A committee of MPs has said EU regulations on genetically modified crops are not fit for purpose and should be replaced with a trait-based system for regulating new crop technologies.

image expired

Claims that there is consensus on GM are 'unscientific'

Reacting to the report Angelika Hilbeck, a senior scientist the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and chair of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) told Farming Online, “ENSSER does not take a stand on whether or not GM crops are safe, though we are saying this has not been determined yet. Sweeping claims to the effect that all GM crops are safe are simply not true, and to say so is highly unscientific, as it lacks the supporting data basis.

“These crops still have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis; there is hardly a conclusive piece of evidence in scientific literature pointing either way. There is simply not enough independent research being done [on GM crops], as most research is undertaken by the owners of the technology."

Given these factors, and Dr Hilbeck’s assurance that current EU regulations have a deliberately narrow scope, she added, “The view that there is no consensus on GM crops, seems to me like common sense.”

Going further, Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said, “The Select Committee has swallowed the pro-GM campaign’s line that the British public are becoming less concerned about GM food. Unfortunately for the Committee, after they had finished drafting their report, the government’s Food Standard’s Agency released the results of their latest public opinion research, which they’ve been carrying out for many years. The latest in this series of polls found that public concern about GM is increasing, and it is at its highest level since the FSA’s polling began.”

“The Select Committee’s report also talks about Golden Rice, suggesting that this GM crop intended to deliver vitamin A to people in countries where there is vitamin A deficiency is somehow being held up by opposition from environmentalists (as well as strong opposition from local rice farmers in the Philippines and elsewhere, which the Committee do not mention). In fact, the government authorities in the Philippines who are responsible for developing so-called Golden Rice say it is still years away from commercial use, not because of opposition from local farmers and environmentalists, but because in the most recent trial, its average yield was lower than other comparable varieties of rice already preferred by local farmers. Even if this latest problem can be overcome, the vitamin A in Golden Rice has still not been tested to see if it works or if it is safe, both points the Committee neglects to mention.”

“In our evidence to the Committee, the Soil Association reminded them that the UK Government had spent millions of pounds of public money over five years, researching whether GM crops would be beneficial or damaging for British wildlife. This research found that, overall, GM crops would have a negative impact on farmland, birds, wildflowers and other wildlife, something which the Committee, despite its emphasis on the importance of scientific evidence, fails to mention.”