Scientists working at Rothamsted Research have issued a plea to campaigners not to destroy a trial crop of genetically modified wheat being grown at the institute in Hertfordshire.

Anti-GM campaigners have threatened to ‘decontaminate’ the field where the wheat is being grown. The wheat, given the more palatable nickname ‘whiffy wheat’ by researchers keenly aware of the negative regard in which the British public hold GM, has been engineered to deter aphids by releasing a hormone which the pests read as an alarm signal and attracts wasps and ladybirds, their natural predators.

Yesterday, a team of Scientists sent an open letter and released a Youtube video pleading with would-be decontaminators to stay their hands on the day of “mass action against genetically modified wheat” scheduled for 27thMay and engage with scientists instead. They said, "We do not see how preventing the acquisition of knowledge is a defensible position in an age of reason."

Scientists appeal to protesters ‘as environmentalists’

The scientists claim they have “identified a way of getting the plant to repel aphids, using a natural process that has evolved in mint and many other plants,” and their work has been “simply adding this into the wheat genome to enable it to do the same thing.” 

They claim the plant could reduce pesticide use and crop losses to insect pests, and therefore has implications for food security; however, opponents in the Take the Flour Back protest group have said the trial represents a clear risk to farming and questioned the crop’s environmental credentials.

Take the Flour Back has pointed out that, as is the case with Roundup Ready crops in the United States, where cross contamination with wild plants and growing resistance to glyphosate in weeds are causing problems for farmers in a country where between 70 and 90 per cent of staple crops are GM glyphosate resistant varieties, aphids will develop resistance to the hormone, leaving farmers back at square one. Initially, Roundup Ready crops were touted as a means to reduce pesticide use, which poses perhaps the most severe threat to biodiversity around the world, although problems with resistance have led to an increasing use of agricultural chemicals.

The protesters have also claimed that researchers involved in the trial will sell their wheat variety, the development of which has been publicly funded, to agribusinesses for profit, though the Rothamsted researchers deny this and assure they will keep their work open source. In their letter they state the variety will “Not be patented and will not be owned by any private company. If our wheat proves to be beneficial we want it to be available to farmers around the world at minimum cost,"

Results will be freely available

Rothamsted told Farming Online today that for this particular experiment, the results will be freely available as soon as practicable after the experiments are completed. Data will published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated via other relevant media. The ideas have not been and cannot be patented due to the fact that we have previously discussed them in various publications.

Many people oppose GM principally because much of the technology is the ‘intellectual property’ of transnational corporations, who guard their products jealously. Environmentalists have hotly contested the patenting of living organisms.    

Disagreement over ‘cow genes’

There has been much contention over the use of a gene more similar to that of a cow than a wheat plant in the GM wheat. Rothamsted researchers have accused Take the Flour Back of misinformation over its publicity material, which makes much of the ‘cow gene.’ However, a spokesperson for the protest group said, “What’s interesting is that this ‘most similar to that of a cow’ statement comes from Rothamsted scientists themselves; this is the first use of a synthetic gene in the UK and they have changed tack with this ‘whiffy wheat’ angle. You can’t call for a full and frank debate and only give people half the information.”

He continued, “We are generally supportive of Rothamsted’s work, particularly the work they have done on push-pull technologies,” however, the spokesperson said that the novel wheat is driving agriculture in the wrong direction and concluded, “This is a symptom of unsustainable agriculture.”

Take the Flour Back claims research funding that has gone into developing the controversial GM wheat would have been better spent on research into long-term, sustainable solutions to problems facing food producers. Current uses of GM technologies have been described by Canadian food policy writer Michael Pollan as “Band-aids on monocultures,” who suggests agroecological methods would benefit humans and the environment.   

However, the Rothamsted researchers said in their appeal that, like those currently objecting to their trial, they believe “agriculture should seek to work with nature rather than against it” and that their GM wheat has a part to play in agricultural development. They claim to have written the letter in part to avoid “a situation where only the big corporations can afford the drastic security precautions needed to continue biotechnology research”.

Update, 16:47

Anti-GM campaigners from the group Take the Flour Back have responded to the Rothamsted scientists appeals by inviting them to discuss concerns over the wheat. The protest group said it would like to engage with the scientists "on neutral ground, with a neutral chairperson, for an open exchange of opinions and concerns." The group went on to accuse the scientists of not adhering to the EU's precautionary principle in its research and reiterate its position and its intention, claiming the wheat poses a threat to the surrounding envirnoment.

In its statement, Take the Flour Back repeated that "Agro-ecological farming practices are more productive than GM and industrial agriculture, and that they ensure the health of humans, ecosystems, livelihoods and food security. The value of their work to revive seed diversity, farmers’ rights, indigenous knowledge, organic agriculture techniques, and local markets" and concluded "When a powerful minority threatens democratically expressed wishes of the majority, direct action becomes necessary."

The Rothamsted researchers’ video appeal is available below

Tweet