Rules on GM crops should be overhauled to speed up the development of the technology, Britain¿s chief scientist Sir Mark Walport has said, as he claimed that the regulations 'are not fit for purpose and need urgent changes'
By Ben Spencer
|
Rules on GM crops should be overhauled to speed up the development of the technology, Britain’s chief scientist said yesterday.
Sir Mark Walport claimed that the regulations, which have so far kept commercial GM cultivation out of Britain, are not fit for purpose and need urgent changes.
His backing for the hugely controversial technology came as a report by his committee of scientific advisers risked accusations of arrogance by saying GM opponents had a ‘neurosis’ which ‘boggles the mind’.
Rules on GM crops should be overhauled to speed up the development of the technology, Britain¿s chief scientist Sir Mark Walport has said, as he claimed that the regulations 'are not fit for purpose and need urgent changes'
Sir Mark insisted that EU rules banning the commercial cultivation of GM crops had to be changed to feed the world.
Critics immediately accused the Chief Scientific Adviser of ‘playing a dangerous game’ with the nation’s safety.
There are concerns that tampering with genes in crops to create ‘Frankenstein foods’ – strains which are more resistant to diseases, pests or produce higher yields – could unintentionally damage natural ecosystems or even affect human health.
Dr Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, said: ‘Government advisers are playing a dangerous game with farming and our food. Tougher, not weaker, regulation is essential.’
And Liz O’Neill, of GM Freeze, said: ‘Just because we can do clever things with genetics it doesn’t mean that we should, and it certainly doesn’t mean we should cut corners when it comes to safety.’
One of the authors of yesterday’s report by the Council For Science And Technology, which advises the Government, argued that the debate had been skewed by an anti-GM ‘neurosis’ which has slowed progress.
Sir Mark Walport insisted that EU rules banning the commercial cultivation of GM crops had to be changed to feed the world
Genetic scientist Jonathan Jones, who recently developed a blight-resistant potato, said: ‘How anyone could think this is a bad thing boggles the mind. We need to better explain that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the GM method.’
Professor Jones likened current regulation to early cars having to go slowly behind people waving a red flag. He said. ‘The regulation of the technology is not proportionate. It is time to remove the red flags.’ The report, which was produced at the request of the Prime Minister, recommends sweeping reform to the EU’s regulatory system, with crops licensed in this country in the same way as medical drugs.
Sir Mark insisted that he did not want to reduce regulation but instead make it ‘fit for purpose’.
He said: ‘We take it for granted that because shelves in supermarkets are heaving with food there is no problem. But we have limited agricultural land around the world and in the UK.
‘Climate disruption and population growth are increasing the pressures on food supply. The challenge is to get more from existing land in a sustainable way, or people will go unfed.’
In a letter to David Cameron, he said: ‘We should have confidence in the scientific evidence which concludes that, when properly controlled, GM products are as safe as their conventional counterparts.
‘The longer the EU continues to oppose GM, while the rest of the world adopt it, the greater the risk that EU agriculture will become uncompetitive, especially as more GM crops are commercialised successfully elsewhere.’
All food containing GM ingredients, such as flour or oils, have to be labelled, but meat, milk and eggs from animals fed on GM products do not. Last year a Food Standards Agency study revealed 67 per cent of shoppers want all GM products labelled.