A survey on the public’s feelings towards genetically modified crops conducted by the British Science Association, which seeks to promote wider engagement in science, has revealed mixed feelings and a predominant sense of confusion over use of the technology.

Although the study revealed Britons are less concerned about GM than they were a decade ago, the number of people who believe the technology should be actively supported has halved during that same period.

Although industry and politicians in Britain have expressed unequivocal support for GM technology, its use remains highly controversial, as public and political sentiment in Europe remains hostile and interest groups continue to express concerns over the potential impacts of the technology in terms of unintended environmental costs and consolidation of power in the hands of a small number of large corporations, who guard their ‘intellectual property’ jealously. 

image expired

The survey revealed a 5 per cent fall in the number of people who say they are “concerned” about GM since 2003. However, there were also drops in the number of people who said they believed GM should be encouraged in food crops since previous studies conducted in 2003 and 1996; 27 per cent of respondents expressed support for GM, compared to 52 per cent in 1996.

Furthermore, the number of people actively opposed to the technology still outnumbers its supporters in the general public; 30 per cent of respondents did not believe the practice should be encouraged, according to the BSA.

There was a relatively even split in responses to whether the technology was good for the economy, with around 30 per cent either way, however, many people clearly remain on the fence and there is no sign of a long-term trend developing in public opinion.

Commenting on the report’s findings, Sir Roland Jackson, chief executive of the British Science Association, said, "support for GM foods is mixed; [there is] ambivalence as to whether or not it should be encouraged."

He continued, "It remains important for scientists and policy-makers to understand and incorporate public perspectives as they seek to develop new applications and policies."

Negotiations on GM continue

The BSA survey also coincides with a debate in the EU over whether to relax its rules on GM technology, which is currently extremely tightly regulated within the bloc. Having reached an impasse over the controversial crops, negations are taking place over whether individual member states should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to ban or permit cultivation.

However, discussions over the new regulations have been fraught and it remains unlikely that EU ministers will reach agreements over draft rules today; although the EU’s current president, Denmark, has attempted to push through a compromise, fierce opposition by countries on both sides of the debate has brought the process to a grinding halt.

Today’s meeting in Brussels will see a vote on Denmark’s compromise measures, with the aim of breaking the current deadlock that has existed since 2010. The Danish measures would see companies seeking EU approval for their seeds agree to market their products only in countries where GM is supported, if that was unsuccessful, states opposed to GM could cite a number of concerns to legally ban cultivation. However, environmental groups have said that countries opposed to GM are not accorded enough support in the compromise plan.

Having initially supported the compromise, Britain and Spain, whose governments are largely pro-GM, are now expected to vote against the measures. The French, German and Belgian governments remain opposed to GM and are unlikely to reconsider their positions.

EU opinion remains sceptical

The EU has authorised only two varieties of GM crops in 12 years, neither of which are for human consumption. Currently, only MON810 maize, owned by agribusiness Monsanto, which holds over 80 per cent of patents for genetically modified seeds, is permitted for cultivation in the bloc.  

Opinions remain divided throughout Europe over whether GM technology represents an invaluable tool in the fight for global food security or a dangerous misadventure; last week Phil Bloomer, director of policy and campaigns at Oxfam told delegates at the Soil Association conference in London that the organic movement should rethink its stance on GM. He warned, “Many small farmers do not have 15 years to wait in order to breed into their wheat the soil nutrition efficiency they need. GM can speed up that process.”

British government scientists and politicians have pledged their support for the technology as a means to secure food production in the face of drought and boost yields whilst impacts less on the environment, though they have offered caveats that the precautionary principle must be applied and rigorous testing must first go ahead.

However, the vast majority of crops that have so far been released have been engineered to resist pests or chemical preparations and, whilst the technology remains the intellectual property of large agribusinesses whose only loyalties are to their shareholders, anti-GM activists maintain that research spending would be better used in developing agroecological solutions and low carbon farming systems, rather than investing in “band-aids on monocultures.”

Although the British industry has expressed concerns of being “left behind” if the EU does not adopt GM, the GM lobby’s claims that the technology is being implemented world-wide have been called into question. The latest figures from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotic Applications (ISAAA), which is funded by biotech companies, show that over 90 per cent of GM production takes place in just four countries, Canada, the USA, Brazil and Argentina.

Tweet