January 10, 2011

Scientific significance in the UK should outweigh the term "GM"

The words "genetic modification" should be abandoned by farmers, agronomists and plant breeders because of the negative public reaction they bring in the UK, according to a plant scientist.

Developing terms such as "plant immunisation" or "vaccination" in the public consciousness would avoid the almost inevitably negative coverage that genetic modification received in the media, says Bill Clark, director of Broom's Barn Applied Crop Sciences.

"Scientists need to be much more careful about promoting their science and they need media training so that they can manage the way their science is promoted. All too often, scientists are lulled by the media into promoting the bizarre, talking about jellyfish genes and genes from spiders being incorporated into plants and animals - whilst completely failing to explain any benefits.

"They use inappropriate language, concentrate too much on the science without thinking about benefits and end up falling into the trap of scaring the general public," Clark told delegates at the Oxford Farming Conference on January 6.

Plant breeders and the crop protection industry had managed to double average yields of wheat in great leaps; from just over two tonnes per hectare in the 1940s to four tonnes per hectare in the 1960s. In recent years, this has increased to over eight tonnes per hectare, Clark said. However, the current pace of yield improvement was unlikely to lead to anything more than small, incremental improvements in cereal yields.

"To begin to tackle the targets imposed by global population growth, we must be more radical than just tinkering with inputs. To meet a production target of 50% yield increase by 2030 we need to alter the fundamental biology of the crop.

"Much of the technology to produce much higher yields is currently scientifically possible, but is not being applied as much of it relies on genetic modification procedures," Clark said.

"The confusion around the use of the term 'GM' is undoubtedly a hindrance to progress. For example, should food from soy be labelled 'GM' if it has been genetically engineered to have a gene from another soy plant? Or only when it has a gene from another plant species?"

Clark said that in the efforts to increase food production to meet a growing population and a changing climate, all technologies should be adopted, provided they were safe and sustainable. "The concept of 'sustainable intensification' of agricultural production should be accepted and promoted - growing the highest yields possible on the least amount of land, while protecting valuable biodiversity elsewhere."