GM crops offer a 'wonderful opportunity' to benefit human health as they are a safer alternative to conventional plants, according to the Environment Secretary Owen Paterson who will use a speech to urge a 'GM revolution' in British agriculture.
Paterson, who is currently persuading the EU to lift maize restrictions for the UK, said: "While the rest of the world is ploughing ahead and reaping the benefits of new technologies, Europe risks being left behind.
"We cannot afford to let that happen. The use of GM could be as transformative as the original agricultural revolution was. The UK should be at the forefront of that now, as it was then."
The Environment Secretary also dismissed criticisms that GM could pose problems to human health: "The use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make GMOs even safer than than conventional plants and food," he said.
He called for businesses to come to the UK if they want to research and develop GM technology. Speaking at Rothamsted Research yesterday, “We cannot expect to feed tomorrow’s population with yesterday’s agriculture. We have to use every tool at our disposal.”
Caroline Drummond, LEAF Chief Executive, said, “GM technology has the potential to benefit the sustainability of farming systems in the UK. However, the potential benefits to farmers and consumers need to be clearly identified and weighed against the possible risks and there are several areas that cannot be neglected.
“One of these is the need for more research into GM technology. We need to be able to establish the development of plants that have greater resistance to pests and diseases, more resilience to adverse environments and develop the nutritional value of crops.
Added to this, is the importance of beneficial husbandry practices through the adoption of Integrated Farm Management. Rotations, safe use of inputs, cultivation choice, variety choice, good record keeping and management systems such as those advocated by LEAF are essential. GM will never be an alternative to these practices but it has the potential to be one of the tools in the box.”
Paterson used the example of Golden Rice, a GM variety that has been modified to have increased levels of vitamin A, which helps to prevent blindness in young children which particularly hits developing nations.
"The EU chief scientist Anne Glover has said it pretty bluntly - there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health on animal health or on environmental health."
He said GM crops, which are currently only produced small-scale and not available commercially, would have 'real environmental benefits' and dismissed criticism as 'nonsense'.
Supporters argue GM would increase yields and reduce pesticide usage.
"The trouble is all this stuff about Frankenstein foods and putting poisons in foods. There are real benefits, and what you've got to do is sell the real environmental benefits" the Environment secretary said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
NFU President Peter Kendall said: "I applaud Owen Paterson for the leadership he is showing on this issue.
"The NFU agrees that the UK, which is the natural home for science research, should be at the forefront of providing agricultural solutions not watching from the sidelines.
"Rightly so, farmers fear being left behind. As Mr Paterson said, I also want British farmers to be able to develop the latest technologies so they can reap economic and environmental benefits.
"I welcome his commitment to getting the EU approvals system working. The Environment Secretary also asked all interested parties to help him and said he would back them in return. I, and the NFU, will take up this challenge."
But critics of GM have said Paterson's statements were 'factually inaccurate and ignores the UK Government's own data from feed trials that showed GM crops harm wildlife'.
GM Freeze said today that Owen Paterson’s support for GM crops is based on poor and partial information, that proposed policy changes will have to be agreed by the EU and could make UK food exports to EU markets more difficult.
"Scientific papers on GM cultivation in the US clearly show that GM crops have increased pesticides usage. GM herbicide tolerant crops, designed specifically to be used with Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate), are failing because weeds have developed resistance to the weedkiller. As a result herbicide use has increased hugely, and to prevent things getting worse farmers will now have to spray mixtures of other herbicides in addition to Roundup or hand pull weeds" the group said.
Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "It is very clear that Ministers are singing from industry’s hymn sheet, which they agreed last year. This is not the way to develop a coherent food and farming policy for the UK. If the UK unilaterally goes for GM crops there a real risk that the threat of contamination will close off many markets in the EU to our farmers. We cannot jeopardise our economy in this way.
"GM is an extension of a discredited system of farming based on reliance on non-renewable resources that is adding to climate change, destroying wild life, damaging soil and polluting water and air. Ministers are in great danger of taking us down a blind alley by pushing a technology that has not delivered on any promises after 30 years of public investment.
"Rather than making blanket calls for more GM the PM needs to be very clear with voters about what he intends to do and why he is rejecting scientific evidence gathered right here in the UK that GM cultivation harms hard-pressed farmland wildlife. Apart from any other considerations, citizens across Europe are unconvinced that GM crops are the way forward, and the UK economy simply cannot afford to ignore the demands of our main food market. GM Freeze has asked the PM to explain why his Government believes UK farmers should put their incomes at risk by growing crops no one wants to eat."
Ahead of Paterson's speech, the Soil Association Policy Director Peter Melchett said: "Owen Paterson’s GM dream will make it harder to feed the world. The British Government constantly claim that GM crops are just one tool in the toolbox for the future of farming. In fact GM is the cuckoo in the nest. It drives out and destroys the systems that international scientists agree we need to feed the world. We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food, not farming that helps Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto produce profits."
But Paterson dismissed the criticisms. He said GM crops were already being used worldwide on a large scale and people were already eating GM food unwittingly.
"I'm very clear it would be a good thing," he said.
"So you'd discuss it within government, you'd discuss it at a European level and you'd need to persuade the public."
Currently, the government is looking into new measures to push farming technologies forward in the UK and that David Cameron would support GM at the "appropriate moment".
"What we farmers need is a food production system that provides safe healthy food that our customers want to buy, provides the farmer with a decent return on time and investment and delivers genuine environmental and social benefits in the countryside" said Lincolnshire farmer Pete Lundgren.
The CLA backed Owen Paterson’s promotion of GM as a “safe, proven and beneficial” innovation and his call for the issue to be considered objectively and without political bias.
The Association said the potential benefits of GM are huge with the UK being the natural home for GM research.
However, scare tactics and misinformation has meant that the issue has lost scientific objectivity and become political.
CLA President Harry Cotterell said: “GM isn’t the only solution to food shortages but technological innovation has always been at the heart of UK agriculture and it needs to be part of its future.
"Consumers, farmers and landowners should be given the freedom to choose whether they consume or produce GM."
But Professor Anne Glover said Europe could only achieve sustainable intensification if we become more 'open-minded.'
"What we do now will shape what happens in 2050," said Professor Glover.
"We do need to improve crop yields and we need to improve wastage before harvest. Farming needs to have less chemical and water input. This has to be achievable and we will achieve it, but we need to be more open minded about how we achieve it."
Professor Glover referred specifically to European attitudes towards GM technology.
"If we just looked at the evidence base, we would have GM in the EU without a doubt. GM crops are subject to more scrutiny than any other type of agriculture," she said, adding: "There is no substantiated evidence that I have ever seen that GM crops are harmful to the environment, animals or people".
But Pete Riley commented: "Millions of people go hungry because they cannot afford to buy food while millions of others are sick and obese because they are not able to afford a healthy diet. GM crops do nothing to address these fundamental problems."
The Chartered Institution of Water & Environmental Management said the government should undertake independent research into GM that puts the interests of the environment and human health first and builds public trust.
“Conflicting scientific advice suggests that GM technology poses significant risks to the environment, ecosystems and human health and wellbeing. At the moment, and in the minds of the public, the potential dangers from pressing ahead with extensive cultivation of GM crops appear to exceed the claimed benefits. Until the science is more certain, there should be a further moratorium on GM foods. Genetically modified food will only reach the table if consumers trust it. Until then, and until we’re all better informed, the most popular retail food outlets will be those that carry signs that say ‘GM-free here’,” says CIWEM Executive Director, Nick Reeves OBE.
“It’s time for a proper debate about GM foods. The Government should undertake further independent research which puts the interests of the environment and human health first – overriding any commercial or economic imperative. Whatever the outcome, safeguards to the environment and the health of people and animals must take priority.”
“Moreover, genetic engineering of food is no substitute for action on food waste. The GM food argument needs to be accompanied by a grown-up conversation about population growth and consumption. Notwithstanding the possibility that GM technologies can feed the world, it too, will have its limits,” said Reeves.
