Upload
rommyzp
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
1/32
he Food Standards Agency magazine with teeth
1102
|
60
eussI
12> PatrickHolden and
Professor Giles
Oldroyd take
part in a lively
exchange
DoweevenneedGM?
16 > Sir JohnBeddington
discusses
global food
supply issues
C Vh iieew
Soc ite hnet iGfoc vAerd nv
im
seer nt
2 0 > A rangeof participants
put each other
straight on
where we go
from here
Roundthetable
GM:novel cuisineor unpalatable
prospect?
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
2/32
ON THE MENU
01> Food for thoughtGM may, or may not, be theanswer. But what is the question? Frank Chalmers
04> International fare GM-based agriculture worldwide
06> Reading the labelsThe GM food regulationsensure GM foods dont slip under the radar.
David Jefferies
08> New ingredients EFSA scientic panels evaluate allGM food and feed for safety. Howard Davies
10> Public attitudesWhat have we learned by talkingto people? Robyn Ackerman and Micah McGuire
12> Exchange of viewsDo we really need GM? PatrickHolden and Giles Oldroyd debate the issue
15> Place settings The Government sets out the veprinciples behind its policies on GM
18> ScotlandThe Scottish Government outlines why itis opposed to the introduction of GM crops
19> WalesGM requires a precautionary approach, theWelsh Assembly Government says
26> Feeding the world?Parliamentary Under-Secretaryof State Stephen OBrien outlines the views of the
Department for International Development
28> The bioscientistThere are gains to be made by theworlds poor, says Mark Buckingham, Deputy Chair,
Agricultural Biotechnology Council
29> Out of AfricaGM represents nothing but a threat toAfrican agriculture, says Mariam Mayet, Director of
the African Centre for Biosafety
EditorFrank Chalmers020 7276 8805
Sub editorRicki Ostrov
Editorial panelTerrence Collis, Andrew Wadge,Stephen Humphreys, Frank ChalmersThe Food Standards Agency magazine with teeth
DesignSPY Design and Publishingspydesign.co.uk
Contact Bite at:Food Standards Agency Subscriptions125 Kingsway Marfot MiahLondon 020 7276 8849
WC2B 6NH [email protected]
2>Root and branchSandy Lawrie provides some historical perspective to the
development of genetic modication
16>Global challengeScience and technology
will help to secure future
food supplies, says
Sir John Beddington
20>Round the tableWhere do we go from here?
Champions of farming, food
production, consumers and
science try to agree a route
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
3/32
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
How do we rame
the question?
Y
ou may recall the old joke:
A farmer is standing at a
crossroads. Someone
approaches and asks which
direction to take to reach theirdestination. He thinks for a minute and
answers: Well, I wouldnt start from
here. We got a similar answer whenwe asked a farmer, a consumer, a food
manufacturer and a scientist: Where
do we go from here on GM?
Of course, we are where we are.
The Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra) has just approved
a new crop trial on aphid-resistant wheat.
This is the third GM trial currently
approved in the UK. The other two areexamining pest-resistant and blight-
resistant potatoes.
The Governments GM policy isbased upon ve key principles. The
emphasis placed on listening to different
views on GM has prompted us to publish
this themed issue of Bite and to consider
the wider landscape. The view of the
participants in our roundtable discussion
the aforementioned farmer, consumer,
food manufacturer and scientist is that
should there be another debate about theuse of GM, it should be framed around
how we produce food and the challenges
of feeding a growing world population.It should not start with whether the
technology is a good or a bad thing.
Patrick Holden, Director of the
Sustainable Food Trust, and Professor
Giles Oldroyd, of the John Innes Centre,
debate whether the world actually needs
GM or whether other means of farming are
better for the environment and for people.
The Governments Chief Scientic
Adviser Sir John Beddington explains
why he considers that technologies such as
GM could play a part in securing our future
food security, and Stephen OBrien,
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stateat the Department for International
Development, explains why he believes that
GM is a valuable addition to the toolbox.
Mark Buckingham, a scientist from the
Agriculture and Biotechnology Council,
adds his views on why GM could provide
part of the answer to world hunger.
Mariam Mayet, from South African NGO
the African Centre for Biosafety, argues
forcefully that GM is not the panacea that
the West suggests it might be in Africa.
Her NGOs view is that it is a tool that youhave to update and pay for every year
and one that you cant save or share
with a neighbour.
GM is a devolved matter within the UK
and the devolved Governments have their
own take on it. Ministers from the Scottish
and Welsh governments provide a case for
having a GM-free brand for agriculture in
their respective countries.
With the FSA remit focusing clearly on
food safety, weve taken the opportunity to
outline the regulatory process that exists tocontrol the introduction of GM foods in
Europe. An EFSA scientic panel member
also describes the assessment process that
takes place at the European Union level.
The FSA doesnt claim to have the
answers when it comes to the introduction
of GM food or GM technology. I hope,
however, that this issue of Bite will
encourage all interested parties to question
whether their approach addresses the
real concerns that some consumers have
about GM.
Frank ChalmersEditor, Bite
I hope that thisissue of Bite will
encourage allinterested partiesto question whethertheir approachaddresses thereal concerns thatsome consumershave about GM.
Bite Issue 62011 1
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
4/32
ROOT AND BRANcH
How did weget to here?Genetic modifcationinvolves inserting onegene (or more) thatwould not normally beound into the target
Genetic modifcation is the process o changing the DNAo any living thing (plants, animals or micro-organisms) in
a way that does not occur in nature. Sandy Lawrie, Heado Novel Foods at the Food Standards Agency, providessome historical perspective T
he science of genetics has
advanced enormously
following the discovery in
1953 of the structure ofDNA. That discovery laid
the foundation for the science of
molecular biology and, during the sixor so decades since, more and more
has been revealed about how DNA
denes the way that plants, animals
and other living things behave.
A single DNA molecule contains a
huge amount of information and the
development of computer systems
has greatly helped the development
of modern molecular biology. Thisknowledge has opened the way to
major advances in many areas of
biology, including understanding andtreating diseases and breeding new
crop varieties.
Typically, genetic modication
involves inserting one gene (or more)
that would not normally be found in
the target organism, but it can also
refer to altering, deactivating or deleting
genes that are already present.
For example, introducing newgenes into bacteria and other
micro-organisms has revolutionised
the production of enzymes that areused in domestic products such as
biological washing powders, as well
as in food manufacturing and in
biological research.
Although molecular biology has
many applications, the aspect that
has probably attracted the most
debate is the genetic modication of
crops. Producing a GM crop typically
2 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
5/32
CottonIt is estimatedthat 62% o globalcotton productioninvolves the useo geneticallymodifed cotton
1996The frst GM cropswere harvested in
1996 in the US
SalmonA type o GM armedsalmon has beendeveloped in theUS, which is beingreviewed or uture use
involves introducing genes into a
plant so that it expresses a new
characteristic, such as resistance
to attack by insects.These added genes were originally
isolated from other plants or from
micro-organisms, such as soil bacteria,that would not normally transfer their genes
to the target crop. As molecular biology has
advanced, it has become possible to
manufacture completely new genes by
chemical means. This is known as
synthetic biology.
Which crops have been modifed?
So far, most GM crops have beenmodied to help overcome two of the
major problems faced by commercial
farmers, namely insect pests and weeds.
As an alternative to spraying insecticidesonto the crop, it has been possible to
introduce genes that allow the plant to
manufacture insecticides called Bt
proteins, which are naturally found in
common soil bacteria such as
Bacillus thuringiensis.
It is estimated that 62% of global
cotton production involves the use ofgenetically modied Bt cotton varieties.
By making a crop tolerant of a herbicide
that kills other plants, farmers can control
weeds more effectively.
Genetic modication could also beused to help create plant varieties with
other properties to give foods improved
nutrient levels (increased vitamin A in rice,
or increased polyunsaturated oils in
cereals). Such products are at an
advanced stage of development but
have not yet been marketed.
How much are GM crops being used?The use of GM crops has grown year-on-
year since 1996 when the rst crops
insect-resistant maize and herbicide-tolerantsoya were harvested in the US. At a global
level, GM crop varieties now account for a
signicant proportion of several majorcommodity crops (see following article).
Only two types of GM crops are grown
commercially in the EU. No GM crops are
grown in the UK, but a type of insect-
resistant maize is grown to a limited extent
in Spain, and in a few other European
countries, for use as animal feed. A GM
potato used for industrial (non-food)
starch production is being cultivated inthree countries.
There has been some debate about the
impact of GM crops and whether theyprovide the expected benets to farmers
and the environment. The Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has
commissioned an independent, systematic
review of available data on the impact of
GM crops that is due to be published later
this year.
How might GM be used in thenear uture?There is some interest in crops with
improved nutrient content, and the rst
examples of soya and maize with altered
fat content are currently being assessed.
GM animals are widely used in medicalresearch but not in food production. This
may change in future, as the US authorities
are reviewing a type of GM farmed salmon
that has been modied to grow throughout
the winter months, so that it reaches adult
proportions much quicker.
What is the FSAs position on GM?The FSAs view is that GM food and GM
animal feed products should each undergo
a stringent case-by-case safety assessmentbefore they are put on the market, and
consumers should have the right to choose
whether they buy and eat GM products.Both of these requirements are met
through current regulations.
What is DNA and whatdo genes do?
DNA short for deoxyribonucleic acid is a very long molecule that is found in
every cell of plants and animals. The
DNA contains the information needed
by the cell to function, grow and divide.Each DNA molecule is tightly coiled into
a package called a chromosome.
Each chromosome contains a large
number of specic sequences called
genes that provide the blueprints for
manufacturing all the different proteins
that the cell needs. These proteins may
have a structural function, like collagen,or they may be important for the cells
metabolism, like insulin.
In some cases, a single change in a
gene can result in an obvious difference
in the plant or animal, for example in thecolour of owers or the ability to see red
and green colours. In other cases the
result may be more subtle many
changes in DNA do not cause any
observable change in the appearance or
behaviour of the organism.
Bite Issue 62011 3
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
6/32
INTERNATIONAL FARE
GM ood aroundthe worldGM crops have been introduced increasinglyworldwide since 1996, according to theInternational Service or the Acquisitiono Agri-biotech Applications
The planting of GM crops has
increased each year since their
arrival in 1996, and in 2010
biotech crops accounted for
10% of global cropland,
according to the International Service
for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA). Also in that year,
the 10 largest biotech crop-growingcountries all had more than 1 million
hectares in production.
Top 10 biotech crop-growingcountriesIn hectare rank order, they include:
1 United States (66.8 million)
2 Brazil (25.4 million)
3 Argentina (22.9 million)
4 India (9.4 million)
5 Canada (8.8 million)
6 China (3.5 million)7 Paraguay (2.6 million)
8 Pakistan (2.4 million)
9 South Africa (2.2 million)
10 Uruguay (1.1 million)
For comparison, about 5 million
hectares of land is used for growing crops
in the UK.
The ve principal developing and newly
industrialised countries growing biotech
crops Brazil, Argentina, India, China and
South Africa planted 63 million hectares
of biotech crops in 2010, equivalent to43% of the global total. Brazil increased
its hectares under GM by 4 million.
Developing countries grew 48% of
global biotech crops in 2010, and will
exceed industrialised nations in their
plantings of biotech crops by 2015,
according to Clive James, founder and
chair of the ISAAA.Last year three nations grew biotech
crops commercially for the rst time
Pakistan, Burma (Myanmar) and Sweden,
the rst Scandinavian country tocommercialise biotech crops.
The ISAAA describes itsel as anot-or-proft organisation with aninternational network o centresdesigned to contribute to the alleviationo hunger and poverty by sharing
knowledge and crop biotechnologyapplications.
The most commonlygrown geneticallymodified crops
1farmers5m
4 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
7/32
2ountries worldwide
9rowing GM crops
1hectares of arable land
48mbeing used
1of world
0s arable land
%used for GM crops
MHA = million hectares
5
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
8/32
R EADING THE LABELS
A closer lookat regulationHow can we tell i GM products are on sale inthe UK? How are GM products regulated?David Jeeries, rom the Food StandardsAgencys Novel Foods Branch, looks at how
it all stacks up
David JefferiesFSA NovelFoods Branch
Most people are aware that
some crop plants have
been genetically modied
and that these modiedplants may be used as
food ingredients. But when you go to the
local supermarket, how do you tell what
products contain GM material?
The answer, of course, is to read the
label. All products made using GM
ingredients must be labelled as such,
regardless of the amount of GM materialin the nal product. If it is not labelled as
genetically modied or contains GM
soya or maize for example, then it has
not been made using GM ingredients.
Yet with so many genetically-modiedorganisms (GMOs) authorised for food
use, and with GM crops grown worldwide,
there are still few foods containing GM
ngredients in the shops. Due to adverse
publicity about GMOs in the 1990s, the
major food retailers decided not to stock
products containing GM ingredients. The
only products containing GM ingredientsthat might be found in your local shops
are the occasional products imported
from outside the EU, such as Hershey
chocolate bars or catering packs
of cooking oil.
The three key regulations that
address GM food and feed are EU wide.
The rst, the Genetically Modied (GM)
Food and Feed Regulation (EC)1829/2003, covers the authorisation
process and sets out the labelling
requirements for GM food and feed in
the EU, including in the UK.A second, the Traceability and
Labelling Regulation (EC) 1830/
2003, deals in more detail with
the labelling of GM foods from
the farm on which they are grown,
through the wholesalers, food
processors and manufacturers,
to the retailers who sell the products.This regulation is intended to ensure
the traceability of GM foods throughout
the food chain.
The nal regulation, Directive2001/18 (EC), covers the growing of
GM crops, for which Defra, as the
department that deals with agriculture
and the environment, has responsibility.
GM oods: what is allowed?The EU-wide regulations that cover
GM foods (and also GM animal
6 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
9/32
feed) ensure that before GM food
ingredients can be sold in the shops they
must be authorised. GM foods are only
authorised for sale if they are judged not to
present a risk to health or the environment,
and to be of no less nutritional value than
the foods they are intended to replace.The main component of the
authorisation process is a pre-market
safety assessment, which is carried out by
the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA). Applicant companies are required
to submit a dossier of information for each
GMO, a large part of which will be studies
that demonstrate the safety of the GMO.
Once EFSA has published its safety
assessment, it is discussed by EU member
states before authorisation can be granted.Once authorised, a GMO can be marketedin all 27 member states, including the UK.
A list of authorised GMOs is available
(see further information below). The
majority of the entries are varieties of
crops, such as maize and soya, which are
not usually sold for consumption but are
processed rst before being incorporated
into foods. Currently, the list contains no
fruits or vegetables of the type you might
nd in your local supermarket. There is a
variety of authorised potato, but this willnever be seen in the shops as it has been
engineered to produce a type of starchused exclusively in the production of
paper. It is also one of the only GM crops
that has been authorised for cultivation in
the EU, the other being a variety of maize;
neither of these crops is grown in the UK.
GM foods are only authorised for sale ifthey are judged not to present a risk tohealth or the environment, and to be of noless nutritional value than the foods they
are intended to replace.
Exceptions to the requirementsFoods containing known GM ingredients
must be labelled as such. However,
foods may contain up to 0.9% of GMmaterial from authorised GMOs without
a requirement for labelling, as long as
the presence of this material is accidental
or unavoidable and the food producer
can demonstrate that it has taken all
reasonable measures to avoid cross-contamination.
Foods that have been processed or
obtained with the help of GM technology
(for example, cheese that has been
produced with the help of an enzyme
from a GM source) do not have to be
labelled as long as the GMO is not present
in the end product.
Products such as milk, meat and eggs
that are derived from animals fed GM
animal feed also do not have to be
labelled, as the denition of genetically
modied does not include eggs, milk, or
meat products from such animals.
In the absence of EU rules governingthe use of labels on GM-free products,
some member states (for example Austria
and Germany) have introduced voluntary
national schemes on GM-free labelling,while France plans to introduce a national
law in 2012. The problem with these
national rules is that they all impose
different criteria as to what qualies as a
GM-free product, which can be confusing
for consumers. As a result, the UK is
currently trying to stimulate discussion at
EU level on a harmonised approach.
Enorcing the regulationsGM foods are covered by the sameenforcement regulations as other foods.
In the UK it is trading standards ofcers
or environmental health ofcers of
local authorities who enforce food law,
including for GM foods. Port health
authorities also play a central role, as
much of our food is imported throughthe ports. Surveillance at ports includes
physical checks of cargoes, checks for
compliance with labelling requirements
and, when necessary, sampling of
products, especially if the presence ofunauthorised GMOs is suspected.
Further informationThe list of authorised GMOs can befound at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm
Bite Issue 62011 7
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
10/32
NEw INGREDIENTS
EFSA scientists putsaety frstThe European Food Saety Authority GMO Panel
is responsible or evaluating GM ood and eed
beore they can be marketed in the EU. Panel
member Howard Davies explains
Professor Howard DaviesJames Hutton Institute
The European Food Safety Authority
Scientic Panel on Genetically
Modied Organisms providesindependent, high quality scientic
advice to EFSA, in support of its
role as the primary agency for delivering risk
assessments of GMOs and derived food/feed
within the EU.
The panel, which consists of 21 scientic
experts from European research institutes,
universities or risk assessment bodies, hasthree primary working groups: molecular
characterisation, food/feed, and environment.
It is within these working groups that
applications for import of GM food/feed or for
cultivation in the EU are rst evaluated, eachgroup focusing its skills on the relevant areas
of the application dossiers. The panel and
working groups are supported by EFSA
scientic and administrative staff to
deliver the nal opinions, which
are published in the
EFSA Journal.
8 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
11/32
Processing applicationsEach application is allocated
a rapporteur and co-
rapporteur from within eachworking group to work with
a member of EFSAs
scientic staff to deliverrst drafts of opinions for
discussion at the working
groups. It is at this point
that a detailed evaluation of
data usually leads to
questions that applicants
are required to address.
The working groups also
take into account commentsfrom the EU member states.
Questions can arise on, for
example, experimental design,gaps in data, inconsistencies in
the data, quality of gures and
validity of interpretation.
Applicants may also be asked to
update any bioinformatics analysis
using the most recent databases.
The various working groups share
the questions they wish to ask
applicants, to ensure consistencyand relevance.
Once all of the questions have
been addressed, the workinggroup contributions are collated
by EFSA staff and presented at
the panel plenaries for discussion
and possible adoption. This
includes the adoption of the
panel's responses to all comments
raised by member states, which
are also published alongside the
nal opinion.
Other activitiesWhile the evaluation of GMO
applications is the panels raison
d'tre, it is involved in severalother activities including the
development of guidance
documents to assist applicantsin the preparation of their risk
assessment.
The recent publication of
updated guidance on the selection
of comparators used to evaluate GM
crops is an example. Its production
was driven by the fact that current
approaches for comparator selection
would not be the best option formore complex GMOs with multiple
genes and traits.
As with many of thesedocuments, a draft was published
for public consultation and EFSA
also held a workshop with
stakeholders. After discussions, the
nal opinion was adapted
accordingly. Such tasks are usually
driven by a working group
comprising selected members of all
three panel working groups plus adhoc experts as required. They are
demanding in terms of time and
effort but are valuable in assistingthe panel in fullling its duties.
The panel deals with issues that
can be many and varied, and the
workloads and travel involved
(EFSA is based in Parma, Italy)
can be considerable. EFSA is,
therefore, working towards more
teleconferencing to ease the travel
burden and associated costs.
Panel members
Panel members are appointed following an open call
from EFSA and a subsequent evaluation of their
credibility, scientic standing and skill base. Theindependence of panel members and of any ad hoc
members invited to specic working groups is crucial.
Declarations of interest on agenda topics have to be
provided for all meetings, in addition to an overarching
annual declaration that itemises members' activities
that may be considered relevant to their roles.
Declarations, which are in the public domain, can
result in challenges from interested parties.
Disciplines covered by panel members include:
microbiology, toxicology, food science and food
chemistry, animal nutrition, biostatistics and modelling,molecular ecology and biodiversity.
UK advisers: ACNFP,ACAF and ACRE
In addition to receiving authoritative advice on GMOs
from the EFSA panel, the Food Standards Agency
can call on advice about GM issues from UK expertsby referring questions to its own Advisory Committee
on Novel Foods and Processes and its Advisory
Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs. These
committees do not duplicate the routine work of theEFSA panel, but they do consider specic issues that
may arise for example by advising on new guidelines
for safety assessments or looking into new scientic
publications that are relevant to GM food safety.
Environmental issues are the responsibility of the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
and its devolved counterparts in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland. UK ministers are advised on thepotential environmental risks of GMOs by an
independent expert committee, the Advisory Committee
on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). EFSA examines
the environmental risk assessments in applications tomarket GM crops in the EU. EFSAs analysis is on an
EU-wide basis, reecting the wide range of different
geographical and climatic conditions across Europe and
variations in agricultural practices. ACRE considers
EFSAs conclusions but focuses on the potential
environmental impact under UK conditions.
Sandy Lawrie
Bite Issue 62011 9
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
12/32
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
13/32
Weare taking this valuable opportunityto step back and review past dialogues onGM and other areas of science to ensure we
understand how best to engage the publicover such issues.
David Willetts
Minister o State or Universities and Science
response to the statement: On balance
the advantages of genetically modied
(GM) food outweigh any dangers.
Further qualitative research carried out by
the Agency explored these issues in more
detail. People who were undecided said they
felt they lacked knowledge on the subject orfelt there was not enough evidence available
for them to form an opinion.
Those who did not hold a view felt either
that GM was a private issue rather than a
public one, or simply that GM was not a
priority for them. Both tended to err on the
side of caution when pressed for a view,
and so tended to be more negative to GM
food than positive.
The Agencys research on food
technologies suggests that when peopleare asked to respond to new foodtechnologies based on how they perceive
the risks and benets, they will ask
questions such as:
Is it safe?
Whats in it for me?
Whats in it for them?
Will it harm the environment?
What about the welfare of animals?
Is it natural?
The amount of personal control or
choice people feel they have also has animpact on their attitudes. For example, if
people can decide whether or not to eat a
particular food they will feel more in
control. Their existing values or ideals, for
example on food production in general and
on science and technology, also play animportant role.
In 2010, the Agency made preparations
to hold a GM dialogue, to be facilitated by an
independent chair and steering group. In
September 2010, the Government decided
not to proceed with this. David Willetts,
Minister of State for Universities and
Science, explained: We are taking this
valuable opportunity to step back and review
past dialogues on GM and other areas of
science to ensure we understand how best
to engage the public over such issues.The Governments policy on the use of
GM technology in food and agriculture (see
page 15) highlights the need to provide
information and to listen to the views
of the public.
The Agency has learned from itsengagement work about the need to talk to
people openly when discussing new food
technologies. The key conclusions theAgency has reached include:
Knowledge about new technologies can
be limited, and people may feel they do
not know enough to be able to take part
in discussions.
When carrying out research or
engagement activities, people must be
allowed enough time to understand the
issues under discussion. Presenting information in a fair and
balanced way can be difcult. It is
important to show all sides of the storyand allow people to form their own
opinions about the strength of different
arguments.
When discussing new food technologies,
the Agency cant expect people to
consider food safety only. It needs also to
take account of peoples concerns about
the environment, animal welfare and
other ethical considerations, as all areimportant issues for the public.
Further information
The Public Attitudes Tracker can befound at:http://www.food.gov.uk/science/socsci/surveys/publictrackingsurvey
The European research can be found at:http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
Bite Issue 62011 11
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
14/32
EXcHANGE OF VIEwS
Does the world need GM?
This issues exchange oviews looks at whetherGM might be a distractionrather than a solution
Patrick HoldenDirector, SustainableFood Trust
ProfessorGiles OldroydSenior Plant Scientist
John Innes Centre
Dear Giles,
I read on your website that having
discovered the mechanism by which
leguminous plants x nitrogen, you hopethat transferring this to non-legumes will
result in farmers no longer having to rely
on expensive nitrogen fertilisers.
Speaking as a farmer who has used no
nitrogen fertiliser for over 38 years on my
Welsh hill farm, which produces grass and
oats for our 75 dairy cows, I can honestly
say that nitrogen availability is not thelimiting factor to the productivity of my
farming system. I believe that the single
most important unifying feature of
sustainable agriculture, both in terms of
yields and promoting plant and animalhealth, is building soil fertility through crop
rotation. If one gets this right, I can testify
from direct experience that yields steadily
increase over time.
Having initially been agnostic about GM
back in the mid-nineties, I took a long hard
look at all the issues surrounding the
technology, including potential risks to the
environment and human health, and myongoing conclusion is that I see no place
for the use of genetic engineering in
agriculture. The case against GM iseffectively made in the lm Food Inc, which
shows that GMOs lock farmers into a cycle
of corporate-controlled dependency on
monoculture and herbicide use, without
increasing yields or delivering any other
public benets.
Given the absence of a market for GM
foods and the huge risks and uncertainties,
particularly in relation to the environmentand public health, this debate has become
a dangerous distraction from the urgent
challenges currently confronting agriculture.Surely it would be better to form new
partnerships between eminent plant
breeders such as yourself, policy makers
and producers, to develop strategies for
feeding a growing world population against
a background of climate change and
resource depletion without using GM?
Best wishes, Patrick
Hello Patrick
We face the unprecedented challenge of
feeding 9 billion people in a time of global
climate change. The choice is stark:
expand arable areas, meaning further
destruction of rainforests, or increase
productivity in existing arable areas. I am
sure you will agree that the latter is
preferable.
I fully support the principles of organicfarming and believe we have to nd ways
to sustainably produce the worlds staple
crops: wheat, maize, rice, soy, sorghum,
cassava and cotton. But organic farmingalone cannot feed 9 billion people
because of the lower yields it incurs. We
have to nd ways to improve the yields of
conventional farming while reducing the
use of agrochemicals. This is where GM
helps, by using solutions from the natural
world to tackle problems currently
addressed with agrochemicals. My ownresearch on nitrogen xing legumes is an
example. Peas and beans have evolved a
fantastic way of getting their own nitrogen,
making them self-fertilising. Why shouldwe not use this natural process, through
GM, to make cereal crops more
sustainable?
GM crops are now widely grown in all
parts of the globe, including Europe. We
live in a free market and farmers around
the world choose to buy GM seed
because of its yield benet, from
12 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
15/32
Given the absence of a market for GM foodsand the huge risks and uncertainties,particularly in relation to the environment and
public health, this debate has become adangerous distraction from the challengescurrently confronting agriculture.
Patrick Holden
Director, Sustainable Food Trust
large-scale soy producers in the US to
small-scale cotton farmers in India. GM
has been tested for 30 years and growncommercially for 15 years: it is proven
safe. Europe is one of the largest buyers
of GM products. Clothes are made from
GM cotton, and beef, pork, chicken and
salmon available in British supermarkets
are produced using GM feed.
GM is safe, reliable and in demand. We
need to move beyond the divisive issues
surrounding GM and urgently need to useall available tools to tackle the global food
security crisis.
Best wishes, Giles
Dear Giles
I dispute your points on the need, efcacy
and safety of GMOs.
On need, you didnt respond to my point
about soil fertility rather than nitrogen beingthe limiting factor to increasing yields.
Because I suspect you doubt this, its a
shame you cant witness the growing
productivity of my farm, which has receivedno nitrogen for 38 years. The 2009 IAASTD
report, headed by the Chief Scientist at
Defra, concluded that small scale
agro-ecological agriculture can equal or
even exceed yields from intensive farming.
On efcacy, you claim that GM crops
have delivered yield advantages, but yield
is a function of multiple gene expressions,
which are entirely absent in the rst
generation of GM crops. Rather than
engineering nitrogen xation into grain
crops, why not use marker-assistedtechniques to improve the qualities ofexisting strains?
On safety, I have seen evidence from,
as yet unpublished, GM animal feeding
trials which identify negative health
outcomes not previously observed due to
inadequacies in the current regulatory
approval process. To proceed further down
the GM path will also risk a further
narrowing of the agricultural gene pool and
cause other ecological damage, such as
outcrossing to non-GM varieties.
Best wishes, Patrick
Dear Patrick
There is a big difference in farming
practices for grass and oats on a Welsh hill
farm and in the major wheat, maize, rice
and soy producing areas of the world. If
world farming switched to organic then
global food prices would rise signicantly
and many more billions of people would
starve to death. We cannot rely on thefarming technologies of 200 years ago to
feed 9 billion people.But GM has much more potential than
simply addressing the nitrogen problem.
Already, many thousands of tons of
insecticides are not applied thanks to GM
insect-resistant cotton. There are GM
solutions being developed and trials
underway for pathogen resistance,
drought resistance, salt tolerance
all targeted at preserving our natural
resources and reducing the use ofpesticides, fungicides and irrigation
water. I am not advocating a reduction inmarker-assisted breeding, but argue to
use all available techniques, to generate
sustainable, high-yielding crops.
A major study by the EU concluded
recently that GM crops are no more
dangerous than crops produced by other
methods, such as breeding. I refuse to
respond to an unpublished result. Unlike
in the past, the GM debate today must
be based on fact and rationality.
Best wishes, Giles
Bite Issue 62011 13
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
16/32
EXcHANGE OF VIEwS
Dear Giles
I was disappointed by your somewhat
patronising dismissal of my 'antiquated'
farming practices on my Welsh hill, and
the assertion that if these methods werewidely adopted, billions would starve.
This seemed especially unfair, given
your failure to respond to my substantivepoints about the relationship between soil
fertility and yields, concerns about
narrowing of the gene pool and the
potential risks to environmental and
human health.
Given the growing evidence that the
rst generation of GM crops has failed to
deliver any lasting benets, either to the
public or producers, I consider yourbeguiling proposition, that some kind of
utopia where GM crops will x their own
nitrogen and produce bumper yields fromdrought-stricken saline soils, as a
dangerous distraction from the urgent
productivity, food-security, climate-change
and resource-depletion challenges
confronting agriculture.
It reinforces my conviction that in
addressing these challenges, we must
put aside ideological differences and
assemble groups of experts in ecologicalagriculture, working regionally and globally,
to develop sustainable and resilient food
systems for the future. I would happilywork with you in such a group, on the
understanding that any discussions about
GM are evidence based, intellectually
rigorous and conducted in an atmosphere
of mutual respect.
Best wishes, Patrick
GM crops are notthe problem, butpart of the solution
to sustainablyfeeding 9 billionpeople.
Professor Giles Oldroyd
Senior Plant Scientist
John Innes Centre
Dear Patrick
Your statement that GM crops have failed to
deliver lasting benets is quite simply false.
Recent estimates put yield gains from the
cultivation of GM crops equivalent toproduction on 60 million hectares of land.
That is more than three times the arable
area of the UK! Furthermore, GM crops havereduced pesticide use by 350 million kg.
For years you have promised that GM
crops will lead to ecological catastrophes
and human health crises, but there is no
case for either following 15 years of their
cultivation. Look at the recent report from
the European Union that involved 25 years
of research from 500 independent
research groups and concluded that GMcrops are as safe as crops produced by
conventional breeding.
The European Union, the Royal Societyand the US National Academy of Sciences
all conclude that GM crops are safe and
effective. GM crops are not the problem,
but part of the solution to sustainably
feeding 9 billion people, something that
neither organic, nor conventional farming
alone can do.
We both strive to create sustainable food
production systems. I wish we could movebeyond this polarising issue of GM and
focus on the real problems that face global
agriculture.
Best wishes, Giles
Patrick Holden and Giles Oldroyd havesince agreed to communicate outsideof the forum of this exchange.
14 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
17/32
PLAcE SETTINGS
What is the Governmentspolicy on GM?Lord Taylor o Holbeach, Parliamentary Under-Secretary o State
at the Department o Environment, Food and Rural Aairs and lead
Minister on GM, explains the Governments position
Lord Taylor of HolbeachUnder-Secretary o Stateo the Department oEnvironment, Food andRural Aairs and leadMinister on GM
T
he Government recognises that GM
crops and foods are a controversial
issue for some people, with often sharply
polarised views being expressed as to
whether this technology should beregarded as fundamentally either a good or
bad thing. Protecting human health and the
environment is our overriding priority and
our policy for GM is based on the followingkey principles:
we will only agree to the planting of GM crops,
the release of other types of GM organism, or
the marketing of GM food or feed products, if a
robust risk assessment indicates that it is safe
for people and the environment. GM product
applications should be assessed for safety on
a case-by-case basis, taking full accountof the scientic evidence.
we will ensure consumers are able to exercise
choice through clear GM labelling rules and the
provision of suitable information, and will listen topublic views about the development and use of
the technology.
we support farmers having access to
developments in new technology and being
able to choose whether or not to adopt them.
If and when GM crops are grown in England
commercially, we will implement pragmatic and
proportionate measures to segregate these from
conventional and organic crops, so that choice
can be exercised and economic interestsappropriately protected.
we recognise that GM technology could deliver
benets providing it is used safely and
responsibly, in particular as one of a range of
tools to address the longer term challenges of
global food security, climate change, and the
need for more sustainable agricultural
production. Developing countries should have fair
access to such technology and make their own
informed decisions regarding its use.
to encourage innovation, fair market access for
safe products and economic growth, we believethat regulation of this technology must be
proportionate.
The global population is estimated to increase to
9 billion by 2050 and the Food and Agriculture
Organisation estimates that global food demand
will increase by 70% compared to 2005-07 levels.
In this context we need to consider all the options
that are available to increase agricultural efciency,
and be able to do this safely and sustainably.
Alongside others, GM approaches within plant
breeding are one of the potential tools that could
help us to move forward provided they are subject torigorous, case-by-case risk assessments. TheGovernment wants people to keep an open mind
and look at the issues fairly, taking due account of
the relevant scientic and other evidence.
Ultimately, UK farmers and consumers should be
able to choose whether or not to use or consume
GM products that have been authorised as safe for
commercial marketing. But in order to facilitate this
choice, we must ensure that regulation of the
technology is robust and proportionate and that we
provide a suitable environment for commercial
investment, market access and innovation.
Bite Issue 62011 15
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
18/32
GLOBAL cHALLENGE
Global ood system
aces challengesThe case or urgent action to ensure a sustainable, secure
and sae global ood system is now compelling, says
Government Chie Scientifc Adviser Sir John Beddington
Sir John BeddingtonGovernment ChieScientifc Adviser
I
n the next 40 years, the global food
system will experience an
unprecedented conuence of
pressures. The needs of a growingworld population, likely to demand a
more varied and high-quality diet, will need
to be satised, while critical resources such
as water, energy and land becomeincreasingly scarce, and the impacts of
climate change will become more
prominent.
Furthermore, while the global food
system currently delivers food for many
people, it is nevertheless already failing in
two critical ways: consuming the worlds
natural resources at an unsustainablerate, and failing the very poorest, with
almost one billion of the least advantaged
and most vulnerable people still suffering
from hunger.The Government Ofce for Science
2011 Foresight Report The Future of Food
and Farming: Challenges and Choices for
Global Sustainability(see further
information) concluded that a key
challenge is to balance supply and demand
sustainably to ensure adequate stability
and affordability in food supplies, while the
food system adapts to and mitigatesagainst climate change. This will require
making better use of existing knowledge to
increase food production, reducing the
currently large levels of waste throughout
the food supply chain, improving
governance of the food system and
inuencing demand from consumers.
Crucially though, this challenge will
require investment in research and
development of new practices and
technologies to increase the quantity,efciency and sustainability of foodproduction, secure ecosystem services,
keep pace with evolving threats and
meet the needs of the worlds
poorest communities.
No single technology is capable of
delivering sustainable, resilient high levels
of agricultural productivity; instead, a
pluralistic research portfolio with a broad
perspective will need to be pursued.
This should include biotechnology but
also agronomic and agro-ecologicalapproaches. Further, research will need
to address a more complex set of goalsto encourage the sustainable intensication
of agricultural practices that simultaneously
raise yields and increase resource
efciency (including land), while
reducing the negative environmental
impact of production.
There are already many promising areas
of science to be fully explored with the
potential to contribute to sustainable
intensication, including the development
of new varieties or breeds of crops,
livestock and aquatic organisms; advances
in nutrition for livestock and aquaculture,
soil science and agro-ecology.
A key component will be improving crop
traits. Marker-assisted selection has
capitalised on advances in low-cost DNAsequencing to offer new and more efcient
ways to select for desirable traits,
compared with traditional breeding
techniques. Advances have also been
made with the use of genetic modication
techniques those that introduce gene
sequences from a different species to
develop GM crops.
GM crops have already demonstrated
benets in increasing yields and decreasing
losses from pests and diseases, and arebeing grown globally in an increasing trend.The total global area sown with GM crops
in 2010 was estimated as 148 million
hectares in 29 countries (see further
16 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
19/32
information). This is up from 114.3 million
hectares in 23 countries in 2007. This was
the 15th consecutive year of increase in the
area devoted to GM crops, with much of
the increase in low income countries, which
now account for 48% of the worlds GM
crop production.Scientic developments leading
towards the next generation of GM crops
are aimed at improving and combining
existing traits, and developing new traits
such as drought or saline tolerance and
increased nutritional content. Used in
combination with other improved
agricultural technologies or systems these
crops could yield substantial benets.
However, many people in the UK and EU
remain sceptical of GM. Concerns rangefrom health and environmental risks, ethicalissues, and the need to share access to
and benets from GM crops, particularly in
the developing world. These are issues that
rightly need to be addressed.
Nevertheless, the wider debate has
become increasingly polarised. This has
led to what could reasonably be described
as an overly precautionary approach inpolitical spheres, particularly within the EU,
where only one GM crop has been
authorised for cultivation for food use in the
past 13 years. This is despite positive
European Food Safety Authority scientic
risk assessments on other applications.
From my position as Government Chief
Scientic Adviser, I nd this situation quite
uncomfortable. I believe new technologies
in the food system, such as GM, should not
be excluded a priori. If we have new
technologies that can actually solve
problems in agricultural production, whichconventional breeding or other technologies
cannot, then clearly we need to be thinking
about adopting them. Alongside this, the
health and environmental safety of any new
technology must be established rigorously
before its deployment. Any such
decision-making process should be set out
transparently, and consider competing
risks, including the potential costs of not
utilising a new technology and the benets
this will bring.Bearing in mind the scale of the global
challenge faced, can we really afford to
take an overly precautionary approach
towards new scientic developments to
meet those challenges?
Further informationThe Foresight report can be found at:http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-
farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdfFigures from: http://argenbio.org/adc/uploads/isaaa_2010/ISAAA_Briefs_42-Executive_Summary_Feb_2011.pdf
Bite Issue 62011 17
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
20/32
ScOTLAND
The Scottish Government continues to beundamentally opposed to the cultivation o GMcrops. Scotlands Minister or Environment andClimate Change, Stewart Stevenson, explains why
Some have asked whether the
Scottish Government has
softened its position on
genetically modied (GM) cropssince it was rst elected in 2007.
The answer to that is no we remain
fundamentally opposed to growing GM
crops. That is why we support in principle
the European Commissions attempts to
bring in changes that would allow countries
and regions freedom to choose whether or
not to grow GM crops on their territory.The reasons for our position are
multi-faceted. First, scientists cannot
give categorical assurances that there is
no risk to the environment from growing
GM crops. The EU risk assessment of GMcrops cannot take into account all Europes
regional variations in landscape, climate
and agricultural practice. Scotland has
many unique features and a rich
biodiversity, which we will not put at
risk by growing GM crops.
There is also Scotlands reputation for
quality food and drink a reputation we
believe could be jeopardised if Scotland
became known for growing GM crops.We know that European consumers have
little condence that GM food is safe to
eat. Some will argue that robust
coexistence measures can counter the
problems of cross-pollination or
encroachment of GM crops. But, even if
that was the case, there are costs involved
in keeping GM and non-GM crops and
products separate along the supply chain,which nobody will want to pay.
We accept there are a number of
approved and labelled GMOs in use inScotland, as there are elsewhere. Imported
GM soya for animal feed, various
therapeutics (for example insulin) for
human and animal use, and some food
technology aids may have been derived
from GM sources. We supported the EUs
0.1% threshold for unapproved GMO
material in imports of non-GM animal feed
in order to ease the supply problems and
escalating feed prices experienced by our
livestock farmers. We will, however, argue
strenuously against extending the
threshold to food imports something
were condent UK and European
consumers will support us in.
There are a number of countries and
many regions within the EU that take a
similar stance to Scotland. Within the
UK, agriculture is devolved and all four
countries have their own views; but that isno reason why we cant all coexist. If, for
example, England decided to grow GM
crops, we should be able to manage
any cross-border issues just as they are
managed in the rest of Europe.
Some claim our position could adversely
affect Scottish biological research
institutes that wish to carry out GM
research. Whilst we do not fund any
research that leads directly to the
production of GM crops, we do support
modern plant breeding techniques.Research and innovation, and conventional
plant breeding, offer many possible
solutions for the challenges for food
production. Crop breeding is an important
income earner for Scotland our crop
scientists and breeders generate around
160 million of business for the Scottish
and UK economies every year.
In summary, we remain fundamentally
opposed to the cultivation of GM crops,
a position which we strongly believe will
protect Scotlands precious environment.
18 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
21/32
wALES
The Welsh Governmentsupports a broader andmore holistic evaluation
o GMOs and the righto EU regions to maketheir own decisions onthe cultivation o GMcrops in their territory.
John Grifths, WelshMinister or Environmentand SustainableDevelopment, explains
Across Europe and the world, GM
crops continue to be an emotive
issue for many.
Here in Wales, the Welsh
Government has consulted on
GM and is maintaining a restrictive and
precautionary approach to the growing of
GM crops. This is not even a political issuehere, as our policy enjoys both cross-party
support and the backing of the majority of
the Welsh public.
Wales agricultural, environmental and
social landscape has certainly inuenced
our policy. We are a small country of
around 2 million hectares, but a signicant
proportion of our agricultural land serves
a vibrant food and drink manufacturing
industry. We have made considerable
investments into agri-environment schemesand the organic sector to support thisindustry. Food and drink manufacturing is
the cornerstone of our rural economy and
it is vital that we protect this sector and
preserve consumer condence.We are also determined to maintain
Wales stunning natural environment.
Wales boasts 951 Sites of Special
Scientic Interest, 13 designated Special
Protection Areas, 44 Special Areas of
Conservation, 3 National Parks and 5
Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. These areas cover more than
800,000 hectares of our land area.
These areas of conservation and natural
beauty are vital resources underpinning
the health, wellbeing and prosperity of the
people of Wales. They also attract manyvisitors and tourists and make an
important contribution to our economy,
so we have a duty to protect them. This
means taking a precautionary approach to
the potential impacts of new technologies
like GM on our environment and the
associated economic impact.
Of course, we are not the only country
to be wary of GM. There is widespread
public concern about GM crops and food
at a Welsh, UK and European Union (EU)
level. A national opinion poll in June 2010
showed that 89% of people want labels on
food from GM-fed animals and would beprepared to pay more for food produced
with GM-free labels.
Other EU countries, such as Austria and
Germany, have already developed GM-free
labels for produce and we believe
the industry is well placed to
explore the commercial
opportunity that GM-free
labels could present in Wales
and the UK.
The Welsh Government
believes that the public mustbe able to access clear, trusted
and veriable information on
GMOs. It needs to set out all
potential benets and risks and
consider key issues, such as
food security, climate change,
globalisation, and the role of
intellectual property rights in
agriculture.
We believe a broader and
more holistic evaluation of
GMOs should be undertakenwithin the regulatory regime that
not only considers human
health and environmental issues,
but also looks at wider socio-
economic issues as part of the approval
process. We therefore strongly support the
developing European Commission
view that the EU regulatory regime on
GMOs should be amended to allow Wales
and other regions in the EU to make
decisions on the cultivation of GM crops in
their territory.
Bite Issue 62011 19
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
22/32
ROUND THE TABLE
Where do we gofrom here?Reader in Molecular Microbiology Peter Lund, Which?Chie Policy Adviser Sue Davies, Food and Drink FederationDirector o Food Saety and Science Barbara Gallani, andNational Farmers Union Chie Science and RegulatoryAairs Adviser Helen Ferrier, suggest their preerredroutes (see boxes). FSA Chie Scientist Andrew Wadgetries to steer a course
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
23/32
Andrew: Some themes have arisen from
your initial statements: choice, theimportance of safety in science, and the
fact that consumers remain unconvinced
of the benets of this particular way of
producing food. You also made it clear that
there is a need to move from a polarised
debate to a more mature debate. What do
we mean by a more mature debate, and
how will it change things?
Helen: Ten years ago or so, GM wasnt
such an established part of the supply
chain globally. Were perhaps in a betterposition now to have a more rational
debate that starts with making peopleaware that its here, so were not having
a discussion on should we use this
technology? We are already. That might
be a good starting point.
Sue: I think that would antagonise
people. Whenever youre talking about
food security one of the things that
frequently comes across is that we need
to have a debate about GM and we need
to persuade people that GM is the wayforward. I think we need to have a debate
Weighing up the issues: rom let,Peter Lund, Sue Davies, Andrew Wadge,Barbara Gallani and Helen Ferrier
about what are the food security
challenges, what are the problems facingthe supply chain, what are the different
options. GM is one option. GM may have a
role in tackling some issues, but there may
be other things that are a better option in
other cases.
Helen: Its not a theoretical thing that
were discussing. There is a lot of GM feed
being imported and people go on holiday
to places where GM produce is sold. If we
have to talk about GM, its reasonable to
start with where we are now.
Peter: You want some means of arrivingat a consensus where the outcome is not
predetermined, and you want that to be as
open and as transparent as possible. Im
not terribly optimistic. GM has become a
proxy for so many different things. It
covers issues to do with consumer choice,
peoples concern about corporate control
of the food chain, all the food security
issues. Turning things around slightly to
address the issues and concerns facing
the UK and UK agriculture might be abetter way of going about it.
Sue: We need to have a genuine debate
about what kind of trade-offs people thinkare acceptable in terms of the things that
were facing. Which? has just done some
research showing that there is a huge
amount of concern about rising food
prices, for example. In relation to GM its
also important to really ground the debate
in UK-specic issues.
Barbara: The research that the FSA
published in March on public attitudes toemerging food technologies found that
novel food technologies are generally not
a top of mind concern for most people(see this issue of Bite, pages 10 and 11).
What happens is that when people are
presented with an issue that they rarely
think about, their reaction is emotional. We
want to make them aware of the facts that
will allow them to make decisions that are
based on rationality rather than emotions.
Sue: The GM Nation debate was some
time ago, but one of the ndings from thatwas that the more that people understood
it, the more concerned they were. So it
isnt necessarily the case that you give
Sue DaviesChief Policy Adviser,Which?
A Which? survey in June 2011 found approval, traceability and labelling, the
that 62% of people are still concerned complexity of the supply chain and
about eating GM ingredients, 30% are uptake of GM cultivation in other parts
not concerned and 11% do not know. of the world still make this difcult to
Seventy per cent think it is important achieve in practice.
that retailers have policies not allowing With the potential use of the
GM ingredients in food and feed. technology rising up the agenda in view
This is in line with our previous of concerns about food prices and food
research, which has found that many security, it is time for an honest and
people have not been convinced about open debate about the role that GM
the benets of GM foods and do not think should play. Understanding and
that enough is known about the long-term addressing consumer attitudes has to
consequences, although they arent be central to this and we need to movenecessarily completely opposed to it. away from a polarised debate between
Concerns have been compounded pro-GM researchers and anti-GM
by the difculties of enabling people to lobbyists. The starting point for any
have a meaningful choice. While many discussion has to be the challenges
of the regulatory aspects in relation to facing the supply chain and whether
GM foods have steadily been GM, along with other options, could
addressed through requirements for have a role in addressing them.
Bite Issue 62011 21
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
24/32
ROUND THE TABLE
There are two areas in which thereis potential for consumer benet.One is to make food cheaper. The
other is to make it better in some way.
people more information and then
they are reassured.
Andrew: Im interested in what your
thoughts are about what the FSA should
be doing in relation to this, in terms of
trying to help continue this debate, or
illuminate this debate.
Barbara: Wouldnt it be useful to identifythe obvious gaps in knowledge and
understanding in a very neutral way? Infact, a lot of GM applications are really
about speeding up or understanding what
the outcome would be of certain
applications of breeding practices,
traditional breeding practices.
Sue: It would be good to have a review
of where weve got to. The FSAs main
focus is around food safety, but I think
there needs to be a cross-cutting
approach that involves other Government
departments as well. There are lots of
things that are starting to come together
across Government now and we need tolook at it in that broader context.
Andrew: There is a really interesting
point about the benets. It seems that if
there are benets they are much closer to
the producer in the UK than to the
consumer. Is that right?
Helen: Looking for specic consumer
benets misses the fact that a more
efcient and productive farming system
that produces high quality food is of
benet to consumers. People want the
best value from what theyre getting.
Peter: There are two areas in which
there is potential for consumer benet.One is to make food cheaper. The other is
to make it better in some way. The kind ofexamples Im familiar with are changing
the balance of saturated and unsaturated
fats in oil. The factors that drive food
prices are so far out of peoples control
that the chances that you might be able to
see a change in a food price and link that
to GM is almost impossible.
Barbara: If it is part of a toolbox of
solutions then we might not be able to
point the nger and say: This pricedecrease is down to GM. But its part
of a strategy that we need to look at in its
complexity.
Helen: In the US they are developing
high oleic and omega-3 soybeans. The
high oleic soybeans are apparently going
into the ground next year for seed
multiplication and the omega-3 beans in
2013, and theyve already got FDA approval
for those products to go into a chocolate
bar or whatever.
Sue: But how valuable is it to have someof these very niche products that may be
targeted at people as being healthy for
them, when weve got a huge obesityproblem and most of us are just eating too
much fat, sugar and salt and not enough
fruit and vegetables?
Andrew: My perspective on this is that
consumers are very capable of weighing up
risks and benets for a whole range
of technologies. Microwave ovens werent
present in British kitchens in the 1970s.
Virtually every kitchen has one now. Whats
2222 BBiittee IIssssuuee 6622001111
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
25/32
the reason? Because theyre seen as very
helpful and convenient for producing food.
Im really interested as to what benets GM
might bring to the consumer over the next
couple of years.
Sue: Until now, consumer concern has
been exacerbated by a lack of choice.People say: I want to make sure that I
know exactly what Im eating and that I
have a meaningful choice about whether or
not Im eating GM.
Helen: I think there is a difference in
how we use the word choice. For example,
farmers are being denied the choice of
using a particular new variety of a particular
crop, because consumers are saying: I
dont want this particular variety of wheat to
be made into my [breakfast cereal], I wantthis other variety.
Peter: The other thing thats tricky is
that in some cases its a false choice
because there is no difference. The means
of production has no effect whatsoever on
the nal product, they are genuinely the
same thing.
Andrew: At the moment weve got GM
animal feed being widely used in the UK,
but actually we dont have GM food on sale
in our shops. What are the barriers? Whats
got to happen to get to the point whereconsumers can exercise that choice as to
whether they want to purchase GM or not?
Sue: I dont think there is demand for
GM foods at the moment. It would have
been good to have a retail perspective [at
the roundtable], but as far as Im aware,
nothing has really changed with respect to
consumer demand.
Andrew: I should say we did invite the
retailers on several occasions to join us.
(See bottom page 25.)
Helen: There are a few products availableglobally, so presumably theyve got through
whatever the retailers process is fordeciding whether something is going to
sell. But again, we need the retailers input.
Its quite a difcult thing to say: Were not
going to use this particular technique until
people say they want it, when they dont
know what it is or how it would benet
them or otherwise. It might be a new
variety of apple that doesnt go brown.
We need the retailers to explain how they
would label up such a GM product and
how they decide what goes on the shelf.
Peter: It may be the case that the
retailers actually are waiting for the killer
app. Non-browning apples is a very good
example. I think, technically, its something
that could be produced. If you had
something like that, which could bebrought into the market, then the general
feeling of distrust with GM would probably
begin to evaporate.
Barbara: I think the debate has changed.
Its not about the silver bullet to solve a
particular problem. Its about using GM as
part of a number of different strategies to
address food shortages in the future. So
while acknowledging that were not
describing GM as the silver bullet for a
solution, why do we need to nd a veryspecic, very dened, very well-provenbenet?
Peter: Its because were talking about
consumer acceptance of the technology. In
30 years, when the market is full of GM
products, we might look back and say, the
reason that these became accepted, wasthe iPod of food.
Sue: We have to remember that were
where we are because of how badly things
went in the past. If GM had been
introduced with nice, clearly-labelled
apples and people had been making an
assessment for themselves about whether
this was useful or not, wed probably be in
quite a different situation.
Barbara: I believe the arguments for a
debate have changed because we now have
a very strong regulatory framework and
planning for co-existence regulations [on GMand non-GM crops]. There are lots of things
that have changed in primary production.
Peter LundReader in Molecular Microbiology,School of Biosciences, Universityof Birmingham
My involvement with this debate dates
back to when I worked for an American
agri-biotech company, which did therst deliberate release of a GM
organism a mutated bacterium,
intended to reduce crop frost damage.
This experience moved my interest in
the potential and challenge of GM from
the abstract to the concrete.
I have subsequently sat on the FSAcommittee regulating GM in food, taken
part in numerous public discussions,
and was a founder member of the Food
Ethics Council, a charity that takes a
broadly anti though carefully nuanced stance on GM food.
In my experience, the GM debate
has always suffered from the fact that
GM foods raise so many different
issues, some scientic, some
socio-political, and some frankly
metaphysical, that it can be extremelyhard to see the wood for the trees.
Many of the scientic concerns
about GM foods and their potential to
harm our health or our environment
have I believe been well addressed, and
although no amount of testing can ever
prove that a given food is completely
safe, I would have no scientic qualms
about either eating GM food or seeingGM crops planted in the UK.
Socio-political issues from consumer
choice to monopoly control of foodproduction are another matter.
What I hope for is a more mature
debate than we have had so far, with
reasonable discussion not being
drowned out either by ill-informed
protests or professional lobbyists,
but I am not optimistic that this
can be achieved.
Bite Issue 62011 23
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
26/32
ROUND THE TABLE
Its about using GMas part of a number ofdifferent strategies toaddress food shortagesin the future.
Sue: I agree that a lot of regulation is
now in place, but I think discussion on
co-existence often ends up as being quite
supercial pretending that people, in
effect, have a choice. If youve actually set
thresholds at quite a high level people dont
really have a meaningful choice. I think wehavent really solved that issue.
Helen: There are thresholds throughout
the food supply chain on everything, and
different countries have different
thresholds. Japan has a non-GM threshold
for soy, tofu and other products of 5%.
Ours is 0.9%. It was 1% when it rst came
in, but it was reduced to 0.9% because
it sounded more reassuring. There was
absolutely no scientic basis for that.
Sue: If people feel reassured that its
clear and that they will be able to make
a choice, then theyre likely to be more
accepting of certain things. I think they
become suspicious when they feel thatthey dont have a choice or theyre given
a false choice.
Barbara: If the principle is that GM is
acceptable as long as there is a choice
between different products, then you still
need within safety and legislative
considerations to nd a way to cope with
the practicalities. Hence the thresholds. Im
not going to get into whether 0.9% is
correct or whether it should be 0.5%, but
the practicalities are a reality.
Peter: There are safety issues that,
by and large, tend to be driven bytoxicological concerns. You keep the
proportion of mycotoxins in your wheat
below a certain level because you know
from proper toxicological studies that a
thousand times that level can do harm in
X% of experiments on rats. Thats a more
or less rationally arrived at gure. People
will be terribly concerned about the safety
regulations affecting GM, but theyll blithely
go and buy coffee and cream and peppers
and other things that demonstrably will
damage them and that would never getthrough contemporary safety regulations.
But if they regard aspects of GM as
unacceptable thats what has to be
addressed even if it doesnt make sense.
Barbara: If you test consumers
unprompted, and Im referring to the FSA
Public Attitudes Tracker, pesticides always
come top of the list in contrast with, say,
5% of consumers [spontaneously]
mentioning GM. Youre allowed to use
pesticides, youve got pesticide drift, youve
got a communication strategy around it.Why should it be different for GM?
Peter: Its because it is a lightning rod
for so many different things. Its why the
debate is so interesting and so
complicated.
Sue: Its a complex supply chain but its
a marketplace and ultimately if consumers
arent going to accept a product then there
is no future for it.
Helen: But how can you talk about
benet if you cant say: This could do
that? And who is going to say that other
Dr Helen FerrierChief Science and RegulatoryAffairs Adviser, NFU
The NFUs policy on GM can be
summed up in one word: choice.
Farmers must have access to the bestinputs and practices to grow their
businesses. What is best varies
hugely, and I wouldnt advise our
members what markets they should go
for. But if seed companies dont use all
the techniques available to research
and develop the best varieties for theUK because of the political climate or
regulatory regime, this country will be
trying to produce more and impact less
with one hand tied behind its back.
To produce more and better whilereducing adverse environmental
impact, we are asking a great deal from
our land, our crops and our farmers,
especially in the context of climate
change. How do we increase yields and
quality with less water, energy,
pesticides, fertilisers and fuel, for thebenet of environment, farmer and
consumer? As one John Innes Centre
scientist puts it, we now need to look
more to biology than chemistry for
solutions. This is where plant breeding,
including tools like GM, is very valuable.
Just as there is competition
between foods on the shelves, there
are highly competitive and globalmarkets for the raw materials British
farmers produce. Like the government,
we see benets in using GM for UKcrops, and we already give our
livestock GM feed.
There would be no production
without a market, but the regulation of
how technologies are applied must be
based on robust scientic analysis, not
on assumptions about consumer views
and perceptions.
2244 BBiittee IIssssuuee 6622001111
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
27/32
than the people who are developing the
technology? More discussion and openness
about the technologies used in food
production is surely a good thing.
Andrew: To try to sum up the discussion
at this roundtable, I would say there is
clearly a feeling that the debate on GMshould be framed around how we produce
food and the challenges of feeding a
growing population.
Barbara referred to the noise and the
reality in terms of this debate. The reality is
that we havent had the apple that doesnt
go brown in the bowl, which was mentioned
by Helen the killer app, as you put it,
Peter. Provided that its safe and labelled
properly, there might well be a demand
for that. But at the moment there does seemto be a real need to identify products thatwill bring about a benet for consumers
before attitudes will shift.
I think that if we are going to continue
this debate, there is clearly a need for the
FSA not to be talking solely about safety.
Thats our role, but the suggestion is that
we should be engaging with others so that
the safety risk assessment is seen as part
of a wider debate providing information.
Sue raised the point about lessons for us
on how we handle new technology in food.I think the lessons are that if we want to
avoid some of the problems that we havefaced with GM, we need a robust
framework. First, this must look
fundamentally at safety, because no one is
going to want to be putting products on the
market that are unsafe. Second, it would
need to address the very legitimate need
that everyone has for information about any
new technology.
Barbara GallaniDirector of Food Safetyand Science, FDF
FDFs long-held position is that modern sensationalist media coverage about
biotechnology, including GM, offers Frankenfoods. It is important to
enormous potential to improve the provide the facts behind the
quality and quantity of the food supply. statements, for example that most GM
Clearly, the impact of this technology applications involve the improvement of
must be objectively assessed through existing crops and products and that
scientic investigation. Robust controls maintaining the current non-GM status
are necessary to protect the consumer of the EU will come at a cost to society.
and the environment; and consumer We support the Foresight reports
choice and information are fundamental conclusions that we need to produceto public acceptance. Our members are more from less and with less impact,
committed to providing a wide range of and that recognition should be given to
safe and nutritious foods to suit all the role of GM as a tool in the
consumers, including those who, for sustainability challenge. We are
their own reasons, reject the use of concerned that the current situation in
technologies such as GM in food the EU is unsustainable and we believe
production. that EU governments and regulatory
We believe that the time has come to authorities should base their decisions
reopen a free and unbiased debate regarding GM on safety and science,
about GM. Consumers need objective acknowledging and supporting the
information from well-informed, stringent assessment and approval
trustworthy sources, to balance procedures already in place in Europe.
The British Retail Consortium, whichrepresents retailers in the UK, declined theopportunity to take part in the roundtable.BRC Director of Food and SustainabilityAndrew Opie said: The reason thereare no GM products available on UKsupermarket shelves is that there isno consumer demand.
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
28/32
FEEDING THE wORLD?
An additionaltool in the boxHow can GM crops beneftthe developing world?
Stephen OBrienParliamentary Under-Secretary o State atthe Department orInternationalDevelopment
With a rising globalpopulation, the question
that is increasingly askedis: how will we eed aworld o 9 billion people?Stephen OBrien believesthat GM has an importantrole to play
Currently, more than 1 billionpeople are hungry; another
1 billion are undernourished.
Food prices are at levels higherthan the 2008 price spike that
drove 200 million people back into poverty.
The challenge is to double food supply at
a time of climate change, when higher
temperatures and frequency of droughts
and oods present increasing threats to
agriculture, when greenhouse gas emissions
must be sharply reduced and when
resources are in increasingly short supply.This challenge can be met in a variety of
ways. Plant breeding will be crucial in
developing higher yielding, more nutritiouscrop varieties that:
are better able to resist drought, salinity,
pests, and diseases
maximise the uptake of soil nutrients
and water
are more efcient at using light
are more resilient to storage and
transportation.
Biotechnology, including geneticmodication (GM), has an important role
to play in developing new crops alongside
more traditional technologies and innovative
approaches to agriculture such as integratedpest management and conservation farming.
There is a strong and rapidly expanding
selection of GM products being developed
for commercial production. These range
from new types of pest and disease
resistance in plants, for example blight
resistance in potatoes, or wilt resistant
bananas; crops with improved nutritional
characteristics for developing countries
(for example, high iron rice); and plants that
can utilise nitrogen more efciently and
that are more resistant to abiotic stress
such as salinity, temperature, drought or
ood tolerance.The development and use of new GM
crops has the potential to close the regional
yield gap the difference between
agriculture productivity in Europe and other
developed countries and the productivity
in sub-Saharan Africa.
26 Bite Issue 62011
8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11
29/32
While GM is not a panacea, it has an
important role to play in developing crops
that have improved nutritional
characteristics, are more productive, and are
resilient to pests, diseases and other shocks.
For poor farming households in developingcountries, plant disease can lead to long
term impoverishment and hunger.
The Department for International
Development (DFID) and other internationaldevelopment agencies are currently
investing in a range of advanced bio-science
applications aimed at developing countries.
While the great majority of DFID-supported
research uses conventional research
approaches, about 10% is invested in the
application of advanced biotechnology.
Of course, the picture on consumerdemand and political acceptance on GM
is very mixed and dynamic