The European Union and its member states need to drastically revise its regulations so that genetically modified crops can be approved if they are scientifically shown to be safe, according to a UK House of Commons committee report.
The analysisโ”Advanced genetic techniques for crop improvement: regulation, risk and precautionโโalso asked the UK government to make similar changes to its regulatory structure, potentially opening the door to new genetically modified foods and crops that have been caught in a regulatory and political stranglehold while much of the rest of the world is expanding the use of GM in agriculture. Currently 28 countries grow GM crops.
For nearly 10 years, the European Union has effectively or explicitly banned the application or import of genetically modified crops in its member states, though recently the governing body has begun to question a stance that is much stricter than the UK, the United States and other nations. Several EU member nations have become interested in using or developing modified crops, and have begun petitioning the EU for a loosening of its strict positions.
The report does present a mixed message on the thorny issue of how to deal with non-scientific cultural or emotional opposition to new technologies. Theย House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee appeared to try to address concerns voiced by anti-GMO activists that political and cultural considerationsย should be part of the decision matrix in European and developing-nation governments. But theย House of Commons committee also criticized โthe precautionary principle,โย which activists often cite to justify non-science concerns.
The precautionary principle is not a scientific principle but a cultural interpretation of risk tolerance that has been embraced by many governments, most commonly in Europe. Those opposed to GM crops invoke it, claiming that โgenetically modified crops inherently pose greater risk than crops produced using other techniques,โ although every major science organization in the world including every one in Europe, state clearly that GM crops are as safe or safer than organic or other conventional crops.
According to the House of Commons report, theseย distortions of the precautionary principle by GM opponents have resulted in:
- Overlooking the true risks of a new crop, which arise from its characteristics and use in the field, and not from how it is made.
- A failure of the UK and EU to keep up with the blisteringly fast pace of agricultural biotechnology, which is already developing new forms of โcisgenicโ and other genetic methods that are more precise than previous methods and donโt require splicing of a foreign gene.
- Ignoring the benefits of biotechnology, while targeting all possible risks, because of an undue focus on scientific uncertainty that may never be resolved, and was never resolved when approving other traditional methods.
- Forcing EU member nations to state their opposition to GMOs in scientific terms (often resorting to debunked studies), while their true opposition is on political or ethical grounds.
Just as significantly as its recommendations for regulatory reform, the House of Commons report also demanded reviving public debate on the use, risks, ethics and issues revolving around genetically modified crops. The committee members noted that even using the term โGMโ limited full debate, because technology around modern agriculture has evolved well beyond what scientists and the public perceive as genetic modification.
Non-government organizations (NGOs), such as Greenpeace or GM Freeze, were among those invited to comment to the committee while the report was being prepared. However, the report singled out these organizations for โknowingly and willingly misinforming the public.โ The report cited comments from Greenpeace International, which wrote that โthere is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact,โ the Alliance for Natural Health, which had written that โGM represents the biggest uncontrolled experiment ever,โ and GM Freeze, which predicted the possibility of โmassive social, economic and environmental damage worldwide.โ
Just last month, a consortium of anti-GMO advocacy groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and GeneWatch UK sent a letter to theย European Commission demanding that products derived from new methods of genetic engineering for plants and animals, such as gene editing, which are not as tightly regulated as classic genetic engineering,ย should be subject to EU’s currentย labyrinthal assessment and labelling laws. Their goal is to bring a stop to innovation in genetic engineering.
Share this article
NGO opposition hasย had dramaticย consequences on human well being, some studies suggest.ย โA recentย analysisย estimated that the cost of the eco lobby’s opposition to (genetically modified) Golden Rice has been about 1.4 million life years lost last decade in India alone,โ said Johnjoe McFadden, Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Surrey. โThe committeeโs new report rightly urges Greenpeace and other eco-activist groups to cease their ideological-motivated opposition to this potentially life- and sight-saving crop.โ
The media was not left off the hook, either. The report, being British, focused on broadcasts by the public British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), citing partiality caused by โfalse balance,โ and a failure to treat lobbying groups as interested parties.
A few commenters in opposition to the UK Committeeโs recommendations included the Scottish government, which focused on risks to the reputation of Scottish agricultural products. โScotland’s food and drink sector depends to a large extent on the public’s perception of our clean and green imageโฆIn addition, while I appreciate that GM crops have been thoroughly trialed and tested, there is still some debate about the long term effects on the environment from growing GM crops. So, while the risks may be low, we have decided to take a cautious approach with respect to GM crops,โ Scottish Environmental Minister Aileen McLeod wrote.
Opening the door to a public debate would mark the first official such forum since 2010. Meanwhile, other British officials have begun efforts to begin such talks.
Whatโs at stake? Being able to increase food production worldwide by 50ย percentย โif the world is to feed a projected population of nine billion by 2050, and this will have to be achieved with less land, less water and less energy,โ according to the Royal Society.
โThe debate on GM is too often hampered by myths and misinformation,โ said Professor Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society. โThat is as true of the debate among legislators as it is of public debate. To have a good discussion people need to be able to assess the actual evidence, free of the ideology. The Select Committee is right that it is time for that discussion to happen.โ
Note: This story first appeared on the GLP in February, 2015.
Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.
