Hansard

We have just to take a quick flick through the farming press to see a mixture of headlines: some good, some bad, some dramatic and some extremely worrying. This debate would go on for hours if we were to do justice to each and every issue. There is no doubt that Scottish farmers and crofters are facing more challenges than any of us would prefer to see. Although most sectors in the agriculture industry can take the rough with the smooth and struggle through when times are hard, sections of the industry are close to becoming simply not viable any more.

As we know, the dairy industry is on its knees. I grew up on a dairy farm in the 1960s and 70s, and my heart goes out to the dairy farmers, who must be wondering whether the situation can possibly get any worse. It is hard to envisage a worse scenario than the nightmare that dairy farmers find themselves in, but we see announcement after announcement from the processors that lower the prices even further. We know that our dairy industry is at the mercy of the global dairy markets, which are experiencing significant volatility. Milk supply continues to outstrip demand globally, partly because improvements in technology are making production more efficient, and we are hearing reports that dairy farms in Scotland were losing on average of around £200 a day in August.

When the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Phil Hogan, called in for a chat with our Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee before going to the Royal Highland Show in the summer, my colleague Mike Russell and I asked him about European Union intervention on the milk price. During the discussion, Commissioner Hogan stated:

“I have tools such as export refunds and private storage aid that I can use to intervene.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, 18 June 2015; c 15.]

Thankfully, there is now talk of intervention, but we must wait and see whether the European Commission is willing to go that extra kilometre to help ensure that our dairy farmers survive. Each and every one of us can intervene by doing our own wee bit—for example, by demanding that coffee chains such as Costa and Starbucks use Scottish milk. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, they do not do so at the moment.

I am grateful to the NFUS for providing in advance of the debate a briefing that raises some salient points. However, its disappointment about the Scottish Government’s stance on GM food cannot and should not go unchallenged. In that regard, I note that Alex Fergusson’s amendment on behalf of the Conservatives

“regrets the Scottish Government’s decision to rule out the cultivation of GM crops.”

I therefore make no apology for concentrating on GM, despite it being covered by previous speakers. It is clear to me that the Scottish Government’s sole objective in banning GM crops is to protect Scotland’s clean, green status. I am glad that the First Minister and the cabinet secretary took the decision in August to restate our Government’s precautionary approach to the cultivation of GM crops in Scotland.

Our reputation for producing high-quality, natural food and drink has resulted in Scotland’s food and drink sector being worth over £14 billion. Allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would jeopardise the integrity of our world-class brand and gamble with its future. Our policy on GM crops must be based on what is best for our environment, Scottish agriculture and the wider Scottish economy. I hope that we can have a parliamentary debate on the GM crop ban at some point in the not too distant future, but I challenge now Alex Fergusson’s assertion that the decision on the GM crop ban was made without taking any scientific advice.

We do not have to look far in the press or on the internet to find grand claims being made for genetically modified crops. We are told that they increase yields and profits for farmers, decrease reliance on agrichemicals and improve human and animal nutrition and healthcare, and that they could coexist happily with organic and other GM-free crops. We are assured time and again that GM crops have been proven safe, often to the point where anyone who dares oppose them can be vilified for impoverishing farmers and starving the hungry.

However, when those claims are scrutinised, a very different picture emerges. A study commissioned by the United States Department of Agriculture found that the impacts of the adoption of GM crops on farm finances in the US were mixed and in some cases even negative. In the developing world, away from the energy and chemical-intensive inputs that typify the systems that GM crops were developed for, the picture is even bleaker. Yield reductions and outright crop failure caused by the inability of the GM crops to adapt to local conditions and agricultural practices have been coupled with the soaring cost of GM seed, which cannot be saved for replanting. There are also rising pesticide prices.

In addition, rather than reducing the farmers’ reliance on pesticides, herbicide-tolerant plants increase the use of herbicides. The emergence and rapid spread of pesticide-tolerant weeds and pests has further increased herbicide use, with farmers having to rely on ever more complex, toxic and costly mixtures to control their weeds.

In 2009, a study of pesticide use during the first 13 years of GM crop commercialisation in the US reported that the emergence and rapid spread of glyphosate—Roundup—resistant weeds was the main driver behind a rapidly growing gulf in pesticide use between GM and conventional varieties. On average, fields that are sown with GM varieties require 26 per cent more pesticides.

In September 2013, I attended an event in Parliament hosted by my colleague Jean Urquhart MSP on a study by Professor Séralini into the chronic toxicity of genetically modified maize and pesticides. At that meeting was Danish pig farmer lb Borup Pedersen, who switched from GMO-containing feed to GM-free feed in 2011 to see whether the health of his animals would improve. Overall he improved his profits by €69 per sow, despite GM-free feed costing more.

We will take no lectures from anyone on the requirement to take scientific advice. The proof is there. GMOs are not guaranteed to be safe.