The European Union’s de facto ban on genetically modified (GM) crops may have caused more harm than good, according to the UK’s chief scientist.
Sir Mark Walport told MPs on the Science and Technology committee on Wednesday: “The consequence of inactions are that we are potentially, particularly in Europe, denying access to technologies that actually will potentially help feed people in ways that damage the environment less.”
He said food security in Europe, particularly in Britain, was more tenuous than people realised and the costs of controlling agricultural pests could be significantly reduced.
Only one GM crop is currently grown commercially in the European Union – the insect-resistant maize MON 810.
Gaining approval for the cultivation of GM crops in the EU has been effectively impossible because each one requires a vote by member states. Many EU countries are sceptical of the technology. So even if a crop is approved by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) it is unlikely to make it into commercial fields. New rules allowing member states to unilaterally ban GM may ease this political blockade.
Scientists, including Walport and the EU chief scientist Anne Glover whose role is being axed, say GM is not inherently dangerous, essentially no different to the selective breeding that humans have engaged in for millennia and each crop should be assessed on its own merits.
“It makes more sense to assess crops based on their individual characteristics and the farming practices that accompany them, rather than the method by which they were produced,” says Mark Downs, chief executive of the Society of Biology.
Walport told the committee that the UK’s advocacy for GM crops in the face of EU opposition was scientifically justified. “I do consider that to be an evidence-based policy indeed. The science is very clear and I’m happy that the government have taken on board the science.”
Read the full original article: Is a ban on GM crops more harmful than growing them?
