using the latest advances in science, such as GM and nanotechnology, is vital to make sure that the world can produce enough to feed a growing population by 2030. The world will need to produce 50% more food in the next twenty years. Prof. Beddington said that more crops will need to be produced on less land, and that GM offers a way to achieve this.

Speaking to farmers at the conference Prof. Beddington said “we need a greener revolution, improving production and efficiency through the food chain within environmental and other constraints”. He stated that action to improve crop yields is necessary now, due to time lags in developing and implementing new technologies, and that GM is critical in meeting economic, environmental and social goals.

Prof. Beddington’s speech attracted criticism from some, including in the Guardian’s editorial yesterday. The Guardian calls for Ministers to themselves be more explicit about the Government’s belief that GM is vital to ensure food security, communicating this directly to the public rather than relying on the Government CSA to make such speeches. The newspaper also questioned whether the evidence base really does support GM technology as ‘vital’ to food security, as outlined by Prof. Beddington, alluding to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAAST), led by Professor Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientist. The report found that GM technology was unlikely to have more than a limited role in tackling hunger and that global hunger is as much to do with power and control over food supply as with growing enough to eat.

See more: Daily Telegraph, 7 January 2010

Following the Parliamentary and Technology Committee’s meeting this week, focusing on GM technology in crop production, I took the time to read the Royal Society’s recent report; “Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture“, which was heavily cited at the evening event. The report provides an extremely interesting overview of a very complex topic, characterised by Prof. John Beddington as the ‘perfect storm’; how to feed more people, on less land, using less water and energy, in the context of climate change and in a way which doesn’t damage the evironment? The Royal Society steering group conclude that ’sustainable intensification’ is needed to achieve the 50 – 100% increase in crop production needed to feed a population projected to reach 9 billion by 2050.

The report touches upon the gains made during the ‘green revolution’ of the 1960’s, with huge growth in food production in Asia (280%); particularly China, which saw agricultural productivity increase fivefold. A 70% increase in growth was achieved in Europe. The benefits of the revolution were not evenly distributed however; Africa saw a 140% increase, yet food production then fell from the 1970s, only re-gaining 1960 levels in 2005. There have been calls for a ‘greener revolution’, building on the original gains made in the latter half of the 20th century, but investment in research into agriculture has declined in recent years, due to complacency over food prices and availability, the Society concludes.

In expanding food production into the future, the global community faces an important choice: expand the area of agricultural land to increase gross production, or increase yields on existing land. The report concludes that expanding the land area available for agriculture is untenable: to keep pace with current per capita consumption would require a doubling of land used for crops, which would result in undesirable environmental and social consequences and increased greenhouse gases through ploughing. Instead, the report concludes that sustainable intensification on existing sites, coupled with habitat restoration, should be the way forward.

Any system is unsustainable, the report suggests, if it depeneds on non-renewable inputs; it cannot consistently and predictably deliver desired outputs; and it can only deliver these outputs by requiring the cultivation of more land and/ or causes adverse and irreversible environmental impacts which threaten ecological functions. To ensure sustainable intensification, the report concludes, greater investment is needed in crop genetics (both advanced biotechnology, such as GM, and conventional plant breeding) and in crop management practices (such as integrated pest management and planting seed mixtures). Both public and private investment is needed to advance research in these areas: public, to fund those areas which will not yield long-term returns for private companies, such as crop management techniques (likely to have no particular product or intellectual property for commercialisation associated with them); private to transfer the benefits from publicly funded research to markets.

In examining GM particularly, the working group concludes that there is no reason to expect any adverse impacts on health through the consumption of crops including transgenes, and that this technology, although not offering a panacea, can make an important contribution to increasing yields. Over the long term, advances which could be seen include the modification of crops’ metabolism to more efficient convert solar energy to carbohydrate or for the fixation of nitrogen. There could be a shift from annual to perennial crops – there are no perennial crops at present – enhancing carbon storage and reducing greenhouse gases from annual tillage of the soil. The asexual reproduction of seed by high-yielding varieties could be engineered, avoiding costly and lengthy procedures – least accessible to those in developing countries – to produce high yielding varieties breeding cycle after breeding cycle.

The report is wide-ranging in its scope and there is certainly far too much to cover here. One recommendation which the BES could consider taking forward is in relation to the training and development of crop scientists. The working group suggests that attention should be paid to enhancing the plant science component of biology A’levels, as a way to encourage young people to study subjects allied to farming and agriculture at university. The working group also conclude however that, alongside the trend for many universities to close down or reduce their teaching in agriculture and crop science, take up of those courses which do exist is low. For the UK to take a leading role in research contributing to global food security, as the report calls for, there is a need, clearly amongst a disparate range of other measures, for universities to re-examine their courses to make them more attractive to potential research scientists of the future.

The BES Policy Team last night attended a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee exploring GM technology. Entitled, ‘Come back GM, all is forgiven?’, the Chair, Ian Taylor MP, made it clear that the question mark was there for a reason; by the end of the event it was clear that further meetings of the Committee are needed to allow members to explore these issues in greater depth. Opinions from the floor were aligned along two polar opposites and there was not the time available to allow sufficient debate to begin to bring these two sides together.

Presentations from Professor Peter Shewry and Professor Howard Atkinson introduced the topic to those present and set the scene for later discussion. Professor Shewry showed a slide illustrating the global scale of growth of GM crops; these are now cultivated in 25 countries worldwide, across 70 million acres of land and have now been grown for 14 years. In this time, Professor Shewry said, no ill effects to health or the environment have been recorded. In outlining the case for growing GM crops Prof. Shewry said that society needs them for three reasons: to improve the quality of crops (i.e. to reduce diet-related disease); to increase sustainability (through less intensive inputs), and to increase productivity (contributing to food security).

Prof. Shewry’s research is concerned with the health benefits of GM crops, particularly wheat. By modifying wheat crops to express genes for the production of fish oils (long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids), the human dietary intake of fish oils can be increased without recourse to intensification of fish farming. In giving reasons why GM had not been adopted in the UK, at the end of his talk, Prof. Shewry suggested that prejudice, misinformation and elitism in Western nations was responsible, with it reducing opportunities from those in developing countries, with limited access to food, to benefit from this technology.

This was a theme returned to in discussion with Chris Kirk, Chief Executive of the Biochemical Society firmly making the point that those in the West get extremely incensed about the use of GM technology to produce food, yet are content to use pharmaceutical products maunfactured in a similar way. Again, he reiterated the point that concerns in affluent countries are damaging the prospects of less developed countries to benefit from this technology.

Concerns were raised by some present about the potential health impacts of GM crops – one example given was that the effects of exposure to asbestos are felt only 25 years later, so 14 years may be too short a timescale of testing to declare GM foods ’safe’- and the problem of secondary pest emergence in GM cotton (Bt cotton), leading to increased pesticide spraying once more. One audience member raised the important point that many people are genuinely concerned about GM technology and that these concerns cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. He and others called for greater engagement from the scientific community in the debate, communicating with the public and providing syntheses of the scientific evidence for policy-makers.

Jim Paice, MP for South West Cambridgeshire made the point that it was very hard for politicians to find their way through the morass of ’sweeping statements’ made by NGOs such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace; without engagement from the scientific community, such negative, and poorly evidenced, statements would dominate debate. Chris Kirk urged policy-makers and Committee members to read the Royal Society’s recent report: “Reaping the Benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture” as an authoritative digest of current scientific evidence regardiing GM technology.

Finally, Lord Rooker mentioned the ‘GM Dialogue‘ which the Food Standards Agency has been asked to lead on behalf of the Government. This public engagement project is expected to last for around 12 months and steering group members have recently been announced. With this, a potential further Parliamentary and Scientific Committee meeting on this topic and a Talk Science event at the British Library in January, it seems that GM food may once more be rising up the agenda.

The Science Team at the British Library is organising an event at the Library’s conference centre on 21st January 2010 (18.00 – 20.30) entitled: GM crops and food security: curing the world’s growing pains?

Professor Rosie Hails, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, will introduce the subject, followed by a discussion among the audience. This provocative title aims to stimulate discussion on the following questions:

• Do GM technologies have a role to play in meeting demand for food by a population of 9 billion in 2050?
• Are GM crops part of a ’sustainable’ solution, or will use of GM technologies exacerbate the negative impacts of agriculture?
• Do the impacts of GM technologies pale into insignificance beside other fundamental management practices?
• Has the recent trend of rising food prices and awareness of food security issues altered the public perception of plant biotechnologies?

Tickets are £5 and include refreshments – please book by visiting the box office.

In the mean time, the British Library has set up a discussion forum on Nature Network, so do have a look and contribute. It provides opportunities to discuss issues before and after the event, and also provides an opportunity for those who can’t attend to voice their opinions.

Genetic modification is now a well-established part of the food supply chain, with more than 13 million farms worldwide already growing GM crops. It remains however a highly controversial issue with far from universal acceptance, particularly in Europe. In the UK for instance, farmers do not grow GM, although GM crops are fed to British livestock. There is still significant concern about possible risks, and supermarkets in particular will not move away from their non-GM policies if people don’t want GM food.

In the context of food insecurity, climate change and population growth, do we need to look differently at GM? Is there any real need for it in the UK? Have all the possible risks and benefits been explored? These big questions appear to be increasingly at the forefront of debate. The Royal Society of Chemistry is hosting a debate at 6p.m. on Wednesday 2nd December entitled ‘Genetic Modification: Solution or Problem?’. Meanwhile on Tuesday 15th December at 5.30 pm the Parliamentary & Scientific Committee is hosting a debate at Westminster called ‘Come Back GM- All is Forgiven?’. If you would to attend this latter debate, which promises to offer a fascinating insight into Westminster thinking on the subject, please email us here.

An interesting piece in the New York Times (October 26th) explores whether ‘biotech foods can explore the world’. Six experts, from economics, agriculture and policy, deliver their views on whether GM provides an answer to projected food shortages. The United Nations estimates that the number of people hungry worldwide could surpass 1 billion this year. Can GM help to feed a growing population, in the context of climate change and environmental degradation?

Professor Paul Collier, University of Oxford and author of “The Bottom Billion”, believes that climate change has made the use of GM technology inevitable. Describing GM as akin to ‘nuclear power; nobody loves it’, Prof. Collier states that GM offers both faster crop adaptation and a ‘biological, rather than chemical’ approach to increasing yields. Professor Collier delivered the BES Lecture at this year’s BES Annual Meeting (September, University of Hertfordshire).

Vandana Shiva, founder of Navdanya, an NGO and movement of 500,000 seed keepers and organic farmers in India, argues that climate resilient traits don’t have to come from genetic engineering, citing artificial selection practised by farmers for centuries as a means of creating these attributes. Describing seed banks, such as those maintained by Navdanya, as ‘biological capital for the green revolution’, Vandana Shiva states that society must create an ecological approach to boosting production and conserving resources, working with smallholder farmers.

Per Pinstrup-Anderson, Cornell University, sees science as playing a key role in helping farmers to grow more food, without damaging natural resources: “Science must be put to work to develop drought tolerance and pest resistance in crops, higher nutrient quality of staple foods, reduced animal diseases, mitigation of negative climate change effects and a host of other solutions to the current food losses and risks facing farmers and consumers in developing countries.” He sees GM technology, used appropriately, as part of this science-led solution.

Raj Patel, a fellow of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, believes that GM crops may not necessarily be the answer, citing a report prepared by a task-force led by Professor Robert Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor at Defra and previously Chief Scientist at the World Bank. “Agriculture at a Crossroads”, produced by 400 experts between 2005-2008, expressed concern that GM had failed to show promise and stressed that to feed the world, political and technological change are necessary. ‘Agroecology’ is one of the farming techniques endorsed by the report – building soil, insect and plant ecology. Mr Patel expresses disappointment that agroecology has not been endorsed by Governments, suggesting this may be because it is not lucrative for big business.

Finally, Jonathan Foley, University of Minnesota, expresses his view that the careful use of GM crops may be appropriate. How can civilisation double food production in the next 40 years, given continued population growth, increasing meat consumption and pressure from biofuels? We need to reduce the environmental impact of our farming methods, which have caused widespread damage to soils, ecosystems, watersheds and the atmosphere. Jonathan Foley suggests that society needs to find a ‘third way’, borrowing from ‘organic and local’ and ‘globalised and industrialised’ systems. A new ‘hybrid solution’ which boosts productivity, conserves resources and builds a more scalable and sustainable agriculture is necessary. Incorporating GM crops which use less water and require less fertiliser could be a part of this.

Original article: New York Times, 26 October 2009

Summary from: SciDev.net, 2 November 2009

After quite a few years in the background after talk of ‘Frankenstein foods’ and the suchlike, genetically-modified (GM) crops appear to be re-emerging onto the political agenda. Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, has said that the only way the world will produce the 50 per cent more food required to feed the growing population by 2030 is to grow more crops on less land by using the latest scientific innovation, and that GM will have to be a part of the solution. “This is such a problem that you cannot say we will not use GM technology – that would be really unwise,” he said at a global food summit organised by CABI, an environmental research centre.

His comments come as a new Royal Society report, entitled ‘Reaping the Benefits: Towards a Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture’, also recommends GM crops to tackle the impending food crisis. Furthermore, the first trial in a year was recently re-started in Leeds, with the Government’s support, and a recent report on food security from the Defra backed further research into the technology.

It thus seems likely that public debate over GM in the UK may soon be restarted.