Genetic modification is one of the most sensitive issues to hit the food industry, with the fresh produce sector split by fears about the potential repercussions of the technology and serious concerns about holding back scientific progress. The controversies range from fears about food safety and human health, to the environmental impact of modification, to the missed opportunities tied in with rejecting GM - and the debate surrounding the issue is as complex and varied as the technology itself.
But, now that the world population is multiplying at a breakneck rate and climate change is expected to make an impact on food production, while countries such as the US and China have taken the biotechnology on board, could GM be in need of a rethink in the UK?
Some 10 million farms across the world have already planted 100m hectares of GM crops since 1996. The UK government has so far refused to either close the door on GM production, or endorse it. “The government has concluded that there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the cultivation of GM crops in the UK, but that proposed uses need to be assessed for safety on a case-by-case basis,” reads a Defra statement on GM. “The government will continue to take a precautionary approach and only agree to the commercial release of a GM crop if the evidence shows that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.”
Whether or not GM fresh produce could become commercially important in the UK, be it in the short, medium or long term, will depend on a number of factors, including the regulatory processes administered both in the UK and Europe, and on one of the biggest barriers: consumer concern.
The history of breeding shows that the controversies surrounding the subject can be traced back to the discovery that human hands can manipulate nature, back in the 19th century. The so-called “father of genetics” was Austrian priest and scientist Gregor Mendel, who was one of the first to study the inheritance of traits, in pea plants, in the 1860s. This early model for breeding laid the foundations for conventional crossing methods, which were developed into hybrid models, before the first marker-assisted breeding was achieved in the 1980s.
Each stage in the development of the breeding process has seen the time it takes for new varieties to be created cut down significantly, while costs have been reduced, and efficiency increased.
The introduction of GM techniques is the next stage in the process that will provide breeders with an additional tool in their work, says Nick Bolton, sales and development manager at seed breeder Nickerson-Zwaan, but he stresses that he is neither strongly for nor against the adoption of this biotechnology. “If the public knew more about the evolution of the plant breeding they would see that GM is just the next step,” he says.
“Transgenic plant breeding, or GM, creates a dramatic increase in the gene pool. In other words, it is now possible to take genes from an onion and transfer it into a carrot or Savoy cabbage. Marker-assisted breeding enables the manipulation of thousands of genes to accelerate crop improvement, without increasing the size of the gene pool that breeders can use,” he explains.
The marker-assisted approach is yielding some excellent results in the UK, Bolton says, so that, at present, he believes it is not necessary to introduce GM techniques.
But a substantial proportion of the fresh produce industry sees GM technology as a mine of potential for the sector. GM techniques would secure greater prosperity for the UK fresh produce industry, says Séan Rickard, senior lecturer in business economics at Cranfield University, and he is confident that biotechnology will be the next big driver for the food industry. “The main advantage is continued progress in the development of higher productivity, much broader uses for products grown in the UK, and better control of costs,” he says. “And what is the argument against it? That it is a new technology so we should be wary of it - the same thing happened when we started to fly, but we have never looked back.
“If you want to be profitable in the future, you cannot close your mind to these options,” he stresses. “I am not suggesting you should shove GM fruit and vegetables down people’s throats tomorrow, but biotechnology is the way forward.
“I would like to see more discussion from the production sector, in particular, and the rest of the industry,” he adds. “If other countries have this technology and we do not, it will be extremely dangerous for the UK industry.”
Each new generation is set apart by technological progress, Rickard says. “You have to fall back on why we are better off than our parents - because of technology,” he explains. “We seem to accept that the application of knowledge has benefited us, so why is this suddenly not the case with food.
“The whole of human progress is based on technological advances, so it is an issue when there is a technology that people say they will have nothing to do with,” he says. “For a country like the UK, which has always been at the forefront of science and agriculture and has benefited greatly from it year after year, it is very sad to see the latest technology in food has been missed and that other countries are now at an advantage.”
A number of factors have come together to force the spotlight back onto the future of food production. The security of global food supply will become more important than ever as the global population is forecast to reach nine billion by 2050 and, with production expected to be hit by climate change, GM supporters say it could be key to feeding the population in the future. “If we are going to meet the rising demand for food, we have to make our industry twice as productive, and we must achieve greater outputs, in spite of the possibility of more extreme weather conditions,” says Rickard.
This way of thinking appears to be catching on across the UK fresh produce sector. A study by GMO Compass last year revealed that fewer farmers in the UK are opposed to GM than is often thought to be the case, with 47 per cent of those surveyed claiming that they would be willing to cultivate GM crops. Three quarters said they would grow GM crops if consumers were willing to buy them.
But the prospect of the fresh produce industry moving into GM science does not appeal across the sector, with those conscious of consumer opinion eager to distance themselves from the issue, and others - the organic movement in particular - setting themselves up as the opposition.
The Soil Association, which certifies the majority of UK organic production, has a clear stance on the biotech issue and, as part of the GM Freeze campaign, has positioned itself firmly against GM. “Organic standards prohibit GM ingredients and its derivatives,” reads the Soil Association policy. “We have standards that specifically relate to this.
“There is a restricted list of non-organic ingredients that are permitted up to five per cent in organically certified products, but these ingredients must be identified as non-GM. With our licensed products, we ask the manufacturing companies to complete our non-GM declaration form.
“We ask that any testing for GM contamination is done to a contamination threshold of 0.1 per cent.”
UK supermarkets have predictably sided with public opinion and refused to endorse GM products. Number-one retailer Tesco has outlined its GM policy to reflect what consumers want, and its take on the issue is in line with other UK retailers. “Our policy on GM foods is driven by the view of our customers,” it says. “They continue to tell us that they are not yet convinced of the benefits of GM. We do not therefore have any own-brand GM foods on our shelves. We remain committed to clear labelling to enable customers to make an informed choice. All branded products containing GM are labelled as such.”
The public perception of GM products as unnatural and unethical is still the biggest obstacle that the food industry will have to overcome if it is ever going to grow and supply modified products.
German chemicals giant BASF Plant Science hit the headlines last year when its trial plots on blight-resistant potatoes for the UK market were attacked by anti-GM protestors, who broke into the one-hectare site in Cambridge and tore up crops in an attempt to put a stop to what they branded “frankenfoods”. The field trials, which have been granted permission for the next five years at least, are intended to determine, under typical UK growing conditions, the effectiveness of the late blight-resistance trait, and assess the performance of the modified potato varieties.
This has the potential to represent a massive step forward for the UK potato industry, which has been plagued by late blight in recent times, racking up estimated losses of £50m as a result of the disease each year and spending some £20m annually on treatments to combat the problem.
“Field trials are an important step in the development of new and improved crop varieties,” says Chris Wilson, BASF communications manager. “They need to extend over multiple years to ensure the reliability of the new trait, address aspects of safety and ensure the potatoes meet the quality requirements of the market and consumers in order to assess commercial viability.
“We have permission to carry out trials in the UK for five years, from 2007.
“But planned field trials only represent the start of a development programme to select the final variety. From that point onwards, eight to 10 years are needed before the final variety can be introduced into the market.”
UK potato growers should have the option to produce GM crops, Wilson says. “Most current potato varieties contain resistance genes that provide some protection from fungal infection, but do not protect the plants completely,” he explains. “The plants that we are field testing have already shown - in the greenhouse and the field - that they can complement the existing resistance and provide the plant with a much stronger protection from late blight.
“A late blight-resistant potato would be a valuable new tool to help overcome the disease, and deliver quality potatoes.”
The potential for battling pests and disease that is presented by GM potato varieties has, understandably, attracted attention from UK growers and, according to Wilson, there are indications that the mindset of retailers could be set to change. “There has been increasing interest from farmers in the possibility of a new tool to deal with a disease that was particularly severe in the UK last year,” says Wilson. “While the retail industry is cautious at the moment, there are signs that some retailers are reviewing their attitudes to GM products. But there is not a market at the moment, as the product does not exist. However, BASF believes consumers should be offered the choice to buy, or not buy, GM products.”
There is no reason to expect that GM potatoes are any less safe than conventionally produced potatoes, Wilson says, and he maintains that all trials have been undertaken in line with stringent regulation. “The planned development programme, including the field trials, is designed to evaluate their efficacy following procedures laid down by Defra and, if approval is granted, this confirms that the potatoes are safe to be planted using the management procedures to be followed during the trial,’ he says.
“The safety of GM crops for humans, animals and the environment has been adequately investigated and proven, in connection with the regulatory proceedings and by numerous safety research projects,” says Wilson. “For example, in evaluating its 81 safety research projects since 1986, the European Commission has established that GM crops and products are safe. However, not only scientific studies, but also the extensive experience obtained from cultivation and use since 1996, verifies the safety of GM crops.”
The potatoes that are being tested in the field trials will not be eaten and, before any are grown commercially, they will be tested over several years and the European Food Safety Authority will evaluate them to ensure that they are as safe to eat as any conventional potato.
“It is important that consumers are well informed about the technology in order to make an informed choice when GM food is offered on the supermarket shelf,” Wilson adds.
The move towards achieving a measured debate between the industry, the government and, of course, the public is thought of as the key to making progress with GM science.
UK agriculture is only just starting to recover from the impact that the BSE food-safety scare had on the public perception of farming and science in the 1990s, and consumer trust is still an issue following subsequent scares involving salmonella, foot and mouth and blue tongue, as well as E.coli. “BSE was a massive shock, and that is where you have to trace back the issues UK consumers have with GM,” Rickard says. “The media worked out that they could sell millions of papers with food scare stories - and both the government and the industry were not prepared to put a stop to this when it came to GM, and they both kept their heads down. This handed the debate over to those who were opposed to it and created a one-sided account of the situation.
“The industry should have been telling its side of the story and, only now, it is beginning to speak up.
“The more the industry asks for a reasoned debate, the greater the likelihood of the public getting better information and a more measured debate,” he stresses.
The industry has taken into consideration consumer fears and is working to try to allay them, where possible. “We believe the UK is a fair-minded country and people understand the importance of the research and development that takes place in Europe and the UK,” says Wilson. “The vast majority of people recognise that we can only develop scientific breakthroughs through trials like this.
“But we take seriously the concerns that some people have regarding plant biotechnology. We will do everything to provide answers to any questions people have and look for ways to discuss the issues with the public. We are seeking a matter-of-fact dialogue based on scientific fact.
“However, we have been concerned by the actions of protestors on a number of occasions. We were particularly appalled that activists broke into the trial site and caused serious criminal damage to the trial. This is completely unacceptable in a society where everyone should be able to form an opinion based on fact and scientific evidence.
“This is a scientific research trial that has received consent from the government and is being carried out in strict accordance with the regulations laid down,” adds Wilson.
“Research translates scientific advances into tangible benefits for society, and we believe GM technology brings benefits to the farming community and food chain.”
No comments yet