I have to say I did not see yesterday’s announcement giving the power to EU states to rule on GM coming.
All the indications were that, despite an increasing body of scientific research suggesting GM food is no more harmful than conventional, the European Commission would continue on its steadfastly anti-GM course. In the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg, we were lead to believe, there was little appetite to take on the environmentalists and this was one political hot potato that nobody wanted to tackle.
So this week’s news has come as something of a surprise, even if we know that ministers and civil servants at Defra have switched to a pro-GM tact in the past couple of years and were actively lobbying for a change in the law.
Many British scientists, including prominent fresh produce figures such as Professor Chris Atkinson (interviewed in this week’s FPJ) have argued that Europe would get left behind in science if it didn’t allow GM trials backed by peer-reviewed evidence.
Views on this topic seem to be less polarised now and have moved more into the centre ground. Many farmers are saying they would like to have GM crops in their arsenal, but do not see it as the be-all-and-end-all or magic bullet.
The counter argument is that once GMOs are allowed into the environment, there will be no way to return to the GM-free days in future. The Soil Association and others believe yesterday’s decision could change the face of our natural landscape forever.
Even getting the green light from the EU to decide its own fate doesn’t mean we can expect GM food on our plates any time soon though.
I’ve written regularly on this topic over the past 10 years and every time I’ve spoken to supermarkets to get their views they’ve come out staunchly anti-GM, claiming there is no public desire for it. However exclusive research by England Marketing for FPJ Live suggested that in fact a small majority of people are either in favour or indifferent towards its use. A sizeable minority remain entirely opposed.
There are lots of issues around GM that add complexity to the story, such as the fact that a can of worms would be immediately opened up over how and whether it is labelled on pack.
In the USA, one pressure group in Oregon has raised a million dollars to fight for transparency in terms of GM labelling, and it is quite right that consumers should have the full right to choose.
The story has already got the predictable treatment in the Daily Mail (“Outrage as ministers back first commercial planting” and the inevitable box on “How the Frankenfood giants got their way”). So there is still a considerable and difficult PR war that the government will have to win if it wants to get the public on board.
One thing is for sure – the world (and very much Britain as well) is becoming increasingly food insecure, and in my view it’s right that, providing the science has been rigorously proven, GM should be trialled in limited areas in this country to see what it’s capable of. I don’t for one moment condone or foresee a mass switchover to GM farming, but having a new weapon to cope with the challenges of climate change and the constant withdrawal of relevant chemicals is likely to be largely welcomed by British producers.
