Behind the GM Wheat Trial

Crucial information omitted from public discussion discredits the public-funded research institute: it has close ties to industry, the GM crop has not been molecularly characterized or tested for potential risks to health or the environment, it...

June 12, 2012 | Source: Institute of Science in Society | by Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page.

Crucial information omitted from public discussion discredits the public-funded research institute:  it has close ties to industry, the GM crop has not been molecularly characterized or tested for potential risks to health or the environment, it carries genes for antibiotic resistance and tolerance to glufosinate, a herbicide banned in Europe, and the anti-aphid trait on trial is very likely to be ineffective.

Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website. If you find this report useful, please support ISIS by subscribing to our magazine Science in Society, and encourage your friends to do so. Or have a look at the ISIS bookstore for other publications

Rothamsted Institute in Hertfordshire, UK, has begun an open-air GM wheat trial that is re-energising the country’s debate on genetically modified (GM) crops. The crop has been engineered to produce an aphid ‘alarm’ pheromone that aims to repel the aphid pests from the crop and/or attract aphid predators.

Despite the media hype, there has been no critical analysis of the scientific or political rationale behind the project. The huge PR campaign headed by the lobby group Sense About Science has successfully confused the public and obscured the facts. Meanwhile, Rothamsted is pressing for debates with GM sceptics in an attempt to convince the public that the GM technology is based on environmental principles, and is needed to feed a starving world. But evidence of the technology’s effectiveness, safety and potential non-private beneficiaries is conspicuously lacking. The inclusion of a herbicide tolerance (see below) trait in the crop – not disclosed to the public – also discredits the institute’s claims of being “environmentalists” with aims to promote sustainable agricultural practices and reduce chemical use.