www.czu.cz ; www.usab-tm.ro ; www.raupp.info

People taking part in research published by the Biotechnology Commission
[AEBC]* think that non-food crops could play an important role in the future
of UK agriculture, as long as the benefits can be clearly demonstrated. The
Commission has carried out an in-depth study of public attitudes towards
non-food agriculture ? a set of agricultural activities ranging from
producing ethanol from crops to use as fuel for cars to ?pharming? plants
modified to produce new medicines ? and the use of biotechnology in it,
April 2005.

The study, a public engagement exercise conducted for the Commission by
the consultants Corr Willbourn through a series of workshops and seminars in
urban and rural parts of the UK, found that many people felt that non-food
farming might be acceptable if it helped to protect the environment and
provide a boost for British farmers. But when possible roles for
biotechnology in non-food agriculture were discussed, many felt strongly
that it could be a ?back-door? route for the introduction of GM crops into
the UK, which they did not welcome.

When the study began, most people taking part did not know what non-food
agriculture involved. After examining individual case studies and discussing
the issues with people working in the field there was a general feeling that
there were advantages to be gained but a strong desire for the supposed
benefits to be examined very closely, including looking at potential
alternatives and the impact on jobs, health, the countryside and the wider
environment. Environmental values, and a desire to act more sustainably,
were notable.

GM ? which was what most understood by ?biotechnology? - became a dominant
issue in the study despite the fact that many non-food uses of crops do not
require it, and other applications of biotechnology exist. There was a
strong cynicism about the motives behind using GM in non-food agriculture.
People were only interested in cultivating GM crops if they considered the
potential benefit overwhelming ? such as a cure for cancer or HIV-AIDS.
Objections to the use of GM organisms within tightly controlled laboratory
conditions were less strong, and people generally felt that GM research
should continue.

The study also showed great concern for the traditional British countryside,
which was thought to be under threat from many different pressures and ? to
a lesser degree ? concern for the future of farmers who were seen as the key
to the survival of the countryside. People appreciated that some
developments were inevitable but they wanted to see the growth of housing
estates, out of town shopping centres and road building kept to a minimum.

*Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Biotechnology Commission was set up in July 2000 to provide
Government with independent strategic advice on developments in
biotechnology and their implications for agriculture and the environment. It
reports to Ministers in the UK Government and the administrations in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

2. The Biotechnology Commission would have normally used the study as a
starting point to do more of its own analysis. Since the Commission is being
wound up at the end of April, this will not be possible, but the Commission
hopes that policy makers and others involved in non food agriculture,
biotechnology, and also in rural affairs more generally will consider the
study?s findings and carry them forward.

3. The Commission undertook a series of individual case studies (Appendix 4
of the report) as specific examples of how non?food agriculture could be
employed and the kind of issues it might raise. They included:

Bioethanol
Building materials
Dental caries and non-food agriculture
Dutch Elm disease resistant trees
Energy crops ? short rotation coppice willow and poplar
HIV microbes
Packaging materials
Phytoremediation of organic pollutants

[www.aebc.gov.uk]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail