When the Food Standards Agency set up a steering group for “Food: The Use of Genetic Modification – A Public Dialogue”, its aim was to “provide an opportunity to discuss with members of the public their understanding of GM in food and what they think are its potential risks and benefits”.
Ironically, when Professor Brian Wynne resigned from the steering group last week, he may have created just that. Professor Wynne did not leave quietly, taking the chance to call the FSA “deeply pro-GM in everything but the explicit punch-line itself”, and its position a “state of institutional denial”.
Strong words indeed, with serious implications. The FSA has a duty to be balanced in providing a forum for this debate. But it is also important that we are not reactionary when looking at the issues GM food presents. The “Frankenfoods” knee jerk reaction will help nobody here.
Colin Blakemore is Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Oxford, and chair of a general advisory committee on science designed to challenge the FSA on its use of scientific evidence. In a column in the Guardian this week, he says, “Europe's belief it can survive without GM contrasts with the dire warnings from leading scientists about the gathering Perfect Storm – the combination of climate change, population growth, water shortage and inadequacies of food supply”.
The UK’s new Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman also recognizes the potential importance of GM crops, saying, "GM can bring benefits in food to the marketplace.”
Among the reasons she cites are that: "There are benefits to developing countries, like drought resistance or resistance to high salt content in water. The principle of GM technology is [OK] if used well. The technology can be beneficial."
Of course, we’re right to be sceptical of these benefits. The growth of GM food has created a power shift in agriculture towards multinational corporations. We face arguments over issues such as self-terminating seeds that deny farmers the ability to generate their own seed, making them dependent on a single source of supply.
But given some of the issues we are facing, perhaps the debate shouldn’t be one of “if” but “how”?
The full text of Professor Brian Wynne’s resignation can be found here.
Ironically, when Professor Brian Wynne resigned from the steering group last week, he may have created just that. Professor Wynne did not leave quietly, taking the chance to call the FSA “deeply pro-GM in everything but the explicit punch-line itself”, and its position a “state of institutional denial”.
Strong words indeed, with serious implications. The FSA has a duty to be balanced in providing a forum for this debate. But it is also important that we are not reactionary when looking at the issues GM food presents. The “Frankenfoods” knee jerk reaction will help nobody here.
Colin Blakemore is Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Oxford, and chair of a general advisory committee on science designed to challenge the FSA on its use of scientific evidence. In a column in the Guardian this week, he says, “Europe's belief it can survive without GM contrasts with the dire warnings from leading scientists about the gathering Perfect Storm – the combination of climate change, population growth, water shortage and inadequacies of food supply”.
The UK’s new Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman also recognizes the potential importance of GM crops, saying, "GM can bring benefits in food to the marketplace.”
Among the reasons she cites are that: "There are benefits to developing countries, like drought resistance or resistance to high salt content in water. The principle of GM technology is [OK] if used well. The technology can be beneficial."
Of course, we’re right to be sceptical of these benefits. The growth of GM food has created a power shift in agriculture towards multinational corporations. We face arguments over issues such as self-terminating seeds that deny farmers the ability to generate their own seed, making them dependent on a single source of supply.
But given some of the issues we are facing, perhaps the debate shouldn’t be one of “if” but “how”?
The full text of Professor Brian Wynne’s resignation can be found here.
