Alan Dewar - Revision history

Claire Robinson at 19:15, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T19:15:30Z

Claire Robinson at 19:13, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T19:13:19Z

Claire Robinson at 19:12, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T19:12:32Z

Claire Robinson at 15:51, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T15:51:29Z

Claire Robinson at 15:50, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T15:50:53Z

Claire Robinson at 15:47, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T15:47:12Z

Claire Robinson at 15:36, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T15:36:08Z

Claire Robinson at 15:32, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T15:32:11Z

Claire Robinson at 15:28, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T15:28:26Z

Claire Robinson at 15:26, 26 January 2010

2010-01-26T15:26:42Z

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 In January 2003 Dewar and May were among the authors of 'A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit' (Proceedings of The [[Royal Society]] B, 270 (1513), 335-340).<ref>AlanM. Dewar, Mike J. May, Ian P. Woiwod, Lisa A. Haylock, Gillian T. Champion, Beulah H. Garner, Richard J. N. Sands, Aiming Qi and John D. Pidgeon, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691260/pdf/12639311.pdf A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit], Proc Biol Sci. 2003 February 22; 270(1513): 335–340, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> According to their co-author and Brooms barn's director, John Pidgeon, "This is the first time research has shown that GM herbicide-tolerant crops can be managed for environmental benefit."<ref>[http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/broom/gm_work.php Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], undated press release, Rothamsted Research, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> But, in fact, this part-Monsanto-supported research<ref>AlanM. Dewar, Mike J. May, Ian P. Woiwod, Lisa A. Haylock, Gillian T. Champion, Beulah H. Garner, Richard J. N. Sands, Aiming Qi and John D. Pidgeon, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691260/pdf/12639311.pdf A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit], Proc Biol Sci. 2003 February 22; 270(1513): 340, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> was just the latest to be presented in this way by scientists from Broom's Barn.
-Five years earlier, in 1998, Monsanto conducted press tours of GM crop trials with late-growing weeds run by Dewar and May, provoking a lot of positive publicity about the environmental impact of Monsanto's GM sugar beet. Dewar was quoted as enthusiastically saying, "It was obvious to see that the weedy plots were heaving with life."<ref>Martin Brookes and Andy Coghlan, [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021585.200-live-and-let-live.html?page=2 Live and Let Live], New Scientist, No. issue 2158, 31 October 1998, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> ''The Times'' ran the headline, 'Modified crops help man and wildlife', and told its readers, "Genetically engineered crops can save farmers money, reduce chemical spraying and create a better habitat for birds and insects, scientists claimed yesterday."<ref>Mark Henderson, "Modified crops 'help man and wildlife'", The Times, 25 August 1998</ref> When, nearly two years later, Dewar and May's paper on the research was finally published in ''Pest Management Science'' (April 2000),<ref>Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> it turned out that the delayed herbicide application involved in the trials produced a massive yield penalty that farmers would be unlikely to accept.<ref>The actual words of the study abstract are: "in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest." Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref>
+Five years earlier, in 1998, Monsanto conducted press tours of GM crop trials with late-growing weeds run by Dewar and May, provoking a lot of positive publicity about the environmental impact of Monsanto's GM sugar beet. Dewar was quoted as enthusiastically saying, "It was obvious to see that the weedy plots were heaving with life."<ref>Martin Brookes and Andy Coghlan, [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021585.200-live-and-let-live.html?page=2 Live and Let Live], New Scientist, No. issue 2158, 31 October 1998, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> ''The Times'' ran the headline, 'Modified crops help man and wildlife', and told its readers, "Genetically engineered crops can save farmers money, reduce chemical spraying and create a better habitat for birds and insects, scientists claimed yesterday."<ref>Mark Henderson, "Modified crops 'help man and wildlife'", The Times, 25 August 1998</ref> When, nearly two years later, Dewar and May's paper on the research was finally published in ''Pest Management Science'' (April 2000),<ref>Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> it turned out that the delayed herbicide application involved in the trials produced a massive yield penalty that farmers would be unlikely to accept.<ref>The actual words of the study abstract are: "in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest." Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref>
 Following on from the 2003 paper Mike May authored a further paper, "Economic Consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet" (''Annals of the Association of Applied Biologists'', (2003) 142: 41-48<ref>M J May, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/broomsbarn.pdf Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], Ann. appl. Biol. (2003), 142:41-48, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> - as of 2003 May was General Secretary of the Association of Applied Biologists<ref>[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends55%5C0000275655_AC_20031231_E_C.pdf REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2003], Association of Applied Biologists, accessed on Charity Commission website, 26 Jan 2010</ref><ref>In the Winter 2007 edition of aabnews, the newsletter of the AAB, Mike May is described as having been elected an honorary member of the AAB. [http://www.aab.org.uk/images/News66for%20web.pdf AAB News], Issue 66, Winter 2007, p. 2</ref>). May's research claimed to show major savings for farmers taking up GM sugar beet but working farmers belonging to the independent farmers' group, FARM, quickly spotted from their experience of beet-growing that the paper had exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of a conventional herbicide regime. This had the effect of making the GM herbicide regime appear financially attractive. When compared to the real cost, there was little financial benefit from the GM crop and for many farmers with lower weed burdens a financial penalty. According to FARM, the paper also overlooked other costs associated with a GM crop which taken together would have the effect of seriously increasing rather than decreasing growing costs.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060405135422/http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 Broom's Barn research on GM savings vastly exaggerated], press release, FARM, 17.3.2003, version placed in web archive 5 Apr 2006, accessed in web archive 26 Jan 2010</ref>

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Five years earlier, in 1998, Monsanto conducted press tours of GM crop trials with late-growing weeds run by Dewar and May, provoking a lot of positive publicity about the environmental impact of Monsanto's GM sugar beet. Dewar was quoted as enthusiastically saying, "It was obvious to see that the weedy plots were heaving with life."<ref>Martin Brookes and Andy Coghlan, [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021585.200-live-and-let-live.html?page=2 Live and Let Live], New Scientist, No. issue 2158, 31 October 1998, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> ''The Times'' ran the headline, 'Modified crops help man and wildlife', and told its readers, "Genetically engineered crops can save farmers money, reduce chemical spraying and create a better habitat for birds and insects, scientists claimed yesterday."<ref>Mark Henderson, "Modified crops 'help man and wildlife'", The Times, 25 August 1998</ref> When, nearly two years later, Dewar and May's paper on the research was finally published in ''Pest Management Science'' (April 2000),<ref>Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> it turned out that the delayed herbicide application involved in the trials produced a massive yield penalty that farmers would be unlikely to accept.<ref>The actual words of the study abstract are: "in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest." Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref>
-Following on from the 2003 paper Mike May authored a further paper, "Economic Consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet" (''Annals of the Association of Applied Biologists'', (2003) 142: 41-48<ref>M J May, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/broomsbarn.pdf Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], Ann. appl. Biol. (2003), 142:41-48, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> - as of 2003 May was General Secretary of the Association of Applied Biologists<ref>[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends55%5C0000275655_AC_20031231_E_C.pdf REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2003], Association of Applied Biologists, accessed on Charity Commission website, 26 Jan 2010</ref><ref>In the Winter 2007 edition of aabnews, the newsletter of the AAB, Mike May is described as having been elected an honorary member of the AAB. [http://www.aab.org.uk/images/News66for%20web.pdf AAB News], Issue 66, Winter 2007, p. 2</ref>). May's research claimed to show major savings for farmers taking up GM sugar beet but working farmers belonging to the independent farmers' group, [http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 FARM], quickly spotted from their experience of beet-growing that the paper had exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of a conventional herbicide regime. This had the effect of making the GM herbicide regime appear financially attractive. When compared to the real cost, there was little financial benefit from the GM crop and for many farmers with lower weed burdens a financial penalty. According to FARM, the paper also overlooked other costs associated with a GM crop which taken together would have the effect of seriously increasing rather than decreasing growing costs.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060405135422/http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 Broom's Barn research on GM savings vastly exaggerated], press release, FARM, 17.3.2003, version placed in web archive 5 Apr 2006, accessed in web archive 26 Jan 2010</ref>
+Following on from the 2003 paper Mike May authored a further paper, "Economic Consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet" (''Annals of the Association of Applied Biologists'', (2003) 142: 41-48<ref>M J May, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/broomsbarn.pdf Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], Ann. appl. Biol. (2003), 142:41-48, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> - as of 2003 May was General Secretary of the Association of Applied Biologists<ref>[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends55%5C0000275655_AC_20031231_E_C.pdf REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2003], Association of Applied Biologists, accessed on Charity Commission website, 26 Jan 2010</ref><ref>In the Winter 2007 edition of aabnews, the newsletter of the AAB, Mike May is described as having been elected an honorary member of the AAB. [http://www.aab.org.uk/images/News66for%20web.pdf AAB News], Issue 66, Winter 2007, p. 2</ref>). May's research claimed to show major savings for farmers taking up GM sugar beet but working farmers belonging to the independent farmers' group, FARM, quickly spotted from their experience of beet-growing that the paper had exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of a conventional herbicide regime. This had the effect of making the GM herbicide regime appear financially attractive. When compared to the real cost, there was little financial benefit from the GM crop and for many farmers with lower weed burdens a financial penalty. According to FARM, the paper also overlooked other costs associated with a GM crop which taken together would have the effect of seriously increasing rather than decreasing growing costs.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060405135422/http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 Broom's Barn research on GM savings vastly exaggerated], press release, FARM, 17.3.2003, version placed in web archive 5 Apr 2006, accessed in web archive 26 Jan 2010</ref>
 For more on Dewar and May's research see:

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Five years earlier, in 1998, Monsanto conducted press tours of GM crop trials with late-growing weeds run by Dewar and May, provoking a lot of positive publicity about the environmental impact of Monsanto's GM sugar beet. Dewar was quoted as enthusiastically saying, "It was obvious to see that the weedy plots were heaving with life."<ref>Martin Brookes and Andy Coghlan, [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021585.200-live-and-let-live.html?page=2 Live and Let Live], New Scientist, No. issue 2158, 31 October 1998, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> ''The Times'' ran the headline, 'Modified crops help man and wildlife', and told its readers, "Genetically engineered crops can save farmers money, reduce chemical spraying and create a better habitat for birds and insects, scientists claimed yesterday."<ref>Mark Henderson, "Modified crops 'help man and wildlife'", The Times, 25 August 1998</ref> When, nearly two years later, Dewar and May's paper on the research was finally published in ''Pest Management Science'' (April 2000),<ref>Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> it turned out that the delayed herbicide application involved in the trials produced a massive yield penalty that farmers would be unlikely to accept.<ref>The actual words of the study abstract are: "in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest." Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref>
-Following on from the 2003 paper Mike May authored a further paper, "Economic Consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet" (''Annals of the Association of Applied Biologists'', (2003) 142: 41-48<ref>M J May, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/broomsbarn.pdf Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], Ann. appl. Biol. (2003), 142:41-48, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> - as of 2003 May was General Secretary of the Association of Applied Biologists<ref>[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends55%5C0000275655_AC_20031231_E_C.pdf REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2003], Association of Applied Biologists, accessed on Charity Commission website, 26 Jan 2010</ref><ref>In the Winter 2007 edition of aabnews, the newsletter of the AAB, Mike May is described as having been elected an honorary member of the AAB. [http://www.aab.org.uk/images/News66for%20web.pdf AAB News], Issue 66, Winter 2007, p. 2</ref>). May's research claimed to show major savings for farmers taking up GM sugar beet but working farmers belonging to the independent farmers' group, [http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 FARM], quickly spotted from their experience of beet-growing that the paper had exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of a conventional herbicide regime. This had the effect of making the GM herbicide regime appear financially attractive. When compared to the real cost, there was little financial benefit from the GM crop and for many farmers with lower weed burdens a financial penalty. According to FARM, the paper also overlooked other costs associated with a GM crop which taken together would have the effect of seriously increasing rather than decreasing growing costs. ([http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 Broom's Barn research on GM savings vastly exaggerated])
+Following on from the 2003 paper Mike May authored a further paper, "Economic Consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet" (''Annals of the Association of Applied Biologists'', (2003) 142: 41-48<ref>M J May, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/broomsbarn.pdf Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], Ann. appl. Biol. (2003), 142:41-48, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> - as of 2003 May was General Secretary of the Association of Applied Biologists<ref>[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends55%5C0000275655_AC_20031231_E_C.pdf REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2003], Association of Applied Biologists, accessed on Charity Commission website, 26 Jan 2010</ref><ref>In the Winter 2007 edition of aabnews, the newsletter of the AAB, Mike May is described as having been elected an honorary member of the AAB. [http://www.aab.org.uk/images/News66for%20web.pdf AAB News], Issue 66, Winter 2007, p. 2</ref>). May's research claimed to show major savings for farmers taking up GM sugar beet but working farmers belonging to the independent farmers' group, [http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 FARM], quickly spotted from their experience of beet-growing that the paper had exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of a conventional herbicide regime. This had the effect of making the GM herbicide regime appear financially attractive. When compared to the real cost, there was little financial benefit from the GM crop and for many farmers with lower weed burdens a financial penalty. According to FARM, the paper also overlooked other costs associated with a GM crop which taken together would have the effect of seriously increasing rather than decreasing growing costs.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060405135422/http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 Broom's Barn research on GM savings vastly exaggerated], press release, FARM, 17.3.2003, version placed in web archive 5 Apr 2006, accessed in web archive 26 Jan 2010</ref>
 For more on Dewar and May's research see:

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 In January 2003 Dewar and May were among the authors of 'A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit' (Proceedings of The [[Royal Society]] B, 270 (1513), 335-340).<ref>AlanM. Dewar, Mike J. May, Ian P. Woiwod, Lisa A. Haylock, Gillian T. Champion, Beulah H. Garner, Richard J. N. Sands, Aiming Qi and John D. Pidgeon, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691260/pdf/12639311.pdf A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit], Proc Biol Sci. 2003 February 22; 270(1513): 335–340, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> According to their co-author and Brooms barn's director, John Pidgeon, "This is the first time research has shown that GM herbicide-tolerant crops can be managed for environmental benefit."<ref>[http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/broom/gm_work.php Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], undated press release, Rothamsted Research, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> But, in fact, this part-Monsanto-supported research<ref>AlanM. Dewar, Mike J. May, Ian P. Woiwod, Lisa A. Haylock, Gillian T. Champion, Beulah H. Garner, Richard J. N. Sands, Aiming Qi and John D. Pidgeon, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691260/pdf/12639311.pdf A novel approach to the use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops for environmental benefit], Proc Biol Sci. 2003 February 22; 270(1513): 340, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> was just the latest to be presented in this way by scientists from Broom's Barn.
-Five years earlier, in 1998, Monsanto conducted press tours of GM crop trials with late-growing weeds run by Dewar and May, provoking a lot of positive publicity about the environmental impact of Monsanto's GM sugar beet. Dewar was quoted as enthusiastically saying, "It was obvious to see that the weedy plots were heaving with life."<ref>Martin Brookes and Andy Coghlan, [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021585.200-live-and-let-live.html?page=2 Live and Let Live], New Scientist, No. issue 2158, 31 October 1998, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> ''The Times'' ran the headline, 'Modified crops help man and wildlife', and told its readers, "Genetically engineered crops can save farmers money, reduce chemical spraying and create a better habitat for birds and insects, scientists claimed yesterday."<ref>Mark Henderson, "Modified crops 'help man and wildlife'", The Times, 25 August 1998</ref> When, nearly two years later, Dewar and May's paper on the research was finally published in ''Pest Management Science'' (April 2000),<ref>Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> it turned out that the delayed herbicide application involved in the trials produced a massive yield penalty that farmers would be unlikely to accept.<ref>The actual words of the study abstract are: "in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest." Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref>
+Five years earlier, in 1998, Monsanto conducted press tours of GM crop trials with late-growing weeds run by Dewar and May, provoking a lot of positive publicity about the environmental impact of Monsanto's GM sugar beet. Dewar was quoted as enthusiastically saying, "It was obvious to see that the weedy plots were heaving with life."<ref>Martin Brookes and Andy Coghlan, [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021585.200-live-and-let-live.html?page=2 Live and Let Live], New Scientist, No. issue 2158, 31 October 1998, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> ''The Times'' ran the headline, 'Modified crops help man and wildlife', and told its readers, "Genetically engineered crops can save farmers money, reduce chemical spraying and create a better habitat for birds and insects, scientists claimed yesterday."<ref>Mark Henderson, "Modified crops 'help man and wildlife'", The Times, 25 August 1998</ref> When, nearly two years later, Dewar and May's paper on the research was finally published in ''Pest Management Science'' (April 2000),<ref>Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> it turned out that the delayed herbicide application involved in the trials produced a massive yield penalty that farmers would be unlikely to accept.<ref>The actual words of the study abstract are: "in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest." Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref>
 Following on from the 2003 paper Mike May authored a further paper, "Economic Consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet" (''Annals of the Association of Applied Biologists'', (2003) 142: 41-48<ref>M J May, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/broomsbarn.pdf Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], Ann. appl. Biol. (2003), 142:41-48, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> - as of 2003 May was General Secretary of the Association of Applied Biologists<ref>[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends55%5C0000275655_AC_20031231_E_C.pdf REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2003], Association of Applied Biologists, accessed on Charity Commission website, 26 Jan 2010</ref><ref>In the Winter 2007 edition of aabnews, the newsletter of the AAB, Mike May is described as having been elected an honorary member of the AAB. [http://www.aab.org.uk/images/News66for%20web.pdf AAB News], Issue 66, Winter 2007, p. 2</ref>). May's research claimed to show major savings for farmers taking up GM sugar beet but working farmers belonging to the independent farmers' group, [http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 FARM], quickly spotted from their experience of beet-growing that the paper had exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of a conventional herbicide regime. This had the effect of making the GM herbicide regime appear financially attractive. When compared to the real cost, there was little financial benefit from the GM crop and for many farmers with lower weed burdens a financial penalty. According to FARM, the paper also overlooked other costs associated with a GM crop which taken together would have the effect of seriously increasing rather than decreasing growing costs. ([http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 Broom's Barn research on GM savings vastly exaggerated])

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Five years earlier, in 1998, Monsanto conducted press tours of GM crop trials with late-growing weeds run by Dewar and May, provoking a lot of positive publicity about the environmental impact of Monsanto's GM sugar beet. Dewar was quoted as enthusiastically saying, "It was obvious to see that the weedy plots were heaving with life."<ref>Martin Brookes and Andy Coghlan, [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021585.200-live-and-let-live.html?page=2 Live and Let Live], New Scientist, No. issue 2158, 31 October 1998, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> ''The Times'' ran the headline, 'Modified crops help man and wildlife', and told its readers, "Genetically engineered crops can save farmers money, reduce chemical spraying and create a better habitat for birds and insects, scientists claimed yesterday."<ref>Mark Henderson, "Modified crops 'help man and wildlife'", The Times, 25 August 1998</ref> When, nearly two years later, Dewar and May's paper on the research was finally published in ''Pest Management Science'' (April 2000),<ref>Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> it turned out that the delayed herbicide application involved in the trials produced a massive yield penalty that farmers would be unlikely to accept.<ref>The actual words of the study abstract are: "in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest." Alan M Dewar, Lisa A Haylock, Kathy M Bean, Mike J May, [www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/pdf/0047.pdf Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield], Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350 (April 2000), accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref>
-Following on from the 2003 paper Mike May authored a further paper, "Economic Consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet" (''Annals of the Association of Applied Biologists'', (2003) 142: 41-48<ref>M J May, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/broomsbarn.pdf Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], Ann. appl. Biol. (2003), 142:41-48, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> - as of 2003 May was General Secretary of the Association of Applied Biologists<ref>[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends55%5C0000275655_AC_20031231_E_C.pdf REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2003], Association of Applied Biologists, accessed on Charity Commission website, 26 Jan 2010</ref><ref>In the Winter 2007 edition of aabnews, the newsletter of the AAB, Mike May is described as having been elected an honorary member of the AAB. [www.aab.org.uk/images/News66for%20web.pdf AAB News], Issue 66, Winter 2007, p. 2</ref>). May's research claimed to show major savings for farmers taking up GM sugar beet but working farmers belonging to the independent farmers' group, [http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 FARM], quickly spotted from their experience of beet-growing that the paper had exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of a conventional herbicide regime. This had the effect of making the GM herbicide regime appear financially attractive. When compared to the real cost, there was little financial benefit from the GM crop and for many farmers with lower weed burdens a financial penalty. According to FARM, the paper also overlooked other costs associated with a GM crop which taken together would have the effect of seriously increasing rather than decreasing growing costs. ([http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 Broom's Barn research on GM savings vastly exaggerated])
+Following on from the 2003 paper Mike May authored a further paper, "Economic Consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet" (''Annals of the Association of Applied Biologists'', (2003) 142: 41-48<ref>M J May, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/broomsbarn.pdf Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet], Ann. appl. Biol. (2003), 142:41-48, accessed 26 Jan 2010</ref> - as of 2003 May was General Secretary of the Association of Applied Biologists<ref>[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends55%5C0000275655_AC_20031231_E_C.pdf REPORT OF THE TRUSTEES AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2003], Association of Applied Biologists, accessed on Charity Commission website, 26 Jan 2010</ref><ref>In the Winter 2007 edition of aabnews, the newsletter of the AAB, Mike May is described as having been elected an honorary member of the AAB. [http://www.aab.org.uk/images/News66for%20web.pdf AAB News], Issue 66, Winter 2007, p. 2</ref>). May's research claimed to show major savings for farmers taking up GM sugar beet but working farmers belonging to the independent farmers' group, [http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 FARM], quickly spotted from their experience of beet-growing that the paper had exaggerated by as much as 75% the costs of a conventional herbicide regime. This had the effect of making the GM herbicide regime appear financially attractive. When compared to the real cost, there was little financial benefit from the GM crop and for many farmers with lower weed burdens a financial penalty. According to FARM, the paper also overlooked other costs associated with a GM crop which taken together would have the effect of seriously increasing rather than decreasing growing costs. ([http://www.farm.org.uk/FM_Content.aspx?ID=78 Broom's Barn research on GM savings vastly exaggerated])
 For more on Dewar and May's research see: