The government has used a House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee meeting, and the response to a select committee report on bioengineering, to state its position on GM crops.
The agriculture and food minister Jim Paice MP set out the policy, which applies to the growing of GMOs in England.
In summary, the Coalition believes that decisions about authorising GMOs must be science-based, that there must be choice for farmers and consumers, that there are potential benefits in agriculture and that government - as well as industry and scientists - has a role to play in the public dialogue about the technology.
The UK is not in favour of the current EU proposal on national decision-making to ban GM cultivation and the government thinks coexistence between GM and non-GM crops is perfectly possible with proportionate measures. Research must continue, and vandalism of trial sites is unacceptable. Much of the position is in line with the NFU's biotechnology policy
More information can be found in the NFU briefing to the right of this page.
- Sue Everett - 08/07/2011
The trouble with toxicological assessments of either agricultural chemicals or GM crops is that the research may not be sufficiently long term to identify chronic long term and cumulative effects. We know this is the case with many pesticides, some of which are still in widespread use. Recent studies have also shown that toxins inserted into GM crops, including the Bt toxin, are able to find their way into the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies, apparently killing the claim that GM 'ingredients' would be destroyed by the human digestive system. Another study has also found the Bt toxin as being widespread in watercourses in the American corn belt, where GM canola is widely grown. Furthermore, over-reliance on glyphosate used on growing glyphosate-resistant GM crops is now resulting in (1) glyphosate - resistant weeds and (allegedly) (2) health problems among people using the herbicide. Altering the genetic basis of plants (or animals) we eat by inserting genes from another species is still a big unknown. As a consumer I need to know what I am eating. Farmers will want to be sure that what they are growing is safe. I don't think GM currently provides these assurances. The politics ARE indeed important. GM technology for agricultural crops will be in the hands of a few companies, who will dictate terms to the detriment to farmers and sustainable farmers. We know this is already happening. One company has even passed liability to growers for any lawsuits associated with cross contamination of other farmers' crops. There are many ways to make farming more sustainable and to improve productivity. The focus should surely be on supporting the small farmers who already produce 70% of the world's food. Support them with extension, access to appropriate technology and infrastructure that will keep them in business to grow food sustainably. In the UK we also seriously need to question the industrialised farming trajectory we are on. Oliver de Schutter's work, identifying that agro-ecological approaches to farming should be promoted, applies just as much to us here as to the 'third' world. Unfortunately UK food and farming (you can't separate the two) is increasingly controlled by fewer every day, to the detriment of rural employment, rural sustainability, the environment, the small-medium sized farmer and the consumer. In my view the EP is correct to apply the brakes for 'socio-economic' reasons.
- Robert Jeffery - 06/07/2011
The source of the funding for the scientific research should always be revealed before any 'science based' decisions are accepted over 'gut feeling' resistance to change.