Ian Henderson calls for talks on GM crops

The move late last year by the European Union to allow a small level of genetically modified crop in much larger shipments of animal feed has been called both "brilliant and pathetic"

- the first because there is an acceptance that the 0.1 per cent of GM material that is now allowed does not decimate the value of the overall shipment and the second because the permitted level is so low.

Recalling the description this week, David Caffall, the chief executive of the Agricultural Industries Confederation that represents trades ancillary to the farming industry, said it was a significant breakthrough after years where the slightest speck of GM dust could see boatloads of animal feed turned away from EU ports.

Looking to the future, the AIC chairman of the Scottish region, Ian Henderson, said he was surprised that none of the main political parties in the Scottish Parliamentary election even mentioned GM technology in their manifestos.

Speaking in Edinburgh, he stated this would not prevent AIC raising the issue with whoever forms the new government after 5 May.

Possibly at the back of the minds of the AIC office bearers in raising the GM issue was a report published this week showing the worldwide benefits arising from the growing of GM crops.

"Biotech crop adoption continues to contribute to reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, decreasing pesticide spraying and significantly boosting farmers' incomes, especially in developing countries," said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics.

"The technology has also made important contributions to increasing crop yields, reducing risks, improving productivity and raising global production of key crops"

According to the report, on a worldwide basis pesticide spraying in the period 1996 to 2009 has been reduced by 8.7 per cent and herbicide tolerant biotech crops have helped introduce minimum or no tillage production systems in many regions, especially South America.

This has made important contributions to reducing soil erosion and improving soil moisture levels as well as reducing carbon losses through ploughing up land.

In financial terms, the report reckons the net economic benefit at farm level prices amounted to $10.8 billion in 2009, equivalent to adding 4.1 per cent to the value of global production of the four main biotech crops of soybeans, corn, canola and cotton.

Countering one of the main arguments against the introduction of GM technology, the report works out that it costs farmers in developing countries some 18 per cent of the total benefits arising from using GM crops.

This was only half the cost to farmers in developed countries, explained by the weaker provision and enforcement of intellectual property rights and higher benefits in developing countries.

The report also estimates that without GM technology, additional land equivalent to 7 per cent of the cropped acreage in the US would have had to be brought into production.