On Friday, a group of scientists convened by the Council for Science and Technology (CST), the body that advises the Prime Minister's Cabinet Office on science policy issues, released a report in which they make the case for allowing GM crops to be grown in the UK.

The report was commissioned last year, after the CST asked the group to look into the science around GM crops and report back.  Their report claims to make "a series of recommendations that would allow a safe and sustainable agriculture to use GM varieties for the benefit of the farmer, consumer and the environment," and the wider publication on Friday was designed to coincide with a letter from the CST to the Prime Minister regarding their findings (which are detailed in an earlier article here).  

However, those sceptical of the claims made in the report questioned the independence of its authors on Friday. Claire Robinson, a spokesperson for sceptic group GMWatch, commented, "By no stretch of the imagination can these people be described as independent scientists. On the contrary, all have vested interests in the acceptance of GM crops by the public and policymakers. Their views should be treated with the same skepticism we would apply to any sales pitch."

The authors

GM Watch said all authors had ties to GM manufacturers. Professor Sir David Baulcombe, of the University of Cambridge noted a conflict of interest in a journal publication in September 2013, in which he admitted to receiving research funding from GM crop developer Syngenta.

Professor Jonathan Jones, of the Sainsbury Laboratory in Norfolk is the founder of and advisor to biotech company Mendel Biotechnology, which counts Monsanto as a major client. Currently Monsanto's MON810 is the only GM crop passed for cultivation in the EU.  

University of Reading's Professor Jim Dunwell is a founder member of the pro-GM lobby group CropGen which is funded by the industry.

Professor John Pickett of Rothamsted research, which is involved with research into a number of GM crops, famously broke the protocols of peer review by publicly attacking Dr Arpad Pusztai’s research paper on GM potatoes before it was published in 1999.

Reacting to evidence provided by the sceptics, the group of scientists protested their independence. Prof Jones claimed that questions around his independence are ill-founded, and that he is merely "very well informed about GM science and technology". Prof Dunwell, founder of lobby group CropGen said he no longer had any ties with the group. He said, "I am an independent scientist."

Though the report's authors claimed that GM crops could provide an answer to hunger in developing countries and create crop varieties resistant to pests and disease, critics pointed out that there is no shortage of food produced worldwide, but instead that hunger is the result of inequality and waste (often itself associated with the former). Worldwide, between a third and a half of all food produced is wasted before it can be used. In the northern hemisphere, this waste tends to be concentrated in the later stages of the supply chain, a result of consumerist mores. However, in the South, poorer infrastructure and lack of storage mean post harvest losses account for a much higher proportion of lost food.

Sustainable food advocates maintain that agroecolody, which uses ecology, crop science and social sciences to develop resiliant and just food systems which are acceptable to and tailored for local communities has been touted as the future of food production, particularly in developing countries. Wider uptake of the approach is a major recommendation of the World Bank-commissioned IAASTD report, compiled by 400 scientists and released in 2008. GM technology is more of a peripheral issue in the report.

In the United States, pests and weeds which the first GM crops were developed to shut out in the 1990s have developed resistance to GM traits. This, according to research from the USDA, has been associated with increasing use of agro-chemicals as farmers attempt to control threats that have gained resistance to glyphosate herbicide or grown tolerant of Bt toxins in GM crops.

Compromise measures

The Scottish and Welsh governments have vowed to resist GM technology in those countries. Last week, France's government re-introduced a ban on MON810 maize. EU courts have twice annulled such measures from the French government, but France's leaders have remained defiant.

Upcoming debates in the EU will see 'compromise' measures being discussed that, if passed, could lead to GM crops being cultivated in England. The measures are intended to end conflicts over licensing bids for new GM crops by renationalising the application process, once a crop has been deemed safe by EU Commission science advisors in the EFSA.

Helen Browning, Soil Association chief executive commented on the compromise package on Friday. Browning said, "What might sound like a simple plea for the UK to make its own decisions is likely to leave English farmers at a huge economic disadvantage. If this proposal is agreed, it could be catastrophic for all farmers in England – not just organic farmers.

"A committed pro-GM Secretary of State like Owen Paterson could take the decision to make England a 'GM country', and that once that decision is taken, and GM crops are established, it will be extremely difficult for any future Government to adopt a different position. Indeed, the current proposal also suggests that it may be legally very difficult for future governments to disallow a GM crop once it has been agreed for that country.

"If these new EU proposals are adopted, most countries in the EU, including Scotland and Wales, will remain GM free. England, along with possibly one or two other European Members States, risks getting a reputation as the GM centre of Europe, which will lead to our farmers losing export markets to the rest of Europe, and indeed to most of the rest of the world. Farmers in both the US and Canada lost $100s of millions worth of exports when those two countries started growing GM crops."