Issue 06 | 2011
Sir John
Beddington
discusses
global food
supply issues
The Food Standards Agency magazine with teeth
GM:
novel cuisine
or unpalatable
prospect?
20>
A range
of participants
put each other
straight on
where we go
from here
Round the table
16>
View of the Government
Chief Scientific Adviser
Holden and
Professor Giles
Oldroyd take
part in a lively
exchange
Do we even need GM?
12> Patrick
ON THE MENU
01>
Food for thought GM may, or may not, be the
answer. But what is the question? Frank Chalmers
04> International fare GM-based agriculture worldwide
06> Reading the labels The GM food regulations
ensure GM foods don’t slip under the radar.
David Jefferies
08> New ingredients EFSA scientific panels evaluate all
GM food and feed for safety. Howard Davies
10>
Public attitudes What have we learned by talking
to people? Robyn Ackerman and Micah McGuire
12>
Exchange of views Do we really need GM? Patrick
Holden and Giles Oldroyd debate the issue
15>
Place settings The Government sets out the five
principles behind its policies on GM
18>
Scotland The Scottish Government outlines why it
is opposed to the introduction of GM crops
19>
Wales GM requires a precautionary approach, the
Welsh Assembly Government says
26>
Feeding the world? Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State Stephen O’Brien outlines the views of the
Department for International Development
28> The bioscientist There are gains to be made by the
world’s poor, says Mark Buckingham, Deputy Chair,
Agricultural Biotechnology Council
29>
2> Root and branch
Sandy Lawrie provides some historical perspective to the
development of genetic modification
Out of Africa GM represents nothing but a threat to
African agriculture, says Mariam Mayet, Director of
the African Centre for Biosafety
Editor
Frank Chalmers
020 7276 8805
[email protected]
Sub editor
Ricki Ostrov
Editorial panel
The Food Standards Agency magazine with teeth
Terrence Collis, Andrew Wadge,
Stephen Humphreys, Frank Chalmers
Design
Contact Bite at:
Food Standards Agency
125 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6NH
SPY Design and Publishing
spydesign.co.uk
Subscriptions
Marfot Miah
020 7276 8849
[email protected]
16> Global challenge
20> Round the table
Science and technology
will help to secure future
food supplies, says
Sir John Beddington
‘Where do we go from here?’
Champions of farming, food
production, consumers and
science try to agree a route
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
How do we frame
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 their
destination. He thinks for a minute and
answers: “Well, I wouldn’t start from
here.”’ We got a similar answer when
we 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 are
examining pest-resistant and blightresistant potatoes.
The Government’s GM policy is
based upon five 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 the
use 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 Government’s Chief Scientific
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 O’Brien,
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at 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 NGO’s view is that it is a tool that you
have to update and pay for every year –
and one that you can’t 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, we’ve taken the opportunity to
outline the regulatory process that exists to
control the introduction of GM foods in
Europe. An EFSA scientific panel member
also describes the assessment process that
takes place at the European Union level.
The FSA doesn’t 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 Chalmers
Editor, Bite
I hope 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.
’
Bite Issue 6 2011 1
ROOT AND BRANcH
How did we
get to here?
Genetic modification is the process of changing the DNA
of any living thing (plants, animals or micro-organisms) in
a way that does not occur in nature. Sandy Lawrie, Head
of Novel Foods at the Food Standards Agency, provides
some historical perspective
2 Bite Issue 6 2011
Genetic modification
involves inserting one
gene (or more) that
would not normally be
found into the target
T
he science of genetics has
advanced enormously
following the discovery in
1953 of the structure of
DNA. That discovery laid
the foundation for the science of
‘molecular biology’ and, during the six
or so decades since, more and more
has been revealed about how DNA
defines 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. This
knowledge has opened the way to
major advances in many areas of
biology, including understanding and
treating diseases and breeding new
crop varieties.
Typically, genetic modification
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 new
genes into bacteria and other
micro-organisms has revolutionised
the production of enzymes that are
used 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 modification of
crops. Producing a GM crop typically
Cotton
It is estimated
that 62% of global
cotton production
involves the use
of genetically
modified cotton
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 modified?
So far, most GM crops have been
modified to help overcome two of the
major problems faced by commercial
farmers, namely insect pests and weeds.
As an alternative to spraying insecticides
onto 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 of
genetically modified Bt cotton varieties.
By making a crop tolerant of a herbicide
that kills other plants, farmers can control
weeds more effectively.
Genetic modification could also be
used 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.
1996
The first GM crops
were harvested in
1996 in the US
How much are GM crops being used?
The use of GM crops has grown year-onyear since 1996 when the first crops –
insect-resistant maize and herbicide-tolerant
soya – were harvested in the US. At a global
level, GM crop varieties now account for a
significant proportion of several major
commodity 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 insectresistant 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 in
three countries.
There has been some debate about the
impact of GM crops and whether they
provide the expected benefits 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 the
near future?
There is some interest in crops with
improved nutrient content, and the first
examples of soya and maize with altered
fat content are currently being assessed.
GM animals are widely used in medical
research 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 modified to grow throughout
the winter months, so that it reaches adult
proportions much quicker.
Salmon
A type of GM farmed
salmon has been
developed in the
US, which is being
reviewed for future use
What is the FSA’s position on GM?
The FSA’s view is that GM food and GM
animal feed products should each undergo
a stringent case-by-case safety assessment
before 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 what
do 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 specific 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 cell’s
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 the
colour of flowers 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 6 2011 3
INTERNATIONAL FARE
GM food around
the world
GM crops have been introduced increasingly
worldwide since 1996, according to the
International Service for the Acquisition
of Agri-biotech Applications
T
he 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-growing
countries all had more than 1 million
hectares in production.
Top 10 biotech crop-growing
countries
In 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 five principal developing and newly
industrialised countries growing biotech
crops – Brazil, Argentina, India, China and
South Africa – planted 63 million hectares
4 Bite Issue 6 2011
of biotech crops in 2010, equivalent to
43% 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 first time –
Pakistan, Burma (Myanmar) and Sweden,
the first Scandinavian country to
commercialise biotech crops.
The ISAAA describes itself as ‘a
not-for-profit organisation with an
international network of centres
designed to contribute to the alleviation
of hunger and poverty by sharing
knowledge and crop biotechnology
applications’.
The most commonly
grown genetically
modified crops
15m
farmers
29
countries worldwide
growing GM crops
148m
hectares of arable land
being used
10%
of world’s arable land
used for GM crops
MHA = million hectares
5
R EADING THE LABELS
A closer look
at regulation
How can we tell if GM products are on sale in
the UK? How are GM products regulated?
David Jefferies, from the Food Standards
Agency’s Novel Foods Branch, looks at how
it all stacks up
David Jefferies
FSA Novel
Foods Branch
M
ost people are aware that
some crop plants have
been genetically modified
and that these modified
plants 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 material
in the final product. If it is not labelled as
‘genetically modified’ or ‘contains GM
soya or maize’ for example, then it has
not been made using GM ingredients.
Yet with so many genetically-modified
organisms (GMOs) authorised for food
use, and with GM crops grown worldwide,
there are still few foods containing GM
ingredients 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
6 Bite Issue 6 2011
only products containing GM ingredients
that 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 first, the Genetically Modified (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 final regulation, Directive
2001/18 (EC), covers the growing of
GM crops, for which Defra, as the
department that deals with agriculture
and the environment, has responsibility.
GM foods: what is allowed?
The EU-wide regulations that cover
GM foods (and also GM animal
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 marketed
in 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 first before being incorporated
into foods. Currently, the list contains no
fruits or vegetables of the type you might
find in your local supermarket. There is a
variety of authorised potato, but this will
never be seen in the shops as it has been
engineered to produce a type of starch
used exclusively in the production of
paper. It is also one of the only GM crops
labelled as long as the GMO is not present
that has been authorised for cultivation in
in the end product.
the EU, the other being a variety of maize;
Products such as milk, meat and eggs
neither of these crops is grown in the UK.
that are derived from animals fed GM
animal feed also do not have to be
labelled, as the definition of ‘genetically
Exceptions to the requirements
modified’ does not include eggs, milk, or
Foods containing known GM ingredients
meat products from such animals.
must be labelled as such. However,
In the absence of EU rules governing
foods may contain up to 0.9% of GM
the use of labels on GM-free products,
material from authorised GMOs without
some member states (for example Austria
a requirement for labelling, as long as
and Germany) have introduced voluntary
the presence of this material is accidental
national schemes on GM-free labelling,
or unavoidable and the food producer
while France plans to introduce a national
can demonstrate that it has taken all
law in 2012. The problem with these
reasonable measures to avoid crossnational rules is that they all impose
contamination.
different criteria as to what qualifies as a
Foods that have been processed or
GM-free product, which can be confusing
obtained with the help of GM technology
for consumers. As a result, the UK is
(for example, cheese that has been
currently trying to stimulate discussion at
produced with the help of an enzyme
EU level on a harmonised approach.
from a GM source) do not have to be
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.
’
Enforcing the regulations
GM foods are covered by the same
enforcement regulations as other foods.
In the UK it is trading standards officers
or environmental health officers 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 through
the 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 of
unauthorised GMOs is suspected.
Further information
The list of authorised GMOs can be
found at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/
dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm
Bite Issue 6 2011 7
NEw INGREDIENTS
EFSA scientists put
safety first
The European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel
is responsible for evaluating GM food and feed
before they can be marketed in the EU. Panel
member Howard Davies explains
Professor Howard Davies
James Hutton Institute
T
he European Food Safety Authority
Scientific Panel on Genetically
Modified Organisms provides
independent, high quality scientific
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 scientific
experts from European research institutes,
universities or risk assessment bodies, has
three 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 first evaluated, each
group focusing its skills on the relevant areas
of the application dossiers. The panel and
working groups are supported by EFSA
scientific and administrative staff to
deliver the final opinions, which
are published in the
EFSA Journal.
8 Bite Issue 6 2011
Panel members
Processing applications
Each application is allocated
a rapporteur and corapporteur from within each
working group to work with
a member of EFSA’s
scientific staff to deliver
first 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 comments
from the EU member states.
Questions can arise on, for
example, experimental design,
gaps in data, inconsistencies in
the data, quality of figures 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 consistency
and relevance.
Once all of the questions have
been addressed, the working
group 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
final opinion.
Other activities
While the evaluation of GMO
applications is the panel’s raison
d'être, it is involved in several
other activities including the
development of guidance
documents to assist applicants
in 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 for
more complex GMOs with multiple
genes and traits.
As with many of these
documents, a draft was published
for public consultation and EFSA
also held a workshop with
stakeholders. After discussions, the
final opinion was adapted
accordingly. Such tasks are usually
driven by a working group
comprising selected members of all
three panel working groups plus ad
hoc experts as required. They are
demanding in terms of time and
effort but are valuable in assisting
the panel in fulfilling 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 are appointed following an open call
from EFSA and a subsequent evaluation of their
credibility, scientific standing and skill base. The
independence of panel members and of any ad hoc
members invited to specific 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 experts
by 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 the
EFSA panel, but they do consider specific issues that
may arise – for example by advising on new guidelines
for safety assessments or looking into new scientific
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 the
potential 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 to
market GM crops in the EU. EFSA’s analysis is on an
EU-wide basis, reflecting the wide range of different
geographical and climatic conditions across Europe and
variations in agricultural practices. ACRE considers
EFSA’s conclusions but focuses on the potential
environmental impact under UK conditions.
Sandy Lawrie
Bite Issue 6 2011 9
PUBLIc ATTITUDES
When people think about
GM foods, their attitudes
are informed by more than
concerns about food safety.
Robyn Ackerman and Micah
McGuire from the Food
Standards Agency explain
why the Agency looks beyond
the ‘for’ or ‘against’ approach
to GM, and what lessons it
has learned on successfully
engaging the public
Robyn Ackerman
Social and Market
Research, FSA
Micah McGuire
Communications
Division, FSA
T
he percentage of the UK public concerned about GM foods
has declined from 43% in 2001 to 22% in 2011, according
to the FSA’s most recent Public Attitudes Tracker. In addition,
research from across Europe suggests that we are among the
least concerned about GM.
In 2009, the Agency carried out work to better understand public
attitudes to food technologies, including GM foods. Results showed that
the majority of the UK public are either undecided or indifferent when it
comes to GM foods, and that GM is not at the forefront of their
concerns. In fact, GM foods came quite far down the list of food issues
about which the UK public is concerned.
In the 2008 British Social Attitudes survey, 17% of people were
found to have a ‘pro’ attitude to GM, 31% were ‘anti’ GM and 53% were
either undecided or had no views on GM foods. This was based on their
Public perceptions
and lessons learned
10 Bite Issue 6 2011
response to the statement: ‘On balance
the advantages of genetically modified
(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 or
felt 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 Agency’s research on food
technologies suggests that when people
are asked to respond to new food
technologies based on how they perceive
the risks and benefits, they will ask
questions such as:
• Is it safe?
• What’s in it for me?
• What’s 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 an
impact on their attitudes. For example, if
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.
’
David Willetts
Minister of State for Universities and Science
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 an
important 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 Government’s 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 its
engagement work about the need to talk to
people openly when discussing new food
technologies. The key conclusions the
Agency 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 difficult. It is
important to show all sides of the story
and allow people to form their own
opinions about the strength of different
arguments.
• When discussing new food technologies,
the Agency can’t expect people to
consider food safety only. It needs also to
take account of people’s concerns about
the environment, animal welfare and
other ethical considerations, as all are
important issues for the public.
Further information
The Public Attitudes Tracker can be
found 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 6 2011 11
EXcHANGE OF VIEwS
Does the world need GM?
This issue’s exchange of
views looks at whether
GM might be a distraction
rather than a solution
Dear Giles,
I read on your website that having
discovered the mechanism by which
leguminous plants fix nitrogen, you hope
that 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 the
limiting 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 animal
health, 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
12 Bite Issue 6 2011
Patrick Holden
Director, Sustainable
Food Trust
technology, including potential risks to the
environment and human health, and my
ongoing conclusion is that I see no place
for the use of genetic engineering in
agriculture. The case against GM is
effectively made in the film 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 benefits.
Given the absence of a market for GM
foods and the huge risks and uncertainties,
particularly in relation to the environment
and 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
Professor
Giles Oldroyd
Senior Plant Scientist
John Innes Centre
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 organic
farming and believe we have to find ways
to sustainably produce the world’s staple
crops: wheat, maize, rice, soy, sorghum,
cassava and cotton. But organic farming
alone cannot feed 9 billion people
because of the lower yields it incurs. We
have to find 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 own
research on nitrogen fixing legumes is an
example. Peas and beans have evolved a
fantastic way of getting their own nitrogen,
making them self-fertilising. Why should
we 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 benefit, from
Given the absence of a market for GM foods
and the huge risks and uncertainties,
particularly in relation to the environment and
public health, this debate has become a
dangerous distraction from the challenges
currently 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 grown
commercially 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 use
all available tools to tackle the global food
security crisis.
Best wishes, Giles
Dear Giles
I dispute your points on the need, efficacy
and safety of GMOs.
On need, you didn’t respond to my point
about soil fertility rather than nitrogen being
the limiting factor to increasing yields.
Because I suspect you doubt this, it’s a
shame you can’t witness the growing
productivity of my farm, which has received
no 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 efficacy, you claim that GM crops
have delivered yield advantages, but yield
is a function of multiple gene expressions,
which are entirely absent in the first
generation of GM crops. Rather than
engineering nitrogen fixation into grain
crops, why not use marker-assisted
techniques to improve the qualities of
existing 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 significantly
’
and many more billions of people would
starve to death. We cannot rely on the
farming 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 of
pesticides, fungicides and irrigation
water. I am not advocating a reduction in
marker-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 6 2011 13
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 were
widely adopted, billions would starve.
This seemed especially unfair, given
your failure to respond to my substantive
points 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
first generation of GM crops has failed to
deliver any lasting benefits, either to the
public or producers, I consider your
beguiling proposition, that some kind of
utopia where GM crops will fix their own
nitrogen and produce bumper yields from
drought-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 ecological
agriculture, working regionally and globally,
to develop sustainable and resilient food
systems for the future. I would happily
work 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
14 Bite Issue 6 2011
GM crops are not
the problem, but
part of the solution
to sustainably
feeding 9 billion
people.
’
Professor Giles Oldroyd
Senior Plant Scientist
John Innes Centre
Dear Patrick
Your statement that GM crops have failed to
deliver lasting benefits is quite simply false.
Recent estimates put yield gains from the
cultivation of GM crops equivalent to
production on 60 million hectares of land.
That is more than three times the arable
area of the UK! Furthermore, GM crops have
reduced 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 GM
crops are as safe as crops produced by
conventional breeding.
The European Union, the Royal Society
and 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 move
beyond this polarising issue of GM and
focus on the real problems that face global
agriculture.
Best wishes, Giles
Patrick Holden and Giles Oldroyd have
since agreed to communicate outside
of the forum of this exchange.
ood
What is the Government’s
policy on GM?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and lead
Minister on GM, explains the Government’s position
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Under-Secretary of State
of the Department of
Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs and lead
Minister 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 be
regarded 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 following
key 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 account
of the scientific evidence.
• we will ensure consumers are able to exercise
choice through clear GM labelling rules and the
provision of suitable information, and will listen to
public 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 interests
appropriately protected.
• we recognise that GM technology could deliver
benefits 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 believe
that 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 efficiency,
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 to
rigorous, case-by-case risk assessments. The
Government wants people to keep an open mind
and look at the issues fairly, taking due account of
the relevant scientific 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 6 2011 15
GLOBAL cHALLENGE
Global food system
faces challenges
The case for urgent action to ensure a sustainable, secure
and safe global food system is now compelling, says
Government Chief Scientific Adviser Sir John Beddington
Sir John Beddington
Government Chief
Scientific Adviser
I
n the next 40 years, the global food
system will experience an
unprecedented confluence of
pressures. The needs of a growing
world population, likely to demand a
more varied and high-quality diet, will need
to be satisfied, while critical resources such
as water, energy and land become
increasingly 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 world’s
natural resources at an unsustainable
rate, and failing the very poorest, with
almost one billion of the least advantaged
and most vulnerable people still suffering
from hunger.
The Government Office 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
16 Bite Issue 6 2011
food system adapts to and mitigates
against 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
influencing demand from consumers.
Crucially though, this challenge will
require investment in research and
development of new practices and
technologies to increase the quantity,
efficiency and sustainability of food
production, secure ecosystem services,
keep pace with evolving threats and
meet the needs of the world’s
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-ecological
approaches. Further, research will need
to address a more complex set of goals
to encourage the sustainable intensification
of agricultural practices that simultaneously
raise yields and increase resource
efficiency (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
intensification, 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 DNA
sequencing to offer new and more efficient
ways to select for desirable traits,
compared with traditional breeding
techniques. Advances have also been
made with the use of genetic modification
techniques – those that introduce gene
sequences from a different species – to
develop GM crops.
GM crops have already demonstrated
benefits in increasing yields and decreasing
losses from pests and diseases, and are
being 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
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 world’s GM
crop production.
Scientific 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 benefits.
However, many people in the UK and EU
remain sceptical of GM. Concerns range
from health and environmental risks, ethical
issues, and the need to share access to
and benefits 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 in
political 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 scientific
risk assessments on other applications.
From my position as Government Chief
Scientific Adviser, I find 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, which
conventional 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 benefits
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 scientific developments to
meet those challenges?
Further information
The Foresight report can be found at:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/
bispartners/foresight/docs/food-andfarming/11-546-future-of-food-andfarming-report.pdf
Figures from: http://argenbio.org/adc/
uploads/isaaa_2010/ISAAA_Briefs_42Executive_Summary_Feb_2011.pdf
Bite Issue 6 2011 17
ScOTLAND
The Scottish Government continues to be
fundamentally opposed to the cultivation of GM
crops. Scotland’s Minister for Environment and
Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson, explains why
S
ome have asked whether the
Scottish Government has
softened its position on
genetically modified (GM) crops
since it was first 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 Commission’s 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 GM
crops cannot take into account all Europe’s
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 Scotland’s reputation for
18 Bite Issue 6 2011
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 confidence 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 in
Scotland, 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 EU’s
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
we’re confident 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 is
no reason why we can’t 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 Scotland’s precious environment.
W
The Welsh Government
supports a ‘broader and
more holistic evaluation
of GMOs’ and the right
of EU regions to make
their own decisions on
the cultivation of GM
crops in their territory.
John Griffiths, Welsh
Minister for Environment
and Sustainable
Development, explains
A
cross 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 issue
here, 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 influenced
our policy. We are a small country of
around 2 million hectares, but a significant
proportion of our agricultural land serves
a vibrant food and drink manufacturing
industry. We have made considerable
investments into agri-environment schemes
and the organic sector to support this
industry. Food and drink manufacturing is
the cornerstone of our rural economy and
it is vital that we protect this sector and
preserve consumer confidence.
We are also determined to maintain
Wales’ stunning natural environment.
Wales boasts 951 Sites of Special
Scientific 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 many
visitors 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 be
prepared 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 must
be able to access clear, trusted
and verifiable information on
GMOs. It needs to set out all
potential benefits 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 undertaken
within the regulatory regime that
not only considers human
health and environmental issues,
but also looks at wider socioeconomic 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 6 2011 19
ROUND THE TABLE
Where do we go
from here?
Reader in Molecular Microbiology Peter Lund, Which?
Chief Policy Adviser Sue Davies, Food and Drink Federation
Director of Food Safety and Science Barbara Gallani, and
National Farmers Union Chief Science and Regulatory
Affairs Adviser Helen Ferrier, suggest their preferred
routes (see boxes). FSA Chief Scientist Andrew Wadge
tries to steer a course
Sue Davies
Chief Policy Adviser,
Which?
Andrew: Some themes have arisen from
your initial statements: choice, the
importance of safety in science, and the
fact that consumers remain unconvinced
of the benefits 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 wasn’t
such an established part of the supply
chain globally. We’re perhaps in a better
position now to have a more rational
debate that starts with making people
aware that it’s here, so we’re 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 you’re 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 way
forward. I think we need to have a debate
Weighing up the issues: from left,
Peter Lund, Sue Davies, Andrew Wadge,
Barbara Gallani and Helen Ferrier
A Which? survey in June 2011 found
that 62% of people are still concerned
about eating GM ingredients, 30% are
not concerned and 11% do not know.
Seventy per cent think it is important
that retailers have policies not allowing
GM ingredients in food and feed.
This is in line with our previous
research, which has found that many
people have not been convinced about
the benefits of GM foods and do not think
that enough is known about the long-term
consequences, although they aren’t
necessarily completely opposed to it.
Concerns have been compounded
by the difficulties of enabling people to
have a meaningful choice. While many
of the regulatory aspects in relation to
GM foods have steadily been
addressed through requirements for
about what are the food security
challenges, what are the problems facing
the 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: It’s not a theoretical thing that
we’re 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, it’s reasonable to
start with where we are now.
Peter: You want some means of arriving
at a consensus where the outcome is not
predetermined, and you want that to be as
open and as transparent as possible. I’m
not terribly optimistic. GM has become a
proxy for so many different things. It
covers issues to do with consumer choice,
people’s 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 a
better way of going about it.
approval, traceability and labelling, the
complexity of the supply chain and
uptake of GM cultivation in other parts
of the world still make this difficult to
achieve in practice.
With the potential use of the
technology rising up the agenda in view
of concerns about food prices and food
security, it is time for an honest and
open debate about the role that GM
should play. Understanding and
addressing consumer attitudes has to
be central to this and we need to move
away from a polarised debate between
pro-GM researchers and anti-GM
lobbyists. The starting point for any
discussion has to be the challenges
facing the supply chain and whether
GM, along with other options, could
have a role in addressing them.
Sue: We need to have a genuine debate
about what kind of trade-offs people think
are acceptable in terms of the things that
we’re 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 it’s
also important to really ground the debate
in UK-specific issues.
Barbara: The research that the FSA
published in March on public attitudes to
emerging 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 findings from that
was that the more that people understood
it, the more concerned they were. So it
isn’t necessarily the case that you give
Bite Issue 6 2011 21
ROUND THE TABLE
There are two areas in which there
is potential for consumer benefit.
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: I’m 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: Wouldn’t it be useful to identify
the obvious gaps in knowledge and
understanding in a very neutral way? In
fact, 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.
22 Bite Issue 6 2011
Sue: It would be good to have a review
of where we’ve got to. The FSA’s 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 to
look at it in that broader context.
Andrew: There is a really interesting
point about the benefits. It seems that if
there are benefits they are much closer to
the producer in the UK than to the
consumer. Is that right?
Helen: Looking for specific consumer
benefits misses the fact that a more
efficient and productive farming system
that produces high quality food is of
benefit to consumers. People want the
best value from what they’re getting.
Peter: There are two areas in which
there is potential for consumer benefit.
One is to make food cheaper. The other is
to make it better in some way. The kind of
examples I’m familiar with are changing
the balance of saturated and unsaturated
fats in oil. The factors that drive food
prices are so far out of people’s 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 finger and say: ‘This price
decrease is down to GM.’ But it’s 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 they’ve already got FDA approval
for those products to go into a chocolate
bar or whatever.
Sue: But how valuable is it to have some
of these very niche products that may be
targeted at people as being healthy for
them, when we’ve got a huge obesity
problem 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 benefits for a whole range
of technologies. Microwave ovens weren’t
present in British kitchens in the 1970s.
Virtually every kitchen has one now. What’s
the reason? Because they’re seen as very
helpful and convenient for producing food.
I’m really interested as to what benefits 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 I’m eating and that I
have a meaningful choice about whether or
not I’m 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
don’t want this particular variety of wheat to
be made into my [breakfast cereal], I want
this other variety.’
Peter: The other thing that’s tricky is
that in some cases it’s a false choice
because there is no difference. The means
of production has no effect whatsoever on
the final product, they are genuinely the
same thing.
Andrew: At the moment we’ve got GM
animal feed being widely used in the UK,
but actually we don’t have GM food on sale
in our shops. What are the barriers? What’s
got to happen to get to the point where
consumers can exercise that choice as to
whether they want to purchase GM or not?
Sue: I don’t 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 I’m 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 available
globally, so presumably they’ve got through
whatever the retailers’ process is for
deciding whether something is going to
sell. But again, we need the retailers input.
It’s quite a difficult thing to say: ‘We’re not
going to use this particular technique until
people say they want it,’ when they don’t
know what it is or how it would benefit
them or otherwise. It might be a new
variety of apple that doesn’t 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, it’s something
that could be produced. If you had
something like that, which could be
brought into the market, then the general
feeling of distrust with GM would probably
begin to evaporate.
Barbara: I think the debate has changed.
It’s not about the silver bullet to solve a
particular problem. It’s about using GM as
part of a number of different strategies to
address food shortages in the future. So
while acknowledging that we’re not
describing GM as the silver bullet for a
solution, why do we need to find a very
specific, very defined, very well-proven
benefit?
Peter: It’s because we’re 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, was
the ‘iPod of food’.
Sue: We have to remember that we’re
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, we’d 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 GM
and non-GM crops]. There are lots of things
that have changed in primary production.
Peter Lund
Reader in Molecular Microbiology,
School of Biosciences, University
of Birmingham
My involvement with this debate dates
back to when I worked for an American
agri-biotech company, which did the
first 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 FSA
committee 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 scientific, some
socio-political, and some frankly
metaphysical, that it can be extremely
hard to see the wood for the trees.
Many of the scientific 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 scientific qualms
about either eating GM food or seeing
GM crops planted in the UK.
Socio-political issues – from consumer
choice to monopoly control of food
production – 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 6 2011 23
ROUND THE TABLE
It’s about using GM
as part of a number of
different strategies to
address food shortages
in 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
superficial – pretending that people, in
effect, have a choice. If you’ve actually set
thresholds at quite a high level people don’t
really have a meaningful choice. I think we
haven’t 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 first came
in, but it was reduced to 0.9% because
it sounded more reassuring. There was
absolutely no scientific basis for that.
Dr Helen Ferrier
Chief Science and Regulatory
Affairs Adviser, NFU
The NFU’s policy on GM can be
summed up in one word: choice.
Farmers must have access to the best
inputs and practices to grow their
businesses. What is ‘best’ varies
hugely, and I wouldn’t advise our
members what markets they should go
for. But if seed companies don’t use all
the techniques available to research
and develop the best varieties for the
UK 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 while
reducing 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,
24 Bite Issue 6 2011
pesticides, fertilisers and fuel, for the
benefit 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 global
markets for the raw materials British
farmers produce. Like the government,
we see benefits in using GM for UK
crops, 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 scientific analysis, not
on assumptions about consumer views
and perceptions.
Sue: If people feel reassured that it’s
clear and that they will be able to make
a choice, then they’re likely to be more
accepting of certain things. I think they
become suspicious when they feel that
they don’t have a choice or they’re 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 find a way to cope with
the practicalities. Hence the thresholds. I’m
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 by
toxicological 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. That’s a more
or less rationally arrived at figure. People
will be terribly concerned about the safety
regulations affecting GM, but they’ll blithely
go and buy coffee and cream and peppers
– and other things that demonstrably will
damage them and that would never get
through contemporary safety regulations.
But if they regard aspects of GM as
unacceptable that’s what has to be
addressed – even if it doesn’t make sense.
Barbara: If you test consumers
unprompted, and I’m referring to the FSA
Public Attitudes Tracker, pesticides always
come top of the list in contrast with, say,
5% of consumers [spontaneously]
mentioning GM. You’re allowed to use
pesticides, you’ve got pesticide drift, you’ve
got a communication strategy around it.
Why should it be different for GM?
Peter: It’s because it is a lightning rod
for so many different things. It’s why the
debate is so interesting and so
complicated.
Sue: It’s a complex supply chain but it’s
a marketplace and ultimately if consumers
aren’t going to accept a product then there
is no future for it.
Helen: But how can you talk about
benefit if you can’t say: ‘This could do
that?’ And who is going to say that other
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 GM
should 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 haven’t had the apple that doesn’t
go brown in the bowl, which was mentioned
by Helen – the ‘killer app’, as you put it,
Peter. Provided that it’s safe and labelled
properly, there might well be a demand
for that. But at the moment there does seem
to be a real need to identify products that
will bring about a benefit 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.
That’s 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 have
faced 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.
The British Retail Consortium, which
represents retailers in the UK, declined the
opportunity to take part in the roundtable.
BRC Director of Food and Sustainability
Andrew Opie said: ‘The reason there
are no GM products available on UK
supermarket shelves is that there is
no consumer demand.’
Barbara Gallani
Director of Food Safety
and Science, FDF
FDF’s long-held position is that modern
biotechnology, including GM, offers
enormous potential to improve the
quality and quantity of the food supply.
Clearly, the impact of this technology
must be objectively assessed through
scientific investigation. Robust controls
are necessary to protect the consumer
and the environment; and consumer
choice and information are fundamental
to public acceptance. Our members are
committed to providing a wide range of
safe and nutritious foods to suit all
consumers, including those who, for
their own reasons, reject the use of
technologies such as GM in food
production.
We believe that the time has come to
reopen a free and unbiased debate
about GM. Consumers need objective
information from well-informed,
trustworthy sources, to balance
sensationalist media coverage about
“Frankenfoods”. It is important to
provide the facts behind the
statements, for example that most GM
applications involve the improvement of
existing crops and products and that
maintaining the current non-GM status
of the EU will come at a cost to society.
We support the Foresight report’s
conclusions that we need to produce
more from less and with less impact,
and that recognition should be given to
the role of GM as a tool in the
sustainability challenge. We are
concerned that the current situation in
the EU is unsustainable and we believe
that EU governments and regulatory
authorities should base their decisions
regarding GM on safety and science,
acknowledging and supporting the
stringent assessment and approval
procedures already in place in Europe.
FEEDING THE wORLD?
An additional
tool in the box
How can GM crops benefit
the developing world?
Stephen O’Brien
Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State at
the Department for
International
Development
With a rising global
population, the question
that is increasingly asked
is: how will we feed a
world of 9 billion people?
Stephen O’Brien believes
that GM has an important
role to play
26 Bite Issue 6 2011
C
urrently, more than 1 billion
people are hungry; another
1 billion are undernourished.
Food prices are at levels higher
than 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 floods 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 nutritious
crop varieties that:
• are better able to resist drought, salinity,
pests, and diseases
• maximise the uptake of soil nutrients
and water
• are more efficient at using light
• are more resilient to storage and
transportation.
Biotechnology, including genetic
modification (GM), has an important role
to play in developing new crops alongside
more traditional technologies and innovative
approaches to agriculture such as integrated
pest 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 efficiently and
that are more resistant to abiotic stress
such as salinity, temperature, drought or
flood 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.
Research is in the DNA
DFID-funded research involves:
• The analysis of genetic make-up of
important crops to identify the specific
genes linked to favourable traits, drought
resistance or pest resistance, for
example.
• Using this information to enhance the
effectiveness and speed of conventional
plant breeding programmes. This is
called marker-assisted breeding (MAB)
• The development of GM crops, moving
genes between species to produce
plants with improved characteristics,
for example, resistance to insects or
herbicide tolerance.
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 developing
countries, plant disease can lead to long
term impoverishment and hunger.
The Department for International
Development (DFID) and other international
development 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 consumer
demand and political acceptance on GM
is very mixed and dynamic across the
developed and developing world.
We believe that the assessment of the
use of GM, along with other technology,
must be based on scientific assessment
of the health and environmental risks.
But there is no doubt that, without the
application of GM technology, the challenge
of sustainable intensifying of agriculture to
meet the demand for food, fibre and fuel
in the next 30 years will be enormous.
Specific examples of biotechnology
and GM research currently supported
by DFID:
• DFID is a significant donor to the
Consultative Group for International
Agriculture Research (CGIAR), the
leading international agriculture
research organisation. One of CGIAR’s
primary roles is to develop, for use in
developing countries, new plant
varieties that are more productive and
resistant to biotic and abiotic stress.
Improved varieties of the 10 main food
crops that were developed by CGIAR
are now grown on more than 200
million hectares in developing
countries. Annual developing country
benefits derived from CGIAR on
improved rice, wheat and maize alone
are estimated to be $10.8bn, $2.5bn
and $0.7bn respectively.
• The African Agricultural Technology
Foundation (AATF) is a not-for-profit
foundation established to support the
development of new agriculture
products specifically for African farmers
using existing intellectual property from
the private sector. AATF is conducting
large-scale field trials in Nigeria of an
insect-resistant variety of cowpea using
GM technology that will be licensed for
commercial production, once approved
by the Nigerian government. AATF is
also developing water-efficient maize for
Africa, with genetic source material
released to AATF by Monsanto.
• The CGIAR HarvestPlus challenge
programme is developing a range of
new crop varieties that have been
biofortified to increase their nutritional
qualities. HarvestPlus relies largely on
conventional breeding technology
supported by MAB. Large scale field
trials of vitamin A enriched sweet potato
involving 200,000 households in
Uganda and Mozambique have
demonstrated the effectiveness of this
crop as a cost-effective way of
addressing vitamin A deficiency in
children.
• A joint programme with the UK’s
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council (BBSRC) to improve
the productivity and resilience of staple
crops important to the poor in
developing countries. It will develop
tools and technologies to address the
factors limiting crop productivity, for
example insect pests, temperature,
drought and salinity. It includes
research using advanced biotechnology.
Bite Issue 6 2011 27
THE BIOSCIENTIST
GM technology is not a ‘silver bullet’ but it offers
significant agricultural, consumer, health and
societal benefits, says Mark Buckingham, deputy
chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council and
European spokesperson for Monsanto
Mark Buckingham
Deputy Chair,
Agricultural Biotechnology
Council
W
hile the use of GM
technology in agriculture
still generates much debate
in Europe, there are many
parts of the world already
utilising the technology. From India to South
Africa, millions of farmers already value the
positive impact GM technology can have on
their operations.
The world’s population is set to reach
9 billion by 2050. Significant increases in
crop yields are required or policy makers
will struggle to address the most vital need
of hunger and nutrition, particularly in
developing countries.
From additional vitamins in key food
crops such as rice to disease-resistant
crops, GM technology is providing
additional tools for farmers to tackle some
of the challenges they face. Drought
tolerance technology is also being
developed, which will allow crops to
withstand periods of low soil moisture.
Another area of intense research is
nitrogen-use efficiency traits that can allow
a crop to deliver the same yield with less
fertiliser, greatly reducing the carbon
footprint of food production.
GM technology is not a ‘silver bullet’ but
it does offer significant agricultural,
consumer, health and societal benefits. A
2011 study by Brookes and Barfoot showed
that GM crops can conserve arable land. If
GM crops had not been available to farmers
in 2009, maintaining global production at
the same level would have required
additional plantings of 3.8 million hectares
of soybeans, 5.6 million hectares of corn
and 2.6 million hectares of cotton.
Additionally, as demonstrated by a recent
Overseas Development Institute report,
investment in the agricultural sector can
also help tackle the issues of poverty with
GDP growth in agriculture contributing
twice as much to poverty reduction than
any other sector.
In 2010, GM technology was used by over
15 million farmers on 148 million hectares of
land. Over 90% of those using the technology
are resource-poor farmers in developing
countries growing food, feed and materials on
an area often considerably less than 10
hectares per farmer.
However, the use of the technology is
limited in Europe. In the UK, no GM crops
are commercially cultivated – several
small scale trials are under way at public
research institutes.
Europe is therefore failing to maximise
rural incomes and competitiveness and is
using more land and resources than
necessary to grow crops. Europe is also
eroding its industrial R&D base, which is
essential to catch up with global
competitors and be responsive to climate
change. It is missing out on being part of a
global market for agricultural biotechnology
that is valued at over £90 billion and
growing at 10-15% annually.
With such tough challenges already
facing the world’s poor and coming over the
horizon for all of us, farmers across the
globe will need access to a range of
solutions to help generate more food on
less land. Given the current economic
climate and the challenges of a growing
population, isn’t it time Europe realised the
opportunities and benefits of scientific
innovation in agriculture for our future
food and economic security?
Beneficial, but no
‘silver bullet’
28 Bite Issue 6 2011
OUT OF AFRIcA
Sowing seeds
of destruction?
The GM revolution threatens the richness of
African agriculture, says Mariam Mayet
Mariam Mayet
Director and founder
of the African Centre
for Biosafety
G
enetically modified seeds,
which were introduced
commercially in South Africa
in 1998, are now used
extensively in the country’s
agricultural systems.
In 2009/10, all of the maize seed sold
in South Africa was GM, a sharp increase
from 2006/07, when 36% of maize seed
sales were for GM varieties. Farmers using
GM seed must sign away the right to save
or exchange seed. It is for this reason that
by 2010/11, 77% of maize grown in South
Africa was GM.
Farmers using GM seeds must also pay
a technology fee to the manufacturer. The
change from single trait GM technology,
common in 1998, to the production of
seeds with ‘stacked’ traits, means that
farmers are having to continuously
upgrade seed from one year to the next.
Millions of dollars from philanthropic
organisations, such as the Bill and Melinda
Gates and Howard G Buffet foundations,
are being spent on GM drought-tolerance
research and development in Africa. GM
drought tolerance is being offered as a
panacea in the alleviation of poverty and
hunger, and in combating climate change.
This will usher in massive field trials across
Africa, finally pushing open hitherto closed
doors to GM-based agriculture.
The money flowing into Africa is also
laying the groundwork for the
industrialisation of African agriculture and
creation of markets for agribusiness. In
turn, this is paving the way for the
emergence of a new rural private sector
– agro-processors and exporters who
contract small farmers to produce crops
for them.
With the exception of South Africa,
small-scale agriculture still predominates in
Africa. African farmers practise smallholder
diversified farming systems, which provide
most of the food consumed, as well as a
substantial share of cash crops.
At least 17 distinct farming systems exist
in Africa. Crop diversity is at the centre of
such systems, and farmers typically cultivate
10 or more crops in diverse mixtures.
Saved seed is a critically important
resource that the poorest depend on to
carry them from one year to the next.
The imposition of technological solutions
to what are inherently social, political,
historical and economic crises within
African agriculture is drastically
transforming African rural economies,
social relationships, agrarian policies and,
generally, the rural development trajectory
in Africa.
Agricultural production in Africa will
increasingly be dominated by transnational
seed, GM, agro-chemical and agribusiness.
This will accelerate the destruction of
traditional agricultural systems and facilitate
the shift towards an externally oriented,
input-based agricultural system.
Africa is heading towards genetic
contamination by GM crops, loss of
agricultural genetic diversity and the
degradation and pollution of soils and water.
The gene revolution is a threat to the
richness of African traditional agriculture. It
stands in sharp contrast to the many
successful African alternatives in organic
agriculture, sustainable agriculture,
agro-forestry, pastoralism, integrated pest
management, farmer-led plant breeding,
sustainable watershed management and
many other agro-ecological approaches.
The African Centre for Biosafety
is a non-profit organisation dedicated
to protecting Africa's biodiversity,
traditional knowledge, food
production systems, culture and
diversity, from the threats posed by
genetic engineering and biopiracy
Bite Issue 6 2011 29