Meeting of the Parliament 23 September 2015
What is agriculture for? Well, we must try to feed Scots. It has been suggested that we must have an agriculture that tries to feed the world, but the world wastes so much food that I think that we should give closer consideration to the issue of what agriculture should be doing and how it should be doing it.
I am extremely concerned about the fact that, in their motion, the Conservatives mention
“the Scottish Government’s decision to rule out the cultivation of GM crops without having taken any scientific advice or debate on the potential benefits of biotechnology”.
There is scientific knowledge—significant bodies of research raise large question marks about the long-term effects of genetically modified organisms. Eighty per cent of the crops that are currently approved rely on glyphosate, which is a non-selective pesticide that the World Health Organization regards as a probable carcinogen. Another piece of evidence that we should not ignore is the fact that GM farmers in America face problems as a result of weeds becoming more prevalent, with the result that they need to spend more and more on different types of GM crops.
Vast amounts of research are funded by big agri-chemical businesses. Many in the scientific community rely on money from large GM firms to carry out the research that they want to do. They are doing that research not for the benefit of Scotland but because they know that GM firms are a large source of money. I suggest that that does not necessarily make for the best science.
Why, for example, are GM supporters spending hundreds of millions of pounds in America at present to prevent the labelling of food containing GM ingredients? What are they trying to hide? The examples that I have given all highlight scientific probes of the way in which the argument for GM has been laid before us.
Scotland has been joined by Germany, France, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Latvia, Greece and—just today—Austria in wanting to have clean green production. Those countries are not ignoring the science: they all know about the science.
I will focus on two groups of people who are looking closely at the science. Waitrose, in its conditions for feed in its protein divisions, states:
“the inclusion of vegetable protein ingredients must be of a non GMO origin and inclusion rates must not compromise animal welfare or the eating quality and nutritional value of the final raw product.”
The German Minister for Food and Agriculture was in South America recently, trying to find sources of non-GM soya. Waitrose has managed to do that, and the Germans are now looking for a source. Why are all the other supermarkets in Britain not taking the lead?
Sárpo potatoes are produced in a small trust—the Sárvári Research Trust—in north Wales. They are an excellent example of non-GM blight-resistant potatoes, and are available to gardeners. They have a high yield, deep rooting for good drought tolerance and vigorous weed-smothering foliage. Their carbon footprint is very low because they do not require all the dressings that other types of potatoes require. Does the trust get the cash from Monsanto and the like to develop the crop on a farm scale? No, it does not. That supports the argument that the science that backs GM very often involves—as the website foodtank.com said recently—“Dirty Money” supporting “Dirty Science”.
Becoming a good food nation is one of the major planks of the Government’s approach. Going back to my first question about what agriculture is for, it must be to ensure that people can get the food that they need to eat and be healthy, and to promote a healthy culture. Is that compatible with companies making big profits, given that genetic modification is seen as a means to do just that? I question that fundamentally.
There is no going back if GM crops are allowed into the ecosystem. It has been said before that GM, like nuclear power and fracking, is a short-term fix with long-term implications. The problems that we face at present must be addressed by looking at what we need to eat and what can be usefully sent to other people in a nutritious form that helps their health as well.
I urge members to reject the Tory amendment; to support the cabinet secretary‘s motion; and to recognise that the GM bogey must be dismissed out of hand.
15:23