GM foods: unloved, unwanted and a rush to grow crops could cause civil unrest

[Guest guest]

GM foods: unloved, unwanted and a rush to grow crops could cause civil

unrest

>

> Minsters try to put gloss on bleak view from strategy unit

>

> Paul Brown, environment correspondent

> Saturday July 12, 2003

> <http://www.guardian.co.uk>The Guardian

>

> A bleak picture for the future of genetically modified crops in Britain

was

> outlined by the Cabinet Office strategy unit yesterday, which said there

> was currently no benefit to the UK consumer or farmer in growing such

foods

> because there was no market.

>

> The unit also warned if there was a rush to grow GM crops the government

> was in danger of further damaging the trust between the public and food

> regulators, which could lead to civil unrest and the destruction of crops.

>

> Before the report was published ministers and officials were out in force

> putting a " gloss " on the report, suggesting that existing GM crops could

> " offer some cost and convenience advantages to UK farmers " .

>

> However, the report makes clear that apart from the very limited

> possibility of selling crops for animal feed, UK farmers would have to

> export their crops if they were to find a market, since supermarkets and

> consumers had rejected GM food.

>

> The report is an unexpected blow to government hopes of an early

> introduction of GM crops to Britain and it was greeted with delight by

> anti-GM campaigners. They said the report vindicated their reservations

> about the dangers of rushing into the technology.

>

> The Cabinet Office report, which was commissioned by Margaret Beckett, the

> environment secretary, to look at the costs and benefits of GM crops, made

> clear that without public acceptance the chances of a successful

> introduction were minimal.

>

> In the long run, the report said, there might be benefits to the consumer,

> but there were none with the current GM crops, and there were still

unknown

> and unforeseeable risks to health and the environment which current

> regulations did not cover. There was a danger of shocks and surprises on

GM

> foods which could have a disastrous effect on public confidence

>

> There were also dangers in the UK turning its back on GM altogether,

> including a possible trade war with the United States, but also of losing

> the UK's science base and potential business if the marketing prospects

for

> GM improved.

>

> Research and development jobs in GM had declined by 60% over three decades

> in the UK to 1,300 and there was danger of further contraction unless GM

> went ahead.

>

> Five scenarios for GMs were investigated, including not growing any at

all.

> With the current public debate on GM showing no softening of attitude by

> the consumer to eating or growing crops in the UK, two of the five

> scenarios seem non-starters because both require public acceptance of GM

> foods.

>

> The best the pro-GM lobby can hope for at present is the Cabinet Office's

> third option, a strict regulatory regime which would lead to " very little "

> GM cultivation in the short-term but a gradual acceptance over a longer

> period. This depended on no health or other unexpected disasters in the

> meantime. The most likely outcome, if the government gives an early

> go-ahead to GM, is the one the strategy unit calls " tangled threads. "

>

> This is where the government allows GM growing to go ahead without proper

> protection for organic and conventional farmers.

>

> This would mean there was no means of legal redress for farmers whose

crops

> were contaminated by GM and regulations were weak. This would lead to

> higher prices in the shops for non-GM food. It would be unpopular and lead

> to civil unrest and huge costs in law and order.

>

> Mrs Beckett in her forward to the report acknowledged this danger. She

> said: " As with any new technology potential benefits are also accompanied

> by risks and uncertainties - and these in turn bring about the public

> concern ...

>

> " The challenge for any government is to regulate the use of this new

> technology in a way that safeguards the public and our planet, commands

> public confidence, but also ensures that our society does not necessarily

> throw away the benefits science can provide. This is no easy task. "

>

> Pete Riley, from Friends of the Earth ,said: " In the light of this report,

> I cannot see any businessman in the UK who owns a farm wanting to grow GM

> in the next five years. There is no market and no economic benefit unless,

> of course, farmers were paid to grow GM crops. "

>

> Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said: " This

report

> is dynamite and highlights the huge uncertainties in GM. The government

> spin just does not reflect what the strategy unit says - namely that the

> public just do not want to buy GM - and the uncertainties of the

technology

> are just not covered by safety tests or regulatory procedures. "

>

> The Cabinet Office envisages five scenarios on the likely public reaction

> to GM crops:

>

> 1 The public accepts genetically modified crops and food, large

cultivation

> of crops commences, with regulation increasingly treating GM like any

other

> foodstuff

>

> 2 There is a stringent approvals process; post-marketing, monitoring and

> labelling leads to the public increasingly accepting GM crops and foods

> over time

>

> 3 The public continues to oppose GM foods, so a strict regulatory system

is

> put in place, leading to very little GM cultivation on British soil - at

> least in the short term

>

> 4 There is a breakdown between the government, which has adopted lax

> regulations that fail to segregate GM crops, and the public, which remains

> negative to GM. There is damage to conventional and organic farming and

> activists destroy GM fields

>

> 5 An explicit decision is made against commercial cultivation in Britain

> with the public preferring conventional or organic produce. This non-GM

> status provides new niche markets for British farmers

> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/whitehall/story/0,9061,996876,00.html

>