Your Politics: GM Food

"All the government seems to listen to is big business. I'm worried they're not giving people like me the opportunity to decide what we eat."

Anne Thurlow,
Woking

---

Get involved

Your responses

Ask the expert

Anne Thurlow cares about what she feeds her family.

A mother of four from Woking in Surrey she shops carefully, always avoiding GM ingredients.

Anne is worried that if GM food is widely grown in Britain, her family will have no choice but to eat it.

"I really think we should try and stay GM free as long as possible," says Anne.

She's afraid that supermarkets will end up stocking much more GM food.

Anne says she doesn't always have time to read the small print on the labels, and fears that GM will enter her diet whether she likes it or not.

So Anne's been taking part on one of the government's GM debates, to find out more about the science of GM and to make sure that her voice is heard.

"I've been to the meetings, but I still think I just don't know enough. It really worries me that in five years time something's going to come up and someone will find a problem with this. So I really want to be assured that I'll still be able to buy GM free products until I know more," she says.

The GM companies reassure Anne that all their products are fully tested and comply with necessary regulations. Above all, they say that GM products are safe.

And the supermarkets tell Anne that they're determined to listen to their customers and will only stock their shelves with products their customers want to buy.

The government's GM debate launches on June 3rd.

Farmers disagree

Already a fierce battle is being waged within the farming industry.

David Hill is a farmer who supports the use of GM crops

David Hill is a third-generation farmer in Norfolk who supports the use of Genetically Modified crops.

He took part in trials of GM sugar beet and was so impressed he decided to start growing another GM crop on his farm under a government licence.

He says the biggest benefit is that he uses much less weed killer on the crops, which provides both ecological and economic benefits.

Crops damaged

But not everyone agrees. An organic farmer in Inverness was jailed last year after refusing to tell a court who helped him damage a field of GM crops.

Donnie MacLeod confessed to damaging the crops when he was called to give evidence at the trial of another man.

Police move in on protesters who ripped up GM crops at Long Marston, Warwickshire

The 53-year-old organic farmer from Ardersier, who is chairman of the Highlands and Islands Organic Association, was then held in contempt of court and jailed for 21 days.

He told BBC Scotland: "It is just wrong that they should remove the choices that we should have in the form of agriculture in the future in the Highlands, because the GM crop that is there is unwanted, it is uncontrollable, it is unstable and it is totally unnecessary."

Mr MacLeod's jail sentence has not deterred other protestors in Scotland - GM crops have recently been damaged in Fife and Aberdeenshire.

Protestors say they're worried that GM pollen will contaminate regular produce, and that conventional farming will be ruined.

Government tensions

The government technically has no policy on GM food and is expected to make an announcement after the end of the crop trials later this year.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is a known enthusiast of GM but the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs has admitted there are "creative tensions" in the government over the issue.

In particular, Environment Minister Michael Meacher has argued that biotechnology is not "necessary" to feed the world and has spoken of concerns over possible health risks to consumers.

Mr Meacher, who is MP for Oldham West and Royton, also questioned the motives of companies behind GM but said the government could not afford to conduct its own trials.

GM foods 'not harmful'

Britain's academy of science, the Royal Society, says there is no evidence that eating GM food is any more harmful than eating non-GM food.

GM Crops being grown in the UK

The society says in a submission to the UK Government's GM review that although the technology could lead to "unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional status of foods", the same is true of conventional crop breeding.

It says the chances of GM crops and foods triggering allergic reactions are in principle no worse than the chances of non-GM plants doing the same.

However, they have urged the government to monitor the environmental impact of GM crops if commercial planting goes ahead in the UK

EU Split

Meanwhile, the issue is still causing friction between Europe and the US, with the European Union currently banning most GM foods, and the US angered by the ban.

US President George W Bush accused the EU of blocking GM crops because of "unfounded, unscientific fears".

And EU farm ministers themselves are continuing to debate whether to allow the growing of GM crops alongside traditional produce.

Some countries including Britain and Spain have argued that the issue should be left to individual states, while others are pushing for EU-wide rules.

---

Your Politics is running a special 3-part series on GM crops. Select the links below to watch each day's report.

Tuesday: GM crops in the UK

Wednesday: GM Crops in Africa

Thursday: How you can get involved

---

What you can do:

"GM Nation" is hosting a nationwide public debate on Genetically Modified foods in June. Find out more at their website:
http://www.gmnation.org.uk/

The GM Science review allows you to contribute to the Government's GM Science Review. Their website can be found here:
http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/

The Food Standards Agency has been consulting the public on their opinion of GM foods. Find out more on their website:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/
gmdebate/

The Royal Society provides a wealth of background information on GM crops in a special section of their website:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/gmplants/

The BBC also has several in-depth articles on GM food:
Click here to visit our special GM food index

---

You sent us your comments on this story. Read a selection below.

They told us that DDT was safe! They told us that any connection between smoking and lung cancer was purely statistical! They told us that asbestos was safe! They told us that thalidomide was safe! They told us that it was safe to turn cattle into cannibals! Now, they tell us that GM foods are safe! Of course if they really believe that then they won't mind accepting full unlimited personal liability, putting their total assets into escrow so that in the unlikely event of anything going wrong. It would make a nice change for people to take personal responsibility for their actions.
David Sexton, England

Just because it is technology, you don't have to go luddite about it

Rob, UK

There's nothing like informed debate, and this is nothing like informed debate. Of course there is nothing wrong with organic produce. You can drive to the farmers market in your 4x4, pollute the planet, and feel self-righteous. Its just that if all food was grown this way, production levels would fall below demand and hunger or price hiking would result. Nor is there anything wrong with standard production techniques - if you don't mind chemicals on your food. GM provides a means of making plants more productive without chemicals. Like any new technology (eg cars, computers, mobile phones etc) it needs testing. But just because it is technology, you don't have to go luddite about it with "green alien" scare stories.
Rob, UK

If the proponents of GM crops and foods are so convinced about their safety, why is it that they have persistently refused to undertake or commission clinical trials into the effects on the human body of the short- or long-term ingestion of GM food? No such studies have been done. All we have are assumptions that GM food is safe to eat. We are being asked by the GM multinationals to be guinea pigs in their experiment with public health - all in the name of corporate profit. No thank you!
Brian John, UK

The real issue with GM crops is not safety, but intellectual property rights.

In Canada, a farmer (Percy Schmeiser) is currently being prosecuted by Monsanto because his canola crops contained patented genes which he hadn't licensed from them. He claims his crop has been contaminated by stray seed or cross pollination with a GM crop but the courts have said that is irrelevant, Monsanto own the patent on the gene, they control who may use those genes whether deliberately or accidentally...

It brings up the question, should GM crops be allowed to reproduce or should they be required by law to be sterile before release into the environment? This is especially germane if they can contaminate neighbouring fields, potentially damaging other farmers livelihoods.
Colin Smith, UK

We don't even need the "traditional" chemical pollutants that our food is bombarded with

Colin, UK

We don't even need the "traditional" chemical pollutants that our food is bombarded with to produce enough food for everyone to eat. GMs are just another big business con, putting power into the hands of business. Big business and some politicians who claim that GMs are going to help the hungry are conning us. There are millions of hungry people because the food we already have is not distributed properly.
Colin, UK

I've been to some meetings and acquired a lot of information. Still unconvinced by either the manufacturers or by the government on this issue. Certainly not convinced by farmers who have been handsomely rewarded for their crop trials, especially at this time when prices generally are low. Nobody can tell me WHY GM crops are necessary.
Pam Huntley, England

Despite massive uncertainty, GM technology is being brought to market by a handful of multinational companies that stand to make billions. Is profit being placed before well-being? We just don't know enough about the impact of GM to rush into commercialisation. If introduced, it is easy to envisage a culture of dependency being created; farmers (including a vast number in the developing world) would become reliant only a few varieties of GM seed. This cannot be equitable or welcome. Profit aside, I don't see the need for GM technology, especially when a far better solution has been around far longer: Organic. Is it not this that we should be investing billions in?
Gary, UK

Is this why so many children and people now have serious allergies?

Ann Gilbody, Scotland

I am against GM crops for many reasons. I have written to supermarkets and MPs protesting against GM ingredients. I developed allergies 6 years ago. I don't want to eat food with genes of cows and sheep etc. I prefer to be a vegetarian. What will the impact be on insects and weeds? Is this why so many children and people now have serious allergies? I suspect it is and I'm one of them. My human rights have been ignored. The government did not ask me if I want to eat GM ingredients or breathe them in the air. How dare they! I think we should all sue both prime ministers responsible and also sue the companies producing it, the scientists, farmers and shop owners for doing this to us!
Ann Gilbody, Scotland

The only benefit GM foods have is to the large Chemical companies. The benefit to us is NONE. How can anyone assure us that it is safe when it has not been around long enough to be proved and what if it was around long enough to test it and there were serious problems, there would be no going back.
Eve , UK

GM crops have been developed by the big multinationals who currently swamp the agricultural market with pesticides. They're just trying to stay ahead of the game by developing GM crops in order to stop the rising demand for organic produce. What's the need in GM food anyway? We don't need them and never will do so what is the point?
Emily, UK

Organic farming has all the benefits stated by GM farmers

Mickey Monk, England

The UK has already gone down the path of organic produce. If the UK then decides to let GM crops to be grown, this will have an impact on organic farming. Organic farming has all the benefits stated by GM farmers in relation to the lesser use of pesticides etc. Surely the natural way should have precedent.
Mickey Monk, England

The key safety issue with GM crops is not whether they are likely to be toxic for human consumption (which they are not), but whether genes that convey disease resistance, pest resistance or herbicide resistance could escape into the weed gene pool. The evidence on this is poor at best and must be strengthened by proper, controlled scientific study before any more GM crops are grown under uncontrolled conditions. Once out in the wild such genies could not be put back in the bottle.
Graham Shelton, England

GM crops: We are told there will be no way of cross contamination. I live near the flow country in Caithness and rape seed is growing on the verges. Is this not contamination seed breaking out of its environment? I am sure the farmer did not sow it on the verge 5 /10 miles from the field
Eddie, Scotland

Everyone is missing the main point of the opposition to GM crops, that is we just cannot trust big business and the farming industry. BSE/Foot & Mouth - need I say more?
John, England

It's just another case of trying to make things cheaper, but really just making them worse

Phil, England

What's wrong with normal crops? Or organic? It's just another case of trying to make things cheaper, but really just making them worse. I don't believe in interfering with nature in this way and will avoid these products like the plague they are.
Phil, England

The danger of GM organisms are not in whether they are safe to eat. Nor is it a biodiversity problem. The danger is self evident if you understand how evolution works. If you breed or artificially evolve a super-lethal version of the common cold, perhaps 90% of humanity could die. If you GM a vaccine for the common cold, and something goes wrong, as it usually does, it is possible that 100% of humanity would die. The difference isn't that "nature always finds a way", to quote from Jurassic Park. The difference is that if natural organisms do find a way to interbreed with partially synthetic organisms, and create "defective" organisms (ones that don't do what WE want them to), there will be no safety net. We have already seen how hospitals evolve super bugs, that still have the "defects" of their naturally evolved parents, and can therefore can be controlled. The advantages of GM organisms are precisely why they are such a danger to us, because we are more likely to create "defects" in the organisms which are most useful to us, that we can't un-create. The risk of these potential "defects" is not justified.
Vig, UK

As a scientist myself I find the GM debate misguided and scaremongering. If I might use Vig's example above: What, pray tell, is a GM vaccine? Technically all vaccines are GM from polio to measles, and despite sabre rattling to the contrary, highly effective and safe. For example, it is thanks to vaccines that we no longer have to cope with smallpox as a major global killer. Super bugs are indeed a problem but again NOT a GM problem. It is down to the evolution of bacterial enzymes in response to antibiotics.

I can't emphasise how frustrating I find the anti-GM arguments of "defective" or "killer" GM foods. The fact is that all farming is artificial. Arable crops are invalids thanks to our centuries of crude genetic manipulation, and livestock are little better. Worst of all though, public hysteria whipped up on the matter deflects from the real GM questions that need to be asked: namely why with so many starving in countries with climates unable to support productive farming, are we developing crops to cut down on someone's weed killer bill? Why aren't we making an effort to apply to technology where it's really needed?
Gary, England