GM: Should Europe press ahead?

The European Parliament has approved proposals to tighten restrictions on the use of genetically modified products.

The new measures include strict labelling and monitoring and pave the way for the EU to lift its three-year moratorium on licensing new GM products.

Environmentalists say modified crops could spawn "superweeds" or damage human health. Others say the development of GM crops is needed to feed the world.

Are the new measures strict enough to safeguard our health? Or should more be done to keep ahead of scientific development?

The debate on this issue on "Talking Point on Air" had to be postponed. Apologies to everybody who wanted to take part in the discussion. We will be debating this issue at a later date.

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

All this crying about "it's unnatural". Come on people. Is it "natural" to fly across the Pacific? How about that car you drive each day? Are you going to give it up? It's not natural you know. This is the same old argument that has been going on since the steam engine. I would like my potato to have a full daily vitamin dose, thank you. If you can make it taste like cherry pie then all the better. The world is going to change folks and it's going to change faster all the time. Get on board or become obsolete, the choice is yours.
Greg, USA

It's very interesting that the US hasn't had these issues with concerns about safety

Peter K, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

It's very interesting that the US hasn't had these issues with concerns about safety. This may simply be a reflection of the US' various safety agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, which must certify foods safe for human consumption before they can be sold. Americans have lived in an environment where they can be certain their food is 'safe,' while Europeans have no similar continental verification system. Perhaps extending the FDA to an international level would help resolve the situation...
Peter K, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

In my opinion the reason to grow GM food "because there won't be enough food" is only a front. In fact, profit and money are behind all this. As many people have noticed before, we cannot trust what we eat anymore! Vegetables are grown in a way that is not natural in order to make more profit and the same goes for meat...
Rita, Paris, France

In the US "everything" is labelled so that I can make my shopping choices intelligently. I believe that the European fear of GM products and the American fear of radiated products is based on superstition and a lack of information and understanding. People who don't understand are afraid.
Linda, USA

I find it strange that so many people are sure there will be some terrible disaster from GM food, and yet no-one seems to object to genetically engineered drugs that are injected directly into the body. It seems that our fears concerning GM are incredibly selective.
Jon Livesey, Sunnyvale, CA, USA

The possibilities that GM technology offers are enormous but caution should be exercised in its application

Samuel Apedel, Kampala, Uganda

The argument that GM could do wonders for Africa is good but it remains just that - a good argument. The possibilities that GM technology offers are enormous but caution should be exercised in its application. As GM becomes widespread (and it will) Africa and other third world countries which rely on organic agriculture will lose out because they do not have the technology nor the money with which to buy GM seeds. Africa and the third world will be completely beholden to the few multinationals with GM technology. I am not pessimistic. Look at what the drug companies have done with HIV/AIDS drugs, Africans can't even afford the drugs and cheaper alternatives are a no no thanks to the WTO. Careful regulation and caution are the key.
Samuel Apedel, Kampala, Uganda

Do the countries of European Union not have sufficient food to feed the people? Let the European Union not worry about developing countries (let us not use the term 'Third World Countries' to describe the developing countries) and justify the use of GM food. What people need is fresh air, clean water and a proper diet. Let the scientists continue to do research in the field and give us the result, the pros and cons of GM food.
Albert P'Rayan, Kigali, Rwanda

To Kate. If you eat a carrot you do not become a carrot. However, part of that carrot is used to replenish the requirements of the body. It is elementary biology to know that we use vitamins and proteins found in the food we eat to strengthen and fuel our bodies - if we did not there would be little point in eating. There is a huge difference between "There is evidence of no danger" and "There is no evidence of danger".
Tanya Smithson, England

The consensus in Europe and the UK is to regard GM foods as both possibly very beneficial and possibly very dangerous and that therefore GM should be approached, but with considerable caution. With the human casualties from CJD now projected at a quarter of a million, it is hardly surprising that Europeans are cautious and slow to trust the reassurances of business-sponsored scientists. Given this, the actions of New Labour to suppress significant information about seed contamination in the UK and abroad, to suppress debate by labelling all voices of caution as 'hysterical', and to aid the illegal spreading of GM seed via secret, effectively unprotected testing make them look supremely cynical and irresponsible.
Bruce Paton, London, UK

I see a problem in defining 'unnatural'

Andrew Bartlett, York, UK

The argument that as we already overproduce food we should not grow or eat GM food would also provide opposition to any other kinds of improvement in crops or farming techniques. Any expenditure in these areas is surely pointless, given our current agricultural capability, the argument would run. I do not believe that this is what the people putting forward this argument are trying to say. Their underlying views appear to be an unease, even disgust with the 'unnaturalness' of GM food, rationalised as an economic argument. Perhaps this is because the argument that something is 'unnatural' and therefore should not be done is both founded upon a basis that can appear to be little more than superstition and, if accepted as a valid argument, is open to so much abuse. I see a problem in defining 'unnatural'. It can be argued that we are products of 'nature' as much as any other living thing on the planet. Humans are the most, in fact the only, 'environmentally friendly' species on the planet, as we are the only form of life to actively attempt to protect and maintain the environment for species other than ourselves.
Andrew Bartlett, York, UK

We need GM foods here in Europe like we need a hole in the head. The multinationals are succeeding in buying the lily-livered politicians' votes to allow them to splice Antarctic bass genes into tomatoes. It ain't natural. It isn't fully tested, and bleating about "There is no evidence..." does not constitute evidence that it's safe! When you consider why they want to continue to play with genes it's blindingly obvious. Commercial opportunity to fleece farmers (and us) all over the world. When they get a stranglehold on the third world with super cropping sterile cereals that require their weed killer to survive the penny might drop ... alas, too late! Suddenly all our livestock is being fed with the same sterile, super cropping, pesticide dependent cereals. The GM industry needs very serious and heavy regulation. Every step they take must be proven by independent sources to be safe and beneficial.
Alison March, UK

To produce more with less land is exactly what humans need now

John Hansen, Iowa, USA

Bart, that certain sensibility that you speak so fondly of seems more akin to paranoia to me. I can't believe that you would compliment Europe's sensibility on food safety when a far larger number of Europeans smoke cigarettes than Americans. In regard to the GM foods, I believe that they are a wonderful thing. To produce more with less land is exactly what humans need now. It is silly and selfish to worry about the unknown and unlikely harmful side effects of GM foods on rich nations, when they have such potential to feed poor nations. Besides, it takes nature thousands of years to perfect a species. How likely is it that humans will accidentally introduce new ones that take over the world?
John Hansen, Iowa, USA

GM crops have the potential to be immensely beneficial. Many of these benefits could be environmental. With their higher yields, we will not require to grow crops on so much land and can preserve more natural vegetation, or by enabling the plants to fix nitrogen by themselves, we will be able to reduce the use of fertilizers. Disregarding these benefits in an uninformed backlash against scientific progress is dangerous at the very least.
Roman, Bratislava, Slovakia

If it looks good and tastes good, then eat it! For all of those people who worry about dangers that haven't even been proved yet, well, we've all got to die of something. I'd rather it be a mutant lasagne than a gruesome road accident. At least I'd be well fed!
Mark B, UK

As a stateside organic farmer, I am shocked and appalled at the oceans of chemicals: fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, herbicides, and God knows what, placed on food crops here. Don't regulate, outright ban GM crops. Otherwise, you'll be enmeshed in the GM-web.
Kenneth Woods, Loudonville, OH (USA)

Who does the development of GM crops really serve?

Lee, England

Who does the development of GM crops really serve? Is this a consumer lead market? Nope. Is it a health lead market? Nope. Is it all about companies making profit? Could be!
Lee, England

Aren't we missing a simple point - if you eat a carrot, do you turn into one? We simply do not absorb GM foods in a way that changes our cellular structure, why do people fail to grasp this simple point? My step-daughter works for a pharmaceutical company and the lack of public knowledge on this issue appals her (and she is frequently subjected to threatened physical abuse from ignorant people who are scared by scientifc progress). The government holds a massive responsibility to take balanced advice from scientists who understand the concepts involved, not simply bow to public misinformed hysteria. I am sick of the approach that some people have to scientific experimentation - God forbid we should have discovered penicillin, invented the wheel and learned how to make steel ...
Kate, UK

I have lost my trust in environmentalist organisations. All the evidence points that GM food is safe, yet they will never accept that. The way that they have been twisting reality, ignoring facts and generally try to scare the public makes them to me even scarier than any government. And the media is just happy to go with it. It's a shame, because these organisations have an important role in our society and do a necessary job, but they seem to pick on non-existing issues for self-publicity when the world has many other much graver environmental problems.
Ricardo Molina, UK

Owing to a shared genetic ancestry, selectively engineered crops do indeed 'contain genetic material from other species'. It is largely for this reason that genetic engineering works. Certainly, the small genetic differences between two species can result in a different 'interpretation' of the same gene. But I see no reason why this is more likely to produce a 'harmful' effect for a single targeted gene replacement than for the thousands of gene replacements that occur in the recombinative processes associated with selective breeding. Any unpredicted effects are far more likely to produce adverse consequences for the host species than to result in a coherent and efficient mechanism for harming other species. 'X-Men' has a lot to answer for!
M. Moran , UK

By genetically modifying our food, we're simply asking for other BSE-type disasters

Richard G, UK

I think that by genetically modifying our food, we're simply asking for other BSE-type disasters. Oh well - if we all get killed by our food, at least we won't need to rely on GM products to feed future generations, as some contributors on this page suggest.
Richard G, UK

I couldn't imagine anything more terrifying than eating a crop cereal food which contains peanut or starfish genes. Except perhaps being a third world farmer forced to use organic methods which don't provide enough food to eat, never mind sell.
Bruce, England

When we have grain mountains and wine lakes which cost a small fortune to preserve why are we trying to increase yields even further? The argument about the third world gaining from this is absolute garbage - they won't be able to afford the seeds in the first place and will only end up even more beholden to the Western companies than they already are.
Karl Peters, UK

We are already capable of producing more than we need

Mark, Austria

We are already capable of producing more than we need. GM seed producers make the seeds immune to their own weedkillers and the seeds are sprayed as much as before. Helping the third world ... yeah right, how are people so naive as to believe this propaganda? Label foods to tell consumers what are in them and let them decide for themselves. Saying that, I don't think we will ever fully know what is contained in our food since big business conceals it from us. I hope those CEOs can sleep well at night.
Mark, Austria

When people quote that GM technology will feed the Third World, they simply don't realise that there are numerous other resources (like water) that limit sustainability. The biggest danger would be for GM crops to be used, giving rise to short term productivity and then famine. If GM technology is used, this will happen, and there will be devastation as never seen before.
Robbo, England

The new EU rules impose greater responsibility on GM producers

Dr Riz Rahim, Chicago, USA

I prefer the deliberate, cautious approach that EU is taking over the rush toward GM seen in the US. A good part of the difference seems to stem from the difference in transatlantic experience with BSE, how it was handled and the public confidence. The new EU rules impose greater responsibility on GM producers (requiring strict labelling, risk assessment, monitoring etc), while allowing a registry of GM products/ingredients that would allow tracing them down, which makes reconstruction lot easier in case of environmental, health or other problems. With the new US administration leaning more toward bio-tech, it is unclear now how the proposals in place, considered already quite lax with GM producers, would shape up.
Dr Riz Rahim, Chicago, USA

Simon Proven is missing the point. Genetic modification can enhance crops' natural resistance to disease and pests, thereby reducing dependence upon expensive artificial fertilisers and pesticides. Furthermore, reducing the need to spray pesticides also reduces the collateral damage caused to non-pest species. GM crops are the "greenest" of all.
Henry Case, UK

Being a genetics student you would have thought I would be completely pro-GM food. This is not the case, I think that until more research is done, like any new technology, GM food should be treated with respect and handled carefully both in the political and scientific world. I do not see a problem in the carrying out of such research, nor would I not eat something just because it has GM foods in it. The term is used very widely and scientists have just found a way of speeding up a process which has been happening since year zero - it is called evolution.
Ian Kilner, England

Dave V is woefully misinformed. Crops selected for their yield, or bred to increase their yield, are not "genetically modified" in the same way as GM crops, as they don't contain any genetic material from other species. That is the point of the argument - that putting genes from a starfish into wheat or whatever can never happen in nature and we cannot know in advance what the outcome might be.
Edward, UK

We still don't know what the side-effects of this could be. We still don't know if these experimental organisms can be contained or the potential consequences of their escape from controlled circumstances. Pollen blows in the wind - it's what nature designed pollen to do. It doesn't care that we don't want it to go past our pathetically small "exclusion zone" any more than a cat cares that we would prefer it not to catch mice. The promises of scientists that Thalidomide was safe ring in my ears.
John B, UK

As an environmental manager it is my belief that the only chance we have of sustainably feeding the world's growing population in the future without having to convert remaining wilderness and rainforest areas into agricultural land is by artificially increasing crop yields through GM. I don't much like it but accept that I'll have to live with it. Anybody who thinks that being anti-GM and pro-organic will somehow protect the environment in the long term is living in a fantasy world, I'm afraid.
Andy D, UK

This careful licensing and monitoring merely gives the illusion of safety

George Milton, USA/Italy

Europe will place itself at a serious disadvantage if it turns its back on the development of GM foods. Caution with the food supply is commendable and I see a good reason to monitor and test the new products. I wonder why this apparent extreme caution was not able to identify and eradicate the BSE problem in time. Sometimes I think that this careful licensing and monitoring merely gives the illusion of safety - perhaps dangerously so.
George Milton, USA/Italy

Modern intensive agricultural techniques do not help poor Third World farmers. They cannot afford the fertilisers and pesticides required, and the methods rely on rich, fertile soils. Sustainable techniques, however have shown a 70% boost in crop yields for poor farmers. GM is not for the poor farmers, it is for the rich multinationals.
Simon Proven, UK

To eat this food would be foolish. If you take a plant that already feeds all of your people then change it in some manner of which we have little understanding the laws of chance dictate that very soon we will make a big mistake and perhaps we will then be relying on the Third World to give us aid. I don't see anyone starving in the European Union in fact it is a known fact that we burn a great deal of unused food. The only reason to grow GM is for the companies to make more profit and for the people to be robbed of something they already own. Genetics belong to everyone not just one company.
James Clarke, UK

People who talk about artificial selection are totally missing the point. Choosing the fastest growing corn and selectively planting it is artificial selection, basically taking a degree of control over which individuals get to reproduce and which get eaten. This is not very different from what nature does anyway, the only difference being that we make a small part of the decision. Adding a peanut gene to a corn crop never happens in nature so the two are very different. Nature probably has a very good reason for not including a gene we deem "desirable" - we would do well to understand why it isn't there in the first place before we rush to artificially add it.
Dave Tankard, UK

We humans have been modifying plants for our own use for thousands of years

Dave V, San Diego, USA

Hmmm. Maybe if we label genetically modified foods as such, we should also label most of the non-GM foods we eat as "Artificially Selected" after the practice of selecting the crops with the best yields for next year's planting. We humans have been modifying plants for our own use for thousands of years. Modifying genes directly is a faster version of the same which we should not fear, but rather use for the benefit of all.
Dave V, San Diego, USA

The whole GM argument is a false one. Europe already overproduces food, we have food mountains for God's sake and please don't use the argument of we can help the Third World. Look at the drugs industry, how has that helped? Third World countries can't even afford the prices. Everything is driven by the markets and not the needs of 'ALL' the people of this world.
Zafar, England

I'm afraid that "Bart" simply isn't telling you the truth. It is quite routine for US supermarkets to label and identify organic produce separately, and the manufacturers of corn products do indeed segregate their GM from non-GM products, and sell each separately.
Jon Livesey, USA

Required labelling is a good start but I don't think it is enough because unlike 30 years ago there are only a few major seed suppliers left in the world. Even if they have to label their foods, if there are no alternatives what is the world to do? For all practical purposes it seems like just a few companies control what most of the world will grow and eat, and they have so much invested in GM foods I think they will make sure we have no real choice.
Pat, USA

We produce enough for our needs in Europe already

Alex Banks, Wales/ Sweden

Across Europe, there is a serious problem with overproduction of some crops (e.g. grain mountains and wine lakes). Would it not be a better idea to become organic? That way the quality of food will be increased, and the overproduction problems will also be solved. I don't actually think we need GM. We produce enough for our needs in Europe already.
Alex Banks, Wales, Living in Sweden

Given the promise of GM technology, it would a tragedy to kill it off but a huge mistake not to regulate it carefully. The proper balance is probably to treat GMO technology similarly to drugs, but not more rigorously. GMOs should be effective in delivering promised benefits and should be safe for human and environmental health.
Eric Trachtenberg, USA/ Russia

It's only a matter of time before GM foods gain wide acceptance and people in the Western world should remember that genetically modified crops could significantly help the Third World where famine still regularly occurs. The potential for GM crops and what they can give humanity should not be denied and at the end of the day once such knowledge exists it's too late to stop its use.
David, UK

Personally, I find it rather commendable of the Europeans to have been so cautious in the first place. In the United States, NOTHING is labelled. Really, I have no genuine idea as to what I am eating. But given the fact that fruits and vegetables - by their very nature - ought not to be strictly uniform in size and shape, I can only suspect that the ones in U.S. supermarkets which display no such natural differences are, in fact, GM food-products. Granted, we do not know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I think that Europe's caution in this matter makes good sense.
This whole debate shows a certain sensibility on the part of the Europeans which is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent in the U.S.A.
Bart, USA