EnviroSpin Watch

What a relief - back to climate change!

How nice to leave those jolly GMs for a moment and to return to the hoary old topic of climate change. Here is a highly recommended piece from The Wilson Quarterly by Jack M. Hollander, Professor Emeritus of Energy and Resources at the University of California, Berkeley: 'Rushing to judgment'. Enjoy - it sorts out a lot of the confusion between politics and the science. Meanwhile, I will rush for a coffee. Philip.

Greenwashing those headlines....

A friend and very fine science writer has pointed out to me the following unsubtle changes in yesterday's headlines as the green lobby got to work on gullible (willing?) environmental reporters over the Farm Scale Evaluations: "Mixed results show that some GM crops benefit the environment'' became very swiftly "Disaster for environment. Maize only good because farmers use banned atrazine on conventional crop.'' Classic spinning. See post below for an analysis of today's newspaper coverage. Philip.

Friday Media Responses to those Farm Scale Evaluations - from (no stars) to (******)

Today we build on the Thursday reponses to the Farm Scale Evaluations (see post below). The latter were mainly news broadcasts; now, of course, we are dealing with broadsheet newspaper coverage. And the science really does sort the sheep from the goats, rags that are little more than green propaganda from careful, nuanced analysis. The range is surprisingly great, from outstanding to a sheer disgrace. Here is a reminder of the judging criteria:-

I rate each media report according to the following criteria, giving them from no stars( ) to (******):-

a. do they report the significant finding that there was greater variation between the conventional crops than between conventional and GM crops?
b. do they stress that the results are only applicable to the three crops studied?
c. do they stress that the results are only applicable under the regimes of herbicide usage employed?
d. do they stress, like the Royal Society, that each new application of GM crop technology should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, using a rational evidence-based approach?
e. do they stress that the amounts of herbicide used, and when it was applied, were recorded and compared well with current commercial practice for conventional crops, and the industry-recommended guidelines for application to GMHT crops, and that, generally, GMHT crops were found to receive less herbicide, later in the season, than the conventional crops?
f. do they avoid the use of emotive language and quotations, and especially wild generalisations that these tests either totally vindicate GM crops or totally condemn them?

In addition today, because they are more easily comparable than running news broadcasts, the reporting is ranked according to how far the newspapers have clearly spun the science for the emotive hype:

Top: Science most nuanced and least spun for emotive hype

The Daily Telegraph: for once, way ahead of the pack. Nuanced and careful, and largely avoiding hype. Unspun by the absolutely ruthless green lobby. Worth quoting from the opening of its Leader:-

"The results of country-wide trials of GM crops do not show that they are dangerous. All they show is that GM beet and spring rape crops encourage fewer weeds to grow than conventional crops. And, in fact, when it comes to GM maize, more weeds grow than with conventional maize. So, with two out of three of the tested crops, genetic modification seems to do exactly what its fans claim: make healthier crops with greater yields."

(******) Bravo, top marks - and I never thought I would say that of the DT!

The Times: low key reporting. Not on the front page, and only on one page inside; neither leader nor op.ed. Although fairly lacklustre reporting, overall reasonably balanced. At least preferable to the breathless coverage of some newspapers (see below). (***)

The Financial Times: largely in The Times camp of low key comment and reporting, although not quite as balanced. Poor for the FT (especially yesterday's online report). On this issue, the FT is in danger of losing one of its stars (see post of October 9). (**)

The Guardian: out of all proportion: front page, two full inside pages, and leader. Breathless, strangely mixed reporting, with some semblance of balance (much better than The Independent - not difficult!). Overall, however, a classic Guardian exercise in outrageous and gleeful hyping while trying to seem balanced and 'scientific'. Hidden agendas all round, and fails on nearly all criteria. The photographs are pure ecohype. (**)

The Independent: well, what can one say? In a league of its own. Quite appalling - hardly distinguishable from unadulterated green propaganda. Fails on every criterion. A disgrace to science and to so excellent a report. Why my poor site exists. (no stars).

Bottom: Science entirely spun for emotive hype

The coverage in The Independent is why science is in so parlous a state in the UK. And, just think, newspapers accuse the government of spinning - a coal mine calling the kettle black!

And remember, you can vote on which UK broadsheet newspaper carries the most biased environmental reporting in the EnviroSpin Voting Booth - choose the relevant button in the Side Bar opposite.

Time for strong coffee - and I need it. Philip.

Media Responses to the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs)

Over the next few days, I shall post here links to media comments on the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) published today (for the full Royal Society press release, and access to the eight scientific papers involved, see the relevant posts below this one).

I will rate each media report according to the following criteria, giving them from no stars( ) to (******):-

a. do they report the significant finding that there was greater variation between the conventional crops than between conventional and GM crops?
b. do they stress that the results are only applicable to the three crops studied?
c. do they stress that the results are only applicable under the regimes of herbicide usage employed?
d. do they stress, like the Royal Society, that each new application of GM crop technology should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, using a rational evidence-based approach?
e. do they stress that the amounts of herbicide used, and when it was applied, were recorded and compared well with current commercial practice for conventional crops, and the industry-recommended guidelines for application to GMHT crops, and that, generally, GMHT crops were found to receive less herbicide, later in the season, than the conventional crops?
f. do they avoid the use of emotive language and quotations, and especially wild generalisations that these tests either totally vindicate GM crops or totally condemn them?

BBC Online News, Thursday, October 16: 'GM tests show danger to wildlife'. The headline is especially misleading and, for the BBC in particular, this should not have been allowed. Overall, for online written news, poor. (**)

BBC Lunchtime News at 1 pm, Radio 4, Thursday, October 16: this was far better balanced than the above, and, perhaps unusually, stressed clearly point (a) in the list of criteria. Good and careful reporting. (*****)

BBC News 24, 4.35 pm, Thursday, October 16: headlines poor and slightly misleading, although the report itself was better, with good points made about the results relating primarily to the herbicides in use and to farm management systems, rather than to GM crops as such. Again, surprisingly better than the BBC online written news. (****). The equivalent report on ITN News was, however, poor and emotive, with weighted use of language. (*)

Jeremy Vine Show, 12 noon, BBC Radio 2, Thursday, October 16: not heard by myself, but reported to me by a reliable witness as being very full and relatively balanced. Again, appears to have been much better than the BBC online news. (***)

Newsnight, 10.30 pm, BBC 2, Thursday, October 16: report just about acceptable (glorious pictures of Michael Meacher looking like Eeyore in his boggy place because he appeared to have been excluded from the Press Conference about the Farm Scale Evaluations - I thought it a nice touch from the Newsnight reporter giving him, the ex-Minister, a copy of the report). The following discussion was pretty lamentable with nobody much on form, even the redoubtable Jeremy P. None of the criteria for a good report dealt with satisfactorily, except, interestingly, by the current Minister, Elliot Morley. Overall, I should instead have gone to bed with a single malt. (**)

The Guardian hits a low point even for.....

Away from the discussion of the Farm Scale Evaluations of GM crops (see post below), it should not go unrecorded that The Guardian today hit a low point even for The Guardian. Its comment piece, entitled Innocents abroad?, is an extraordinary and quite gratuitous attack on the Gates Foundation, which has had the audacity to believe that there might be some benefit for the poor in developing GM agriculture (Bill Gates has donated $25m to fund GM research). The comment ends with a spectacular piece of patronising twaddle:

"Bill Gates's foundation appears the innocent newcomer to the mucky world of global malnutrition and food security. The trouble may be that his foundation's increasing influence on the world stage makes it a prime target for those who have an agenda well beyond the public good."

Well, well! The Guardian should know, shouldn't it? I say, "Great to see you trying to help, Bill, and thanks for placing some hope in science rather than in self-righteous trendy conspiracy theorists who really know how to thrash about in the 'mucky world'." And when did a journalist ever do a Norman Borlaug for humanity? Philip.

Truth Thursday:those Farm Scale Evaluations.....

10.31 am SEE BELOW FOR FULL DETAILS AND PRESS RELEASE

Today, and the next few days, will be a big test of science reporting and of truth-values in the British media. At 10.30 am BST this Thursday morning, the formal scientific results of the now much spun-against farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) of spring-sown genetically modified crops were place on the web site of the Royal Society, following publication in a themed issue of the Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, compiled and edited by L. G. Firbank. The farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) are of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops. The special issue presents the FSE findings for spring-sown beet, maize, and oilseed rape. The issue will comprise eight fully peer-reviewed papers on the effects of growing these crops and of the accompanying herbicides on the plants and animals living in and around the experimental fields. The papers compare and contrast the GM fields with conventional crops grown in adjacent fields.

I shall post on this site (BELOW IN SEQUENCE), throughout the day, relevant scientific material relating to the publication of this important scientific study so that visitors to my blog can read for themselves the results, without the taint of media spin. And be prepared - the spinning will be of a level which even No. 10 would envy!

Documents in order of appearance (updated as soon as material becomes available and I can access it):-

(a) Royal Society: Background Note

(b) Order a discounted copy (£45/US$70) of the Special Issue Report online at the Royal Society Shop
Press Release

(c) 10.30 am BST: HERE IS THE FULL PRESS RELEASE FROM THE ROYAL SOCIETY

Farm Scale Evaluations published today

Table of Contents and Full Text (here are the direct .pdf links to each chapter: Preface; Introduction; Paper 1; Paper 2; Paper 3; Paper 4; Paper 5; Paper 6; Paper 7; Paper 8 - for general details of each, see below).

To purchase the printed volume visit the Publications Shop, or contact our Sales Office (sales@royalsoc.ac.uk).

The publication today of the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) in Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, a journal of the Royal Society, reveals significant differences in the effect on biodiversity when managing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops as compared to conventional varieties. The study emphasises the importance of the weeds within crops in sustaining natural communities within and adjacent to farmer’s fields.

About 60 fields each were sown with beet, maize and spring oilseed rape. Each field was split, one half being sown with a conventional variety managed according to the farmer’s normal practice, the other half being sown with a GMHT variety, with weeds controlled by a broad-spectrum herbicide (glufosinate-ammonium in maize and spring oilseed rape, and glyphosate in beet). Comparisons in biodiversity were made by looking at the levels of weeds and invertebrates, such as beetles, butterflies and bees, in both the fields and the field margins immediately surrounding them.

A total of eight papers are published – two looking at the effects on weeds in the fields, two looking at the effects on invertebrates in the fields, one looking at weeds and invertebrates in the field margins and one looking at the effect of the contrasting herbicide regimes on both weeds and invertebrates as a whole. Another looks at the background to the study and the rationale for its design and interpretation and a final paper compares the management of the crops in the study with current conventional commercial practice to provide readers with contextual information against which the results should be considered.

Effects on weeds in fields(1,2)
The study showed significant and variable impacts of GMHT cropping in beet, maize and spring oilseed rape on the arable weeds when compared to current commercial practices. In GMHT beet and oilseed rape crops more effective weed control lead to the decline of the number of weed seeds left in the soil at the end of each growing season (known as the seedbank). Although this has been going on in cropped fields in Britain for many decades it could be accelerated by the management associated with these particular crops. In contrast, GMHT maize showed the opposite effect. Typically conventional maize has lower weed burdens because of the widespread use of persistent herbicides – the herbicide regimes used on the GMHT maize were not as effective at controlling the weeds.

In beet and oilseed rape, the densities of weeds shortly after sowing were higher in the GMHT treatment. This effect was reversed after the first application of broad-spectrum herbicide in the GMHT treatments. By the end of the season, the weight of weeds collected from a fixed area (biomass) and number of weed seeds falling to the soil (seed rain) in these GMHT crops were between one-third and one-sixth those of conventional treatments. The changes in seed rain affected the seedbank, resulting in seed densities about 20% lower in the GMHT treatments.

In maize the effect was different. Weed density was higher throughout the season in the GMHT treatment. Biomass was 82% higher and seed rain was 87% higher than in conventional treatment. However, this had no detectable effect on the seedbank as total seed return was low after both treatments.

Twelve of the most common weed species in the UK were examined. The biomass of six species in beet, eight in maize and five in oilseed rape were significantly affected. Generally, biomass was lower in GMHT beet and oilseed rape and higher in GMHT maize. Significant effects on seedbank change were found for four species of weed. However, for many species in beet and oilseed rape (19 out of 24 cases), seed densities were lower in the seedbank after GMHT cropping. These differences, if compounded over time, could result in large decreases in population densities of arable weeds. In maize, populations may increase.

Effects on invertebrates in fields (3,4)
Differences in GMHT and conventional crop herbicide regimes had a significant effect on the capture of most surface-active invertebrate species and larger groupings (higher taxa) in at least one crop, with most increases occurring in GMHT maize and most decreases occurring in GMHT beet and oilseed rape. One species of carabid beetle that feeds on weed seeds was less frequent in GMHT beet and oilseed rape, but more frequent in GMHT maize, showing how the numbers in some invertebrates tracked the amounts of food available to them.

Most higher taxa of invertebrates active on weeds and in the litter layer were little affected by the treatment. However, smaller numbers of butterflies were recorded in GMHT oilseed rape and smaller numbers of bees, butterflies and Heteroptera (‘true bugs’) were found in GMHT beet.

However, in all crops under GMHT management there were significantly more Collembola, a type of detritivore known as a ‘springtail’, which feeds on dead and decaying weeds. This is because the herbicides were applied later in the GMHT crops, and so weeds tended to be larger when killed, providing more food for these insects.

Effects on weeds and invertebrates in field margins (5)
Three components of field margins were sampled: the uncropped tilled area, the field verge (the grassy strip between the tilled land and the fence or hedgerow that forms the actual field boundary) and the boundary itself. In oilseed rape, the cover, flowering and seeding of plants were 25%, 44% and 39% lower, respectively, in the GMHT tilled margin. For beet, flowering and seeding were 34% and 39% lower in the GMHT margins. For maize, the effects were reversed, with plant cover and flowering 28% and 67% greater in the GMHT half. These results corresponded to the effects on weeds within the crops, because these plants had also been affected by the herbicide. Fewer, smaller effects were found in the verges and boundaries, and levels of herbicide damage were low.

24% fewer butterflies were counted in margins of GMHT oilseed rape, reflecting differences in the amount of flowers available. Few differences were found for bees, slugs and snails, or other invertebrates sampled in the field margins.

Effects on plants and invertebrate trophic groups (6)
The effect of GMHT cropping on the interaction between invertebrates with different feeding habits was studied by examining the relations between plants and the abundance of insects grouped according to their feeding preferences (trophic groups). The negative effect of GMHT cropping on weeds in beet and spring oilseed rape, and the positive effect in maize, resulted in similar changes higher up the food chain.

Where the weed flora was less abundant, there were fewer herbivores, pollinators and natural enemies (the insects which prey on the herbivores). Detritivores increased under GMHT management across all crops due to the greater input, later in the season, of dead weeds on which they feed. Compared to large differences through the season and between crop species, GMHT management imposed relatively small (less than twofold), but consistent, differences in the abundance of most trophic groups. The direction of change depended on how effective the herbicide was compared to conventional management.

Rationale and interpretation (7)
This paper provides the background information that was analysed to guide and interpret the FSEs. Previous surveys of soil, vegetation and field management were used to ensure that the chosen fields were typical and representative of commercial practice. Knowledge of the plants and invertebrates, and their sensitivity to the GMHT crop and herbicide, were used to guide the sampling plans applied to each field-half. Historical and recent changes in the buried, living weed seeds – the seedbank – were used to assess the initial diversity of sites and the longer term trends that might result from growing GMHT crops. Re-interpreting field experiments from the 1990s indicated that changes in management practice may cause large differences in biodiversity (e.g. a 50% difference). The experiment was designed to ensure that such differences between conventional and GMHT management would be detectable.

Crop management and wider UK context (8)
It was important that the crop management systems on the studied sites reflected the activities of farmers in the UK countryside. The locations of field sites and intensities of cropping had to represent the range found in the UK and this was found to be the case.

The amounts of herbicide used, and when it was applied, were recorded and compared well with current commercial practice for conventional crops, and the industry-recommended guidelines for application to GMHT crops.

Comparison of the amounts of herbicide applied with the density of weeds showed that farmers applied more herbicide when the density increased in beet and maize. Generally GMHT crops were found to receive less herbicide, later in the season, than the conventional crops.

Commenting on the results, Dr Les Firbank, Centre for Hyrdrology and Ecology, Merlewood, and co-ordinator of the project that submitted the papers, said:

“The results of these Farm Scale Evaluations reveal significant differences in the effect on biodiversity when managing genetically herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops as compared to conventional varieties. The study emphasises the importance of the weeds growing among crop plants in sustaining natural communities within, and adjacent to, farmer’s fields.”

“One of the key points to remember is that the results are only applicable to the three crops studied, and only under the regimes of herbicide usage which were employed. Each new application of GM crop technology must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, using a rational evidence-based approach.”

References:
Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. I. Effects on abundance and diversity
Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. II. The effects on individual species
Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. I. Soil-surface-active invertebrates
Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. II. Within-field epigeal and aerial arthropods
Invertebrates and vegetation of field margins adjacent to crops subject to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops
Responses of plants and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops
On the rationale and interpretation of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops
Crop management and agronomic context of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops

Notes for editors
Papers featured in this publication do not reflect the Society's views or policies.
Please acknowledge The Royal Society Philosophical Transactions B as the source for any item used.
The papers can be accessed free-of-charge here from 10.30am BST on Thursday 16 October.
Philosophical Transactions B is published by the Royal Society and publishes peer-reviewed research in all aspects of biology, including clinical science. Transactions publishes theme issues devoted to an area of advancing research and discussion meeting issues publishing proceedings of two-day scientific symposia led by the world’s leading researchers.
The research was undertaken by a consortium made up of The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Rothamsted Research and the Scottish Crop Research Institute. The work was overseen by a scientific steering committee made up of experts in the field. For more information go to: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse
An Advisory Board of internationally distinguished scientists and experts in the field was appointed to assist the Editor, Professor Semir Zeki. The Advisory Board also included eminent broadcaster Sir David Attenborough in order to maintain a broader perspective on the desirability of publishing the papers. The composition of the board was as follows:

Professor Dr Muhammad Akhtar FRS
Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Southampton; Director General of the School of Biological Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan; and Member of the Third World Academy of Sciences.

Sir David Attenborough CH FRS
Broadcaster.

Professor Roland Douce
Director of the Institute of Structural Biology, Grenoble, France; and Member of the French Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, USA.

Dr Gurdev Singh Khush FRS
Visiting Professor at the Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA, USA; former Director of the International Rice Research Institute; and Member of the American National Academy of Sciences, USA and recipient of the World Food Prize 1996.

Professor Daniel Simberloff
Director, Institute for Biological Invasions, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, TN, USA; and Member of the National Science Board (USA).

The Royal Society is an independent academy promoting the natural and applied sciences. Founded in 1660, the Society has three roles, as the UK academy of science, as a learned Society, and as a funding agency. It responds to individual demand with selection by merit, not by field. The Society’s objectives are to:

· strengthen UK science by providing support to excellent individuals
· fund excellent research to push back the frontiers of knowledge
· attract and retain the best scientists
· ensure the UK engages with the best science around the world
· support science communication and education; and communicate and encourage dialogue with the public
· provide the best independent advice nationally and internationally promote scholarship and encourage research into the history of science.

To speak with the authors or the Scientific Steering Committee, contact:
Becky Morelle
Science Media Centre
Tel: 020 7670 2980
Email: bmorelle@ri.ac.uk

For further information about the Royal Society and its publications, contact:
Tim Watson
Press and Public Relations
The Royal Society, London
Tel: 020 7451 2508
Email: tim.watson@royalsoc.ac.uk

Now look out for all that spinning..... Coffee time!

Philip

My! Isn't ecology hairy......

THE CONCERNED REPORTER
"Never Knowingly Underhyped"

Hair raising report "hopes to head off disaster"

by

Earnest Green, Our Pseudoscience Correspondent, London N1 PC1

Many cranial creatures, from head lice to scalp mites, are at risk from a worldwide loss of follicles, according to a World WorryWatch Institution (WWWI) Report, 'A Global Map of Follicular Ecosystems', issued today.

Some 17% of men are now bald, or have shaved off their hair, leading to a decline in important follicular habitats over the last 10 years. A spokesperson for the Royal Society of Our Feathered Friends (RSOFF) bewailed, "Bird populations are particularly threatened as old men are shedding their beards. They have no place to nest. Planning rules must be changed quickly to include proper bird 'follies' in all new beards."

Follicular ecosystems provide a key habitat for a range of other life, and benefit people by keeping their heads warm in winter, cool in summer, and shading their eyes and face. They further help to prevent too much run-off in heavy rain when not overgelled.

Global warming threat

There is also a severe worry that the worldwide loss of hair will increase 'global warming' and climate change, as the removal of follicles exposes a shining bald pate (often called a 'chrome dome') and thus alters the head albedo, that is, the way the scalp reflects incoming solar radiation back into the atmosphere. Indeed, there is clear evidence that football grounds are becoming overheated because of the increasing number of bald and balding players. One Premier League goalkeeper has complained that he is often blinded when trying to parry flying headers - "The lad's done well, but that last save wer' a close shave. It's our Number 1 problem," bemoaned his head coach, Tom Tash.

Professor Don Scratching of the Follicular Challenged Institute (FCI), Headington, Oxford, also points out that follicular ecosystems are under threat from nasty chemicals in shampoos, conditioners, gels, and dyes, not to mention insecticides, like 'LibertyLice'. "Combing through the recent scientific literature is really alarming," he says. And he is especially worried about fall out into domestic water systems, which can become clogged.

GM lice

Another urgent concern is the GM head lice now being trialled in schools to control overpopulations of the newly-introduced and aggressive SATS Louse, which is out of control. There are fears that these GM monsters might spread into other follicular habitats creating 'superbugs' that will wipe out natural populations. Blondie Curl of HeadWatch said that there is no way the government should approve the GM lice. "The project should be scratched for five years until much more research has been done," she argues.

The ex-Environment Minister, Bill Barber MP, who resigned when things came to a head in his Ministry earlier this year, agrees. "We know too little about these GM things - it could be the ultimate folly to let them loose. They could louse up the whole ecosystem. They might pass their genes into who knows what. And we shouldn't allow any patents on 'Frankenlice' either."

An Environment Ministry spokesperson said that the new lice were only being issued and monitored under strict licence. They envisaged no difficulties. The Ministry is now carrying out a regional survey of follicular ecosystems in the UK for the National Biodiversity Action Plan. They hope to root out any problems as soon as possible because it's worth it. The spokesperson also said that the loss of hair in men was being partly balanced by a marked increase in follicular volume in women. However, there was no guarantee that this would be a permanent wave.

Dr. Justin Toupee of the free-market thinktank, HeadCount, further cautions about jumping to oversimplistic conclusions, saying that we may simply be witnessing an artificial statistical artefact and that we must take into account the changing age profile of society, with many more men surviving into their seventies and eighties and losing their hair. "We also need to sample the changing numbers of follicles per pate (the Fp ratio), numbering the hairs on the head," he added.

But others want immediate action. "I hope we really can save these top ecosystems," said Lorna Doom of Worryworts, UK. "We need to cut off the problem quickly before we are all caput. This valuable fauna provides important ecological services and it could be hair today and gone tomorrow. We should also be deeply worried about our undernail flora and fauna."

From our cuttings: Filed October 14, 2003. Copyright 'The Concerned Reporter', 2003.

Ring any bells.....? This should be called 'Every Environmental Report You Have Ever Read'! Philip.

Warning for the Week.....

It has already started, and the scientific reports on the UK three-year GM trials (the farm-scale evaluations [FSEs]) aren't even published until this Thursday, October 16 (see 'Spoiling Science', below). Time to take all reporting on GM crops with a massive dose of ammonium glufosinate. Both the press and the broadcasting media are being blasted with pre-emptive strikes from green campaigners against the trials, whatever their outcome. Have your pick from the following:-

First, from a disappointingly-poor piece in the Church Times (October 10) (based to some extent on The Guardian's speculations scathingly criticised by the Royal Society!): "It is clear that the scope of the FSE findings will not be enough to finalise the debate." [Nothing ever would be!];

Secondly, for sugar beet and oil seed rape, it will be rumoured darkly that the trials have given these the thumbs down. [We actually have no idea and the science will be far more subtle, whatever the conclusions];

Thirdly, unfortunately, for maize, they don't think that this can be the case, so ... guess what? The trials will be presented as discredited because they were either wrongly executed or the EU-banning of the additional herbicide, atrazine, makes them invalid. The trials must thus be re-done completely before any decision on the commercialization of GM crops is taken, mustn't they (delay, delay, at all costs!)? But, for good measure, the government has wasted lots of money, hasn't it? [Even though the poor-old government was pressed to carry out the trials in the first place because of all the hype. It's amaizin'!];

Or, fourthly, whatever, - the trials are meaningless all round and they can tell you nothing, so GM can't be commercialized, can it? [Pity some of the experimental crops were vandalised by you lot then, isn't it?].

The envirospin will be ruthless, and, sadly, it will be uncritically pedalled by many media oulets, witness the dire Independent on Sunday, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, and, today, more depressingly, even The Financial Times and BBC News Online. And beware above all the dreaded Michael Meacher ........ from outside the tent. [For 'tis he! Remember he that initiated the trials when in office!];

So just keep those sceptical antennae waving - and wait until the science itself is published on Thursday. I will provide a link to the genuine articles as soon as I can. Then read them for yourself, and ignore the spin. Philip.

Non-PC Development Studies

From time-to-time on a Monday, I will suggest non-PC examination questions for dubious academic subject areas, like 'Development Studies' and 'Environmental Studies'. Here is the first:-

"'Fair trade' promotes dependence and relies on illogical economics and subjective notions of 'fairness' and 'equality' - such schemes are doomed to fail and they always do." (Adapted from: Stephen Hodgson, 'Fair Trade is Unfair', Unpersons Weblog, October 6). Discuss, with reference to at least THREE examples.

Firsts all round, I'm sure!

Chief Examiner Philip.

Spoiling Science

The attempts to discredit the science of the UK GM field trials before it is even published (on October 16: see my October 4 and 5 blogs below) have resulted in some of the worst examples of science reporting I have seen in the British media. They are nothing short of a national disgrace, and newspapers like the Independent on Sunday have sunk to levels which even I thought unlikely.

I am, however, especially worried by the following report on BBC News Online (Science/Nature, October 12), which should know better: 'Flawed GM tests must start over' - this comes out, in essence, as pure propaganda and envirospin for certain political organisations. I don't even have to do my usual deconstruction, except to mention that the only balancing comment (from Defra) is placed, all too typically, right at the end of the piece. The BBC should not be a conduit for such propaganda. The hope of these folk is to kill off the real science before it can be published and placed in the public domain. Do not be deceived.

I would add: if these people are so worried about the 'science' being "flawed", then what is their opinion of the physical attacks on the field trials when important experimental crops were destroyed? There is no 'science' in such actions - only Luddite politics of the most self-indulgent kind.

Mr. Blair must stand firm against such disgraceful spinning. And Lord Sainsbury is an immensely honourable man - the personal attacks on him, as in The Sunday Times, are just appalling. My! How our society is in deep moral trouble! Philip.

Striking a blow for ordinary folks.....

A warm welcome to a much-needed new web site: Wind-Farm.org. This looks highly professional, and it should provide an excellent forum for concerned people to have a genuine say about the future of their landscapes. The wind farm lobby is one of the most aggressive and arrogant, and it is vital that there is a chance for ordinary folks to comment and for local democracy to work.

Here is the opening paragraph explaining the aims of the site: "The purpose of this web site is to provide an exchange of information, news and ideas regarding the current growth of windfarms particularly in some of the most beautiful parts of Britain - Wales, the Lake District and the Scottish Highlands to mention but a few. This site is not against alternative or green energy; on the contrary, it cares for the beauty and the preservation of what is left of our wildernesses. The industrialisation of these areas needs to be considered carefully and that is why Wind-Farm.org exists."

I wish it the fairest of winds. Now for a brace of partridges and a fantastic claret. A cold Sunday evening at its best! Philip.

Europe Poll just keeps on swinging against 'global warming'.....

To keep you yet further up-to-date, the Discovery Europe Poll (choose UK option) (see posts for October 6, 8, and 9) now stands at:

Does global warming concern you?
No: 87%
A little: 2%
Very much: 9%
[As at this posting]

"And the whispering sound of the cool colonnade." Most interesting poplar vote (bad joke if you know the poet and the poem). Apologies, Philip.

Weeding out The Independent yet further.....

I am most grateful for Mike Bayliss' permission to place here his pertinent letter sent to The Independent in relation to their rather poor report on hybridisation from oilseed rape (a report which I have already deconstructed, see 'Super language', October 10, below). The letter refers to important ecological research in which Mike was involved:

"Sir, I must correct the false impression given in your report on the cross-pollination between oilseed rape and the wild turnip (Independent, October 10). Field experiments carried out in the UK more than ten years ago showed conclusively that oilseed rape does not survive in the wild. As your article admitted, researchers had to "scour the countryside" to find any plants of Bargeman's Cabbage, because this species is restricted to certain habitats, and does not spread widely. To become serious arable weeds, plants have to have a dozen or so biological characteristics (including high seed multiplication and short life-cycle) which have been well known for decades. Neither of these Brassica species possesses enough of these characteristics individually so hybrids between them, even if they contain herbicide-tolerant genes, will not become serious weeds. This is self-evident from the work you report, as these hybrids have been formed annually since oilseed rape became a widespread arable crop 30 or 40 years ago and there is no evidence of emergence of a new class of serious weed as a result.

So please, why is there any cause for fear and alarm?"

Mike Bayliss."

Good question. It will be worth seeing if this helpfully corrective letter is published in the newspaper. Philip.