Skip navigation
Contact No's - ROI 048 3755 1260  NI   028 3755 1260

GM balance

Professor Carlo Leifert (Letters, 20 August) claims there is no commercial benefit to farmers for using GM crops.

The largest GM crop meta-analysis, published in Public Library of Science (PLoS) in 2014, shows that GM technology adoption has reduced pesticide use by 37 per cent, increased crop yields by 22 per cent and increased farm profits by 68 per cent.

It is no surprise that, being a member of the organic (ecological) community that ideologically rejects biotechnology, he claims that GM food safety testing is in some unspecified way flawed, something independent scientific opinion rejects outright. But this claim is an attempt to divert attention from the failings of the organic industry.

In Hamburg in 2011, 54 died and thousands suffered kidney damage, usually permanent, from eating organic seedlings. In 1996 a well-reported case established both infant death and injury from eating organic parsley.

Other cases of contamination and sickness from animal manure are to be found in the medical literature. Not one single case of hazard has yet to be placed at the foot of GM crops, a tribute to the years of investigation such crops receive before use.

Herbicide-resistant GM crops enable farmers to use no-till agriculture whose GHG emissions are half that of organic agriculture and whose wild life diversity surpasses that of any organic farm.

The Eco-modernist Manifesto exposes low-yielding agriculture as simply land wasting, used to fulfil a flawed ideology that can never approach the need that university scientists like myself see as provision of sufficient food for the projected nine billion to come by 2050.

GM technology is a component of sustainable intensification and good scientific enterprise uses all safe technologies without prejudice something the organic community has yet to learn.

(Prof) Tony Trewavas FRS FRSE

Scientific Alliance
 Scotland

Current Issues


Future costs of UK energy supply

The Scientific Alliance recently published part 1 of an examination of National Grid's Future Energy Scenarios, dealing with security of supply. We are now pleased to publish part 2 - cost of supply. The authors - Dr Capell Aris and Colin Gibson - conclude that building more gas and nuclear stations would be considerably less expensive than any of the NG scenarios, as well as offering better energy security.

What's New

14 October 2016: Read the new report by Dr Capell Aris, published jointly with the Adam Smith Institute - Solar power in Britain: the Impossible Dream