Call for GM crop 'ceasefire'
A "CEASEFIRE" should be called between ministers and anti-GM protesters to allow trials to go ahead unhindered.
Campaigners, farming leaders and MPs insist the stand-off with opponents of genetically modified food is limiting the ability of scientists to prove whether or not GM crops are safe to eat.
-
Labour ministers have previously hit out at protesters following a "messianic mission" and behaving as if opposition to the technology is a "religion".
Members of the environment select committee have now urged the Government to "negotiate a ceasefire" on the destruction of GM crop trials so that more facts can be established.
Under existing EU rules, scientists must publish on a website the location of any GM trials.
But the measure has made it easy for opponents to destroy the crops, including three trial sites in Dorset where forage maize and oilseed rape were targeted. Other sites in the region were withdrawn and most recently, on a farm near Leeds, 400 potato plants were pulled up.
However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has revealed in the past few days that the Leeds trial has been restarted with increased security.
Michael Jack, chairman of the environment select committee, said: "We agree that there are risks and uncertainties involved in GM technology, but this seems like an argument for further research, rather than an argument for dismissing GM technology out of hand. We believe that the potential of GM technology in the context of sustainable food production should be explored further."
He added Defra has a role to play "not only in commissioning some of the research, but in gaining public trust".
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has admitted it is "a source of real frustration to me and to others that there are some who do not want to allow us even to find the answer to the question" of whether GM crops are safe.
He said the Government is responsible for addressing two questions: "One, is food produced by GM safe to eat – and I know of no evidence that it is not.
"And, secondly, is it safe to grow – in other words what is the environmental impact of it?"
He added that "in order to be able to answer the second question you need to be able to do trials".
The Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, stressed it is not a matter of thinking GM technology was either "good or bad", but a question of whether GM technology could solve the problem of how to produce sufficient food in the future.
"Proponents of GM who claim it is the only answer, I believe, are incorrect, but it may well be part of an answer to a number of very difficult problems," he said.
Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers' Union, said if the Government was more involved in the GM debate "there might be less cynicism and less ability to say this is all about the private sector chasing short-term greed at the expense of the wider environment".
The NFU in the South West has long argued that shoppers will buy into GM technology "as they begin to see the benefits which will come through, particular on medical capabilities".
However, opponents of developing GM technology remain dismissive of the idea of a ceasefire.
One campaigner, Anthony Jackson, told MPs: "It is still amazing that after a quarter of a century of failure some people still seem to need to peddle the nonsense that GM crops can play any part in solving any of the problems that we have concerning food and farming."
The Soil Association also expressed strong opposition to GM food, claiming technology holds "inherent uncertainty" and "inherent risk".
9 Comments
by Sweet, Devon
Tuesday, August 04 2009, 5:26PM
“I think that some environmentalist are just afraid of being proved wrong, or why else dont they want us to discover the truth. Europe is the only place in the world where GM is not grown. The genie is already out of the bottle.”
by Jim, Bodelva
Tuesday, July 28 2009, 4:29PM
“Chris,
You're plain wrong. The world's food production system is in dire trouble. Prices of staple foods tripled last year because of a couple of bad harvests. Poplations will increase by over 50% on the next 40 years. We're nearly out of oil to fix nitrogen with. Chucking away valuable tools on a whim or because you hate 'business' could be genocide by ideology.
Cyanotic, I'm a crop scientist. I would willingly feed my kids on the stuff but I can't buy it here in Europe. However, for the past decade of more, billions have already conducted the bioassay - the rest of the world willingly eats GM crops and if thare had been ANY ill effects, there are plenty of highly motivated people such as yourself who would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops. You've lost the argument, move on.”
by hawklord, West Cornwall
Tuesday, July 28 2009, 12:35PM
“Why the need for GM crops anyway? Why can they not grow smaller crops of high quality produce rather than one larger crop of GM? If farming land is in such shortage, then why are they paying the farmers to keep it empty? I think that you should keep your GM rubbish inside factory farms that use artificial lighting, ie, stick them where the Sun does not shine!”
by hawklord, West Cornwall
Tuesday, July 28 2009, 12:28PM
“Ceasefire? I don't think so....”
by Codex, Cornwall
Monday, July 27 2009, 9:09PM
“The science has certain benefits,but the problem is,the wrong people have the technology and seem to be more concerned in using it against us,rather than benefiting humanity. I wouldn't mind if the bio-tech industries were more open about how they want to use GM,but their not. GM is eco-terrorism against the natural process that takes place through nature itself. Nature has perfected it's own genetic pool without help from a multi-national con sortium of GM and bio corporations. I'm afraid I'm not so positive about the Codex going through the EU or where genetic engineering is heading. All the time the science and scientific institutions are funded by multi-national corporations,nothing will change for the better. Best Codex”
by Chris, Cornwall
Monday, July 27 2009, 6:28PM
“The science certainly has it's applications, especially for hereditary disease research but not for food. At least not yet
As far as your points are concerned Codex, well, I dont think they are that overt. Of course it's all profit driven but science is usually the first victim. Dont distrust it too much, scientists are'nt trying to rule they world. They're just trying to add to it.”
by Codex, Cornwall
Monday, July 27 2009, 6:09PM
“Well Chris,you make some intresting points,but the science certainly will not benefit human beings or nature on any level. I had an opportunity last year to discuss the implementation of the Codex Alimentarius which very few people either know about or understand. It's going to be the biggest threat to the food chain in centuries. The media never discuss the Codex or the outcome to the way food production is carried through from field,processing and consumption. Codex is the gradual erosion of our freedom to choose what we eat and also understanding what is behind the label. Codex will be a world Police system driven by the EU and GM compaines who have a vested intrest in big agro business across the EU. Codex creates;
The dumbing down of organic standards to suit the intrests of large food producers.
Genetic Modified 'Terminator ' seeds for global production to replace natural seeds.
Full promotion of large agro-business to fully destroy medium or small farms.
Approval of various synthetic chemical additives and 'processing aids' in organic foods.
No outright ban in the irradiation of food for sale in supermarkets.
New labelling that allows the use of hidden,non-organic ingredients in supposedly organic products.
Approval of over 300 different additives into the human food chain.
Codex is the deliberate interference of our human food chain by a body of people who have NO vested intrest in the well being of animal/human health. Codex Alimentarius is not about the betterment of human health,rather the deliberate destruction of the naturalized food chain for financial gain.”
by Chris, Cornwall
Monday, July 27 2009, 1:13PM
“While the science behind it is interesting, the whole point of GM Food is about profit. There is plenty of food for the whole planet, it's corruption of a few governments and business's that deny the hungry of this world.
Coupled with the fact of uncontrollable gene transfer via pollination and hybridisation which could have potentially devastating consequences on food production and biodiversity, GM takes away everybody's choice of whether they want to eat it or not. Gene drift from 'secure' GM trials in the US has mixed with conventional crops already.
Not worth it by a long chalk.”
by Cyanotic, St. Ives
Monday, July 27 2009, 12:39PM
“Here's an idea, import GM food from the US and try it out on minister's children and also the children of pro-GM crop scientists. I'll bet you wont get any volunteers to use their children as guinea pigs.”