UK Expert Panel Split on GM Food Risks

Factomatic writes "The U.K. government's chief scientist and chairman of a panel of experts charged with assessing the risks of genetically modified (GM) foods says he is concerned about the environmental and wildlife impact of GM foods. But in its first report, published on July 21, the government's divided GM Science Review Panel found the risk GM foods pose to humans is probably low. Former environment minister Michael Meacher said the report is a "public scandal" because "they say that they have found no evidence that eating GM food causes a health risk but... no-one has actually looked for the evidence; it is just assumed." Still, the report is "neither a green light nor a red light to GM crops," said Sir David King, chair of the panel. A press release about the report is also online, and the panel is seeking public comment on the report and on GM foods in general."

Comments

Don't confuse the two issues

[Yohahn]

There is the question of safety for consumption.

and

There is the question of safety for the environment.

Just because one is true or false dosen't really have any bearing on the other

Basically a political issue

[ctr2sprt]

The problem here is, as always, politics. The US is a big backer of GM crops, and we use them already. The EU's (I use "EU" here basically to mean both the EU and the UK) policies on GM foods amount to a boycott of US food exports: all their FUD (I'm sorry, that's what it is when you say "We don't know what effect this might have, but it could be catastrophic," by definition) ensures that EU customers will never buy anything marked as GM or GM-derived. In other words, because you have to mark as GM anything that even could have come into contact with GM crops - this is 99.9% of American crops - nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US. (Obviously this is an oversimplification. Europeans will still buy Cheetos or whatever. Just not wheat.) So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive.

This is a serious issue, because the anti-GM types dominate most of the world organizations, like the UN. The regulations all restrict our ability to provide food not just to those who would have it anyway (e.g. Europeans), but also to those who desperately need it and can't get it via any other means (e.g. Africans). Is GM a cure for world hunger? Maybe some day, but not now. It is, however, an important step on the road to the solution, and burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help.

All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is more concerned about its own economic well-being and not about any potential consequences of widespread GM adoption. Even if the price is prolonging starvation all over the world.

Legitimate concerns

[riptalon]

In terms of food safety I think there is real issue in that non-GM plants have been extensively tested (in a trial and error sort of way) for the last 7,000 years or so, and as a result we have a very good idea about which plants are safe to eat or which are not. GM foods have not undergone this testing and so I think it is quite reasonable that anyone who wants to sell them should demonstrate on a case by case basis that they are safe to eat.

In terms of enviromental safety there is also an issue. There are many examples of humans introducing foreign organisms into a particular enviroment and causing absolute havoc. I do not see any difference between a plant from another continent and a genetically modified version of a native plant. They both have the potential to interact in unexpacted ways with enviroment and so should be treated with extreme care.

However the most important question that should be asked in my opinion is why these crops are needed in the first place. Most of the use of GM crops at the moment appears to be in developed countries but these are the places that need them the least. Certainly in the UK the government pays farmers not to use land and buys up surplus production to stop prices from falling, and this seems the norm for the developed world. Farming in developed countries is already too efficent for its own good.

There just doesn't appear to be any need for GM crops in the developed world, although in the developing world a case might be made. So why if they aren't needed are GM crops being introduced. I would guess because their developers are pushing them and individual farmers don't want to be left behind. For an individual farmer the extra efficiency will help him compete better in a tight market but overall it is bad for farmers since the extra efficiency will mean the need for fewer farmers and some will be driven out of business.

In an ideal world things should be going the other way. Without GM crops and with less use of fertiliser and pesticides efficiency would fall but since modern agriculture is crisis because it is too efficient this is a good thing. The enviroment will be cleaner, and food will purer and less harmful. However in reality it looks like a small number of biotech companies are going to hijack world agriculture and collect a tax on every plant grown despite the fact that GM crops are entirely unneeded.

labelling

[jmason]

'because you have to mark as GM anything that even could have come into contact with GM crops - this is 99.9% of American crops - nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US'.

Come on. Is this really a good argument? Why would you be against labelling a foodstuff as to its origin and provenance?

Sorry, I don't agree. IMO, the more info a consumer has on where their food comes from, how it was grown, what pesticides were used, whether it may contain GM pollen, how it was treated after picking, etc. -- the better.

It's simply called informing the consumer. Then the consumer can use their judgement instead of trusting some big, faceless organisation who Knows What's Good For You.

And then interested parties can persuade the consumers that GM is safe, and eating the tomatos with the GM sticker is fine. That's OK, that makes sense. But don't use this 'information is bad' line, it's crap.

PS: re GM patents, etc. IMO the GM industry at the moment is acting like the RIAA; there's lots of good ways to use GM, but they're focused on the short term gain -- make $$$$ fast.