Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has called for the introduction of genetically modified crops to the UK. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the environment secretary dismissed opposition to the crops as "complete nonsense."

image expired

In the wake of the first open air trial of GM wheat, which is currently underway in Hertfordshire, having been the subject of widespread controversy and debate earlier in the year, there is widespread speculation that the government could be preparing the ground for a wider introduction of GM crops.

Although one GM crop, MON810 maize manufactured by Monsanto and sold as Yieldgard, is licensed for cultivation in the EU, no such crops are grown commercially in Britain, and the feed crop is banned in a number of member states. The industry acknowledges that the European public's attitude to GM technology remains relatively hostile, particularly in Italy, Germany and the EU's agricultural powerhouse, France.

Although EU health and safety watchdog EFSA, supported by researchers from a number of member states, announced last month that a French study which linked consumption of GM maize with the development of tumours in rats was "inadmissible as evidence" of health risks from GM food, experts acknowledged that independent research into the long-term effects of eating GM crops is scarce, and French authorities suggested increasing research spending in this area.

Paterson said on Sunday, "Emphatically we should be looking at GM … I'm very clear it would be a good thing. There are real benefits, and what you've got to do is sell the real environmental benefits."

The environment secretary pointed out that, as much of the feed grains imported into Europe are GM, people are unwittingly eating meat from animals which have been fed on the grains.

The GM debate

GM advocates state that the crops will diminish the need for pesticides and could be a means of fast-tracking adaptations to climate change, enabling people in more vulnerable areas to cope. They also claim crops are being developed which would improve food security, having been engineered to produce vitamins.

However, opponents maintain that most GM crops grown around the world are engineered to kill pests or withstand herbicide applications, and that farmers are now struggling with growing resistance in weeds and insect pests in the United States, where GM crops were first grown commercially.

Sustainable farming advocate and philosopher Dr Vandana Shiva has also criticised the suggestion that the crops can alleviate the effects of poverty and climate change. She criticised the narrow focus of biotech companies, whose crops are largely intended for use in monoculture, as pursuing single issues such as drought and vitamin A deficiency, when agriculture is challenged with more systemic problems. Dr Shiva argues such an approach obfuscates the larger issues of constricting biodiversity, corporate control and poverty, leading to a lack of availability of diverse, nutritionally rich foods, which she puts down to the results of the encroachment of monocultures and intensive agriculture into areas where multicrop systems were formerly prevalent.

She said in October, "It is time that regimes world over understand that intellectual property rights and patents on seeds are damaging the farmers and the farming sector. Government must not restrict the use of native seeds. Leaving the control over seeds to multinational corporations means leaving decisions on choice in the food market and the way food is produced to those whose first aim is to make a profit, not provide food security."

Government and Industry pushing GM crops in Britain?

In October, research and policy organisation GeneWatch UK hinted that large agribusinesses and the UK government may be colluding to push controversial GM crops in Britain, by promoting claims in parliament that they are needed to "feed the world". Although the crops remain unpopular with the British public, industrial farming groups including the NFU have called for their wider introduction.

GeneWatch said that a round table meeting between MPs, representatives of transnational agribusinesses and academics from research institutes had looked into the research and commercial potential for GM crops in the UK in summer 2012. Those present concluded that "regulatory barriers and political divisions at national and EU level" are hindering progress in rolling out GM, which GeneWatch suggested may be an implicit reference to bans on GM crops in EU states and opposition to GM from the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Government. http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/206/

Recommended action by the MPs, academics and corporate representatives at the meeting included government working with industry to provide an "improved" regulatory framework and more investment, while academics counter criticism from anti-GM groups and build a "better on the ground presence in Africa, perhaps by working with universities".

Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch said, "Lobbyists from the GM industry [promote] GM crops to government as a way to 'feed the world,' but the sad truth is they only want to expand the market for their products and lock farmers into a treadmill where they continually pay more for patented GM seeds and expensive chemicals."

Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett responded to the Defra Secretary's comments on Monday. He said, "Owen Patterson is wrong to claim that GM crops are good for the environment.  The UK Government’s own farm scale experiment showed that overall the GM crops were worse for British wildlife. US Government figures show that overall pesticide use has increased since GM crops have been grown there, because as scientists opposed to GM predicted, superweeds and resistant insects have multiplied."

He added that evidence suggesting public opinion has softened is patchy at best and accused the Environment secretary of cynicism over his claim that people are already unwittingly eating GM. Melchett added, "The recent British Science Association survey showed that public concern has not changed, and the number of people saying that GM food "should be encouraged" dropped from 46% in 2002 to 27% in 2012. Owen Patterson says that people are eating meat from animals fed of GM feed without realising it. That is because the British Government has consistently opposed moves to label to give consumers accurate information, and he should put that right by immediately introducing compulsory labelling of meat and milk from animals fed on GM feed."