I WONDER if the GM question – to be or not to be? – will ever be settled. In the past few weeks there has been some pretty harsh name calling, from Luddites for the antis to science buffs for the pros.
Long-term readers may recall my first encounter with GMs when I invited to ‘help’ with a corn harvest in Minnesota in the early 1990s. Following my long-into-the-night discussions with my well-informed American farmer friend, I judged at that time that the GM train had left the station and would not stop until it reached its destination, although it may pause along the way.
It’s about 10 years since the initials GM first leapt into the headlines in the UK when, in 1998, geneticist Arpad Puszagtai claimed that rats had suffered various side effects resulting from eating GM potatoes. This research was proved to be significantly flawed and its validity questioned, but it was sufficient to spark off the on going debate about the possible costs and benefits of GM.
GM crops generally fall into two categories, herbicide resistant (immune to specific weed killers) and pest-resistant (contain compounds in their leaves toxic to certain pests). GM technology has further advanced into areas of great advantage to include, for example, drought-resistance and making farmed fish grow faster.
You are, no doubt, well aware of the statistics regarding the exploding population and the need for increased food production. It is predicted that by 2050, the world population will have grown to abut 9.2 billion, roughly 2.5 billion more than today (and a figure equal to the world population in 1950). So, global food production needs to increase accordingly.
Where does GM come into this, I hear you ask? It’s a big subject, and we are not short of statistics to prove almost anything, but a quick look at an often-quoted survey conducted by PG Economics covering the 10 years from 1996-2006 provides a few pointers. The findings suggested GM crops needed less tilling and spraying and less tractor work, indeed the reduced fuel consumption in one year was equivelant to removing 25% of cars from Britain’s roads for a year. Pesticide use also fell by the equivalent of 40% of what EU farmers typically spray on their arable crops each year.
During the 10 years of the study, costs fell, yields rose and farmers incomes increased by an estimated £15 billion, mostly to the benefit of nine million farmers in developing countries that were harvesting GM crops. The survey said that had the farmers not planted GM, millions more acres of land would have been ploughed up and food prices would have been higher.
Currently, 114 million hectares of land worldwide – almost seven times the size of Britain’s farm land – is planted with GM crops.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no widely accepted evidence that existing GM foods are harmful to human health. American citizens have consumed GM produce for some years and I have not heard or read of anyone having suffered any ill effects.
But, like the badger problem, it is a politically hot modified potato led by media hysteria, so the train has paused. Only the EU now restricts the importation and growth of GM material to a small number of crops, and then only for use as animal feed. But with pressure growing, partricularly from the World Trade Organisation, how long can it last?

Brazilian beef mystery
Last month I received information from Agra FNP, the publisher of the Brazilian Meat Monitor, an official publication of the Brazilian Meat Industry. I read how Brazil, on reduced pastureland, is to strengthen its position as the world’s leading beef exporter during the next 10 years.
This reminded me that in the June issue of Farmers Guide, in this column, I wrote of four MEPs, including two from England, that were to visit Brazil to discuss beef exports to the EU.
I enquired at the time whether they would see how the Brazilians moved their cattle from one unlicensed farm to another, changing their ear tags as they go? I added that a report from the EU Food and Veterinary Office, resulting from a visit in November 2007 had more than justified its call for a ban on Brazilian Beef after the inspection found systematic failures in relation to holding registration animal identification movement controls and the non guarantee of excluding animals slaughtered from non-approved FMD areas for export to the EU.
My report also included the view of NFU Livestock Board Chairman Alistair Mackintosh who said a ban on Brazilian Beef should have been introduced much earlier and added: “One of our main competitors has been allowed to operate to lower standards of traceability than that of home producers. It makes my blood boil to see this report highlighting deficiencies in Brazilian controls.
It is interesting to note that at that time, only 95 UK producers were certified to export to the EU, less than 1%.
So, if the intention of the EU Agricultural Committee’s Brazil visit in April was as previously described, why was Brazil’s Agricultural Minister for Livestock and Supply, Reinhold Stephanes, reported as saying in February 2008: “The European Union’s decision to re-open its market to Brazilian exports is a positive sign, which re-establishes confidence in the traceability system”.
He confirmed that 106 rural establishments had been authorised to export bovine meat to the EU, adding that other establishments would also be authorised.
It appears that all the time EU inspectors, supported by our NFU, were calling for a ban, the EU had already given its approval to the continuation of Brazilian beef imports. By the time of the April visit by the EU agricultural delegation, the issue was not ‘should we’, but ‘how much’!

Record borrowings
I see that the UK agriculture borrowing figures have reached an all-time high, having broken the £10 billion mark for the first time, according to figures released last month by the Bank of England. In the quarter to June 2008, borrowing grew £512 million or 5.02%, bringing the total national lending to the farming industry up to £10.19 billion. This compares with £9.44 billion at the same time in 2007, an increase of 7.37%. Deposits are down £148 million from the previous quarter, taking the value of deposits held by UK farmers to £4.87 billion.
The Agricultural Director for Lloyds TSB, Paul Spence, said these figures brought the issues facing the industry into sharp focus.
“Despite significantly increased market prices for most agricultural products during the past 12 months, debt has risen,” he said. “This clearly reflects the massive increase in input costs that is impacting on cash flow and profitability.”
Mr Spence added that many overdrafts have been extended to cope with increased input prices and tighter credit terms from suppliers, particularly fertiliser. Forward purchasing as a hedge against further cost inflation had also increased.
“The concern must be whether output prices remain high enough to enable satisfactory profits to be generated over the coming year,” he said. “We have already seen grain prices falling back significantly. If businesses are locking into input costs they must also consider locking into forward sales contracts where possible, to secure a profit margin.”

Bluetongue vaccination
As we reach the first anniversary of the arrival of Bluetongue, and the start of the ‘Midge season’, farmers are being urged to vaccinate their livestock to stop the disease taking hold in the UK, like it has on the Continent. So far this year, France has reported 4,453 cases, including one at Calais, and last month the Netherlands confirmed it first case this year in an unvaccinated cow.
The Jab campaign, set up by agricultural organisations to promote vaccination, has said the number of cases being reported across Europe shows the disease is on the move. Nearly 19 million doses of vaccine have already been made available to English farmers, and with another nine million doses planned to be released in the coming weeks, Jab is urging farmers in areas that are new to the protection zone to vaccinate as soon as they are able.

And finally
Geoff enjoyed his work as a coach driver, particularly when taking senior citizens out on their day-out jollys to the seaside.
About an hour into one journey, he felt a tap on his shoulder and a lady offered him a handful of peanuts. As he was partial to peanuts, he accepted them gratefully.
Then, about an hour later, came another handful, which he also enjoyed.
This became a regular, almost hourly, event. On the fifth handful, he said to the lady: “Thank you, but why don’t you eat them yourselves?”
“Oh we like them OK, but our teeth won’t allow us,” the lady said, adding “but we like the chocolate that’s around them.”