121. One area of research that elicited widely different views was genetic modification. On
the one hand, Professor Beddington commented: “Proponents of GM who claim it is the
only answer, I believe, are incorrect, but it may well be part of an answer to a number of
very difficult problems”. He emphasised that it was not a matter of thinking that GM
technology was either “good or bad”, but a question of whether GM technology could solve
the problem. He added: “If it can solve the problem, we need to be thinking about it.” He
agreed that one of the reasons for uncertainty about GM technology was that there was
“some distrust of the large corporations that were involved in it”. This point was also made
by Peter Kendall, the President of the NFU, who stated that if the Government was more
involved in the GM debate “there might be less cynicism and less ability to say this is all
about the private sector chasing short-term greed at the expense of the wider
environment”.|

122. At the other end of the spectrum from the views expressed about the potential benefits
of GM technology, were the views of Anthony Jackson, who commented:

It is still amazing that after a quarter of a century of failure some people still seem to
need to peddle the nonsense that GM crops can play any part in solving any of the
problems that we have concerning food and farming.

The Soil Association also expressed strong opposition to GM technology, citing as reasons
the technology’s “inherent uncertainty” and “inherent risk”.197 When we asked Defra its
views on GM technology, Hilary Benn commented that the Government was responsible
for addressing two questions: “one, is food produced by GM safe to eat, and I know of no
evidence that it is not, and, secondly, is it safe to ‘grow’, in other words what is the
environmental impact of it?” He added that “in order to be able to answer the second
question you need to be able to do trials” and said that it was “a source of real frustration to
me and to others that there are some who do not want to allow us even to find the answer
to the question”.

123. We agree that there are risks and uncertainties involved in GM technology, but this
seems like an argument for further research, rather than an argument for dismissing GM
technology out of hand. It is not within the scope of this report to offer a detailed
assessment of the role of GM technology in securing food supplies up to 2050 and
beyond. However, we believe that the potential of GM technology in the context of
sustainable food production should be explored further. Defra has a role to play not
only in commissioning some of the research, but in gaining public trust through the
provision of comprehensible information, based on evidence. It should make an effort
to “negotiate a ceasefire” on the destruction of GM crop trials so that more facts can be
established.

Source:

Securing food supplies up to 2050: the challenges faced by the UK. Fourth Report of Session 2008–09, Volume I, pages 47-48. House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (21.7.09) (http://news.parliament.uk/2009/07/report-securing-uks-food-supplies-up-to-2050/)

<<<back