‘GM food: Monster or Saviour?’

BBC News, 29th May 2008 (2min17 and 2min10)

GM Debate: For

Reporter:

“Here in Britain indeed across Europe, it’s not so much a question of laws banning GM food but rather regulations, which means its introduction is practically impossible. Many consumers it seems have been put off by labels such as 'Frankenstein food' so here in the House of Commons there are very few voices raised in favour of GM, very few voices prepared to take on that strand of public opinion. But one notable exception is Lord Dick Taverne.”

Lord Taverne:

“Outside Europe, where there is a crazy ban on the stuff, outside Europe it’s been the biggest success story of any recent development in agricultural technology. It has spread like wildfire and there is something like 11 million small scale cotton farmers whose health has improved, whose income has benefited because they now farm transgenic cotton and in time, there will be benefits in the food field where they aren’t so many at the moment yet but already the papaya crop for example in Hawaii was saved by genetically modified papaya which dealt with the pests they have to deal with. It’s got a huge potential contribution to make towards diseases and also as a more efficient form of agriculture.”

Reporter:

“What in your terms has gone wrong then Sir, if the scientific cases there it is established, then why are we in this position in the UK and in Europe?”

Lord Taverne:

“Well, because in Europe there has been a great deal of propaganda by people who for some reason have adopted an idilogical reason against it. I mean you have got a huge field trial that has been carried on for over 10 years in America where hundreds of millions of Americans have been eating food with a GM content for over 10 years and there hasn't been even a single law case. If American lawyers can't find a ground to sue then there must be something right.”

Reporter:

“We were starting to sense that the debate has been reignited?”

Lord Taverne:

“Yes it’s been reignited. I think in particular because of the sudden explosion in world food prices and people have recognised that we desperately need the most efficient form of agriculture. I'm not saying that genetically modified agriculture is the only answer, it’s one of many answers but it’s an important part of the answer.” 

Reporter:

“Lord Taverne insists for this debate to move forward will take leadership, leadership from the politicians but also from the big retailers, the supermarkets that so dominate the food market place.”

GM Debate: Against

Reporter:

“Well those that have been consistently against genetically modified food and crops, remain steadfast in that position. This is the organic farm belonging to Lord Peter Melchett of the Soil Association and he's just told me, there is no way that he will ever advocate GM food.”

Lord Peter Melchett:

“The problem is that this is an uncertain technology which the scientists can't control. They do not know what impact it may have when it's released into the environment. In control conditions where GM organisms can't escape its a different matter, that has always been the case. But if you put it in the environment GM can get into the soil, we don't know even enough about the soil to know what kind of effect it may have. GM organisms can spread as we know, throughout nature.”

Reporter:

“We have, in countries like notably the United States hundreds of thousands, probably square miles of GM crops who've had that for best part of a decade. This catastrophe just isn't happening is it?”

Lord Melchett:

“One of the reasons we haven't had it is because they haven't been able to control it. For example in Canada with oil seed rape, organic farmers just have to stop growing the crop, end of that crop, because all of it was contaminated with GM. Now the other question to ask about the US and Canada is why have they said no to GM wheat. GM wheat was ready to be marketed; it’s the biggest worldwide staple crop of all. It’s been on the books for years and farmers in Canada and the US have said no.”

Reporter:

“Makes food cheaper for consumers then?”

Lord Melchett:

“No, no it doesn't. It simplifies life for very large farmers, but the cost argument is pretty marginal as you are paying a lot more for the seed and now they are having to use 2-3 sprays to deal with insects and weeds resistant to the original GM idea so no it doesn't save money. It's good for very large agri farm businesses, bad for everyone else, very risky for the environment, still huge unknowns.”

Reporter:

“For Lord Melchett then, GM remains a potential time bomb. He and others suggest we can feed the whole world based on the techniques he uses here which is strictly organic methods.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.