bite summer 11

8/3/2019 Bite Summer 11

1/32

he Food Standards Agency magazine with teeth

1102

|

60

eussI

12> PatrickHolden and

Professor Giles

Oldroyd take

part in a lively

exchange

DoweevenneedGM?

16 > Sir JohnBeddington

discusses

global food

supply issues

C Vh iieew

Soc ite hnet iGfoc vAerd nv

im

seer nt

2 0 > A rangeof participants

put each other

straight on

where we go

from here

Roundthetable

GM:novel cuisineor unpalatable

prospect?


2/32

ON THE MENU

01> Food for thoughtGM may, or may not, be theanswer. But what is the question? Frank Chalmers

04> International fare GM-based agriculture worldwide

06> Reading the labelsThe GM food regulationsensure GM foods dont slip under the radar.

David Jefferies

08> New ingredients EFSA scientic panels evaluate allGM food and feed for safety. Howard Davies

10> Public attitudesWhat have we learned by talkingto people? Robyn Ackerman and Micah McGuire

12> Exchange of viewsDo we really need GM? PatrickHolden and Giles Oldroyd debate the issue

15> Place settings The Government sets out the veprinciples behind its policies on GM

18> ScotlandThe Scottish Government outlines why itis opposed to the introduction of GM crops

19> WalesGM requires a precautionary approach, theWelsh Assembly Government says

26> Feeding the world?Parliamentary Under-Secretaryof State Stephen OBrien outlines the views of the

Department for International Development

28> The bioscientistThere are gains to be made by theworlds poor, says Mark Buckingham, Deputy Chair,

Agricultural Biotechnology Council

29> Out of AfricaGM represents nothing but a threat toAfrican agriculture, says Mariam Mayet, Director of

the African Centre for Biosafety

EditorFrank Chalmers020 7276 8805

[email protected]

Sub editorRicki Ostrov

Editorial panelTerrence Collis, Andrew Wadge,Stephen Humphreys, Frank ChalmersThe Food Standards Agency magazine with teeth

DesignSPY Design and Publishingspydesign.co.uk

Contact Bite at:Food Standards Agency Subscriptions125 Kingsway Marfot MiahLondon 020 7276 8849

WC2B 6NH [email protected]

2>Root and branchSandy Lawrie provides some historical perspective to the

development of genetic modication

16>Global challengeScience and technology

will help to secure future

food supplies, says

Sir John Beddington

20>Round the tableWhere do we go from here?

Champions of farming, food

production, consumers and

science try to agree a route


3/32

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

How do we rame

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 theirdestination. He thinks for a minute and

answers: Well, I wouldnt start from

here. We got a similar answer whenwe 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 areexamining pest-resistant and blight-

resistant potatoes.

The Governments GM policy isbased upon ve 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 theuse 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 Governments Chief Scientic

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 OBrien,

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stateat 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 NGOs view is that it is a tool that youhave to update and pay for every year

and one that you cant 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, weve taken the opportunity to

outline the regulatory process that exists tocontrol the introduction of GM foods in

Europe. An EFSA scientic panel member

also describes the assessment process that

takes place at the European Union level.

The FSA doesnt 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 ChalmersEditor, Bite

I hope that thisissue of Bite will

encourage allinterested partiesto question whethertheir approachaddresses thereal concerns thatsome consumershave about GM.

Bite Issue 62011 1


4/32

ROOT AND BRANcH

How did weget to here?Genetic modifcationinvolves inserting onegene (or more) thatwould not normally beound into the target

Genetic modifcation is the process o changing the DNAo any living thing (plants, animals or micro-organisms) in

a way that does not occur in nature. Sandy Lawrie, Heado Novel Foods at the Food Standards Agency, providessome historical perspective T

he science of genetics has

advanced enormously

following the discovery in

1953 of the structure ofDNA. That discovery laid

the foundation for the science of

molecular biology and, during the sixor so decades since, more and more

has been revealed about how DNA

denes 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. Thisknowledge has opened the way to

major advances in many areas of

biology, including understanding andtreating diseases and breeding new

crop varieties.

Typically, genetic modication

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 newgenes into bacteria and other

micro-organisms has revolutionised

the production of enzymes that areused 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 modication of

crops. Producing a GM crop typically

2 Bite Issue 62011


5/32

CottonIt is estimatedthat 62% o globalcotton productioninvolves the useo geneticallymodifed cotton

1996The frst GM cropswere harvested in

1996 in the US

SalmonA type o GM armedsalmon has beendeveloped in theUS, which is beingreviewed or uture use

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 modifed?

So far, most GM crops have beenmodied to help overcome two of the

major problems faced by commercial

farmers, namely insect pests and weeds.

As an alternative to spraying insecticidesonto 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 ofgenetically modied Bt cotton varieties.

By making a crop tolerant of a herbicide

that kills other plants, farmers can control

weeds more effectively.

Genetic modication could also beused 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.

How much are GM crops being used?The use of GM crops has grown year-on-

year since 1996 when the rst crops

insect-resistant maize and herbicide-tolerantsoya were harvested in the US. At a global

level, GM crop varieties now account for a

signicant proportion of several majorcommodity 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 insect-

resistant 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 inthree countries.

There has been some debate about the

impact of GM crops and whether theyprovide the expected benets 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 thenear uture?There is some interest in crops with

improved nutrient content, and the rst

examples of soya and maize with altered

fat content are currently being assessed.

GM animals are widely used in medicalresearch 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 modied to grow throughout

the winter months, so that it reaches adult

proportions much quicker.

What is the FSAs position on GM?The FSAs view is that GM food and GM

animal feed products should each undergo

a stringent case-by-case safety assessmentbefore 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 whatdo 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 specic 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 cells

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 thecolour of owers 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 62011 3


6/32

INTERNATIONAL FARE

GM ood aroundthe worldGM crops have been introduced increasinglyworldwide since 1996, according to theInternational Service or the Acquisitiono Agri-biotech Applications

The 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-growingcountries all had more than 1 million

hectares in production.

Top 10 biotech crop-growingcountriesIn 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 ve principal developing and newly

industrialised countries growing biotech

crops Brazil, Argentina, India, China and

South Africa planted 63 million hectares

of biotech crops in 2010, equivalent to43% 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 rst time

Pakistan, Burma (Myanmar) and Sweden,

the rst Scandinavian country tocommercialise biotech crops.

The ISAAA describes itsel as anot-or-proft organisation with aninternational network o centresdesigned to contribute to the alleviationo hunger and poverty by sharing

knowledge and crop biotechnologyapplications.

The most commonlygrown geneticallymodified crops

1farmers5m

4 Bite Issue 62011


7/32

2ountries worldwide

9rowing GM crops

1hectares of arable land

48mbeing used

1of world

0s arable land

%used for GM crops

MHA = million hectares

5


8/32

R EADING THE LABELS

A closer lookat regulationHow can we tell i GM products are on sale inthe UK? How are GM products regulated?David Jeeries, rom the Food StandardsAgencys Novel Foods Branch, looks at how

it all stacks up

David JefferiesFSA NovelFoods Branch

Most people are aware that

some crop plants have

been genetically modied

and that these modiedplants 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 materialin the nal product. If it is not labelled as

genetically modied or contains GM

soya or maize for example, then it has

not been made using GM ingredients.

Yet with so many genetically-modiedorganisms (GMOs) authorised for food

use, and with GM crops grown worldwide,

there are still few foods containing GM

ngredients 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

only products containing GM ingredientsthat 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 rst, the Genetically Modied (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 nal regulation, Directive2001/18 (EC), covers the growing of

GM crops, for which Defra, as the

department that deals with agriculture

and the environment, has responsibility.

GM oods: what is allowed?The EU-wide regulations that cover

GM foods (and also GM animal

6 Bite Issue 62011


9/32

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 marketedin 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 rst before being incorporated

into foods. Currently, the list contains no

fruits or vegetables of the type you might

nd in your local supermarket. There is a

variety of authorised potato, but this willnever be seen in the shops as it has been

engineered to produce a type of starchused exclusively in the production of

paper. It is also one of the only GM crops

that has been authorised for cultivation in

the EU, the other being a variety of maize;

neither of these crops is grown in the UK.

GM foods are only authorised for sale ifthey are judged not to present a risk tohealth or the environment, and to be of noless nutritional value than the foods they

are intended to replace.

Exceptions to the requirementsFoods containing known GM ingredients

must be labelled as such. However,

foods may contain up to 0.9% of GMmaterial from authorised GMOs without

a requirement for labelling, as long as

the presence of this material is accidental

or unavoidable and the food producer

can demonstrate that it has taken all

reasonable measures to avoid cross-contamination.

Foods that have been processed or

obtained with the help of GM technology

(for example, cheese that has been

produced with the help of an enzyme

from a GM source) do not have to be

labelled as long as the GMO is not present

in the end product.

Products such as milk, meat and eggs

that are derived from animals fed GM

animal feed also do not have to be

labelled, as the denition of genetically

modied does not include eggs, milk, or

meat products from such animals.

In the absence of EU rules governingthe use of labels on GM-free products,

some member states (for example Austria

and Germany) have introduced voluntary

national schemes on GM-free labelling,while France plans to introduce a national

law in 2012. The problem with these

national rules is that they all impose

different criteria as to what qualies as a

GM-free product, which can be confusing

for consumers. As a result, the UK is

currently trying to stimulate discussion at

EU level on a harmonised approach.

Enorcing the regulationsGM foods are covered by the sameenforcement regulations as other foods.

In the UK it is trading standards ofcers

or environmental health ofcers 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 throughthe 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 ofunauthorised GMOs is suspected.

Further informationThe list of authorised GMOs can befound at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm

Bite Issue 62011 7


10/32

NEw INGREDIENTS

EFSA scientists putsaety frstThe European Food Saety Authority GMO Panel

is responsible or evaluating GM ood and eed

beore they can be marketed in the EU. Panel

member Howard Davies explains

Professor Howard DaviesJames Hutton Institute

The European Food Safety Authority

Scientic Panel on Genetically

Modied Organisms providesindependent, high quality scientic

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 scientic

experts from European research institutes,

universities or risk assessment bodies, hasthree 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 rst evaluated, eachgroup focusing its skills on the relevant areas

of the application dossiers. The panel and

working groups are supported by EFSA

scientic and administrative staff to

deliver the nal opinions, which

are published in the

EFSA Journal.

8 Bite Issue 62011


11/32

Processing applicationsEach application is allocated

a rapporteur and co-

rapporteur from within eachworking group to work with

a member of EFSAs

scientic staff to deliverrst 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 commentsfrom the EU member states.

Questions can arise on, for

example, experimental design,gaps in data, inconsistencies in

the data, quality of gures 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 consistencyand relevance.

Once all of the questions have

been addressed, the workinggroup 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

nal opinion.

Other activitiesWhile the evaluation of GMO

applications is the panels raison

d'tre, it is involved in severalother activities including the

development of guidance

documents to assist applicantsin 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 formore complex GMOs with multiple

genes and traits.

As with many of thesedocuments, a draft was published

for public consultation and EFSA

also held a workshop with

stakeholders. After discussions, the

nal opinion was adapted

accordingly. Such tasks are usually

driven by a working group

comprising selected members of all

three panel working groups plus adhoc experts as required. They are

demanding in terms of time and

effort but are valuable in assistingthe panel in fullling 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

Panel members are appointed following an open call

from EFSA and a subsequent evaluation of their

credibility, scientic standing and skill base. Theindependence of panel members and of any ad hoc

members invited to specic 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 expertsby 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 theEFSA panel, but they do consider specic issues that

may arise for example by advising on new guidelines

for safety assessments or looking into new scientic

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 thepotential 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 tomarket GM crops in the EU. EFSAs analysis is on an

EU-wide basis, reecting the wide range of different

geographical and climatic conditions across Europe and

variations in agricultural practices. ACRE considers

EFSAs conclusions but focuses on the potential

environmental impact under UK conditions.

Sandy Lawrie

Bite Issue 62011 9


12/32


13/32

Weare taking this valuable opportunityto step back and review past dialogues onGM and other areas of science to ensure we

understand how best to engage the publicover such issues.

David Willetts

Minister o State or Universities and Science

response to the statement: On balance

the advantages of genetically modied

(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 orfelt 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 Agencys research on food

technologies suggests that when peopleare asked to respond to new foodtechnologies based on how they perceive

the risks and benets, they will ask

questions such as:

Is it safe?

Whats in it for me?

Whats 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 animpact on their attitudes. For example, if

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 animportant 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 Governments 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 itsengagement work about the need to talk to

people openly when discussing new food

technologies. The key conclusions theAgency 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 difcult. It is

important to show all sides of the storyand allow people to form their own

opinions about the strength of different

arguments.

When discussing new food technologies,

the Agency cant expect people to

consider food safety only. It needs also to

take account of peoples concerns about

the environment, animal welfare and

other ethical considerations, as all areimportant issues for the public.

Further information

The Public Attitudes Tracker can befound 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 62011 11


14/32

EXcHANGE OF VIEwS

Does the world need GM?

This issues exchange oviews looks at whetherGM might be a distractionrather than a solution

Patrick HoldenDirector, SustainableFood Trust

ProfessorGiles OldroydSenior Plant Scientist

John Innes Centre

Dear Giles,

I read on your website that having

discovered the mechanism by which

leguminous plants x nitrogen, you hopethat 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 thelimiting 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 animalhealth, 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

technology, including potential risks to the

environment and human health, and myongoing conclusion is that I see no place

for the use of genetic engineering in

agriculture. The case against GM iseffectively made in the lm 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 benets.

Given the absence of a market for GM

foods and the huge risks and uncertainties,

particularly in relation to the environmentand 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

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 organicfarming and believe we have to nd ways

to sustainably produce the worlds staple

crops: wheat, maize, rice, soy, sorghum,

cassava and cotton. But organic farmingalone cannot feed 9 billion people

because of the lower yields it incurs. We

have to nd 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 ownresearch on nitrogen xing legumes is an

example. Peas and beans have evolved a

fantastic way of getting their own nitrogen,

making them self-fertilising. Why shouldwe 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 benet, from

12 Bite Issue 62011


15/32

Given the absence of a market for GM foodsand the huge risks and uncertainties,particularly in relation to the environment and

public health, this debate has become adangerous distraction from the challengescurrently 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 growncommercially 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 useall available tools to tackle the global food

security crisis.

Best wishes, Giles

Dear Giles

I dispute your points on the need, efcacy

and safety of GMOs.

On need, you didnt respond to my point

about soil fertility rather than nitrogen beingthe limiting factor to increasing yields.

Because I suspect you doubt this, its a

shame you cant witness the growing

productivity of my farm, which has receivedno 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 efcacy, you claim that GM crops

have delivered yield advantages, but yield

is a function of multiple gene expressions,

which are entirely absent in the rst

generation of GM crops. Rather than

engineering nitrogen xation into grain

crops, why not use marker-assistedtechniques to improve the qualities ofexisting 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.


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 signicantly

and many more billions of people would

starve to death. We cannot rely on thefarming 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 ofpesticides, fungicides and irrigation

water. I am not advocating a reduction inmarker-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 62011 13


16/32

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 werewidely adopted, billions would starve.

This seemed especially unfair, given

your failure to respond to my substantivepoints 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

rst generation of GM crops has failed to

deliver any lasting benets, either to the

public or producers, I consider yourbeguiling proposition, that some kind of

utopia where GM crops will x their own

nitrogen and produce bumper yields fromdrought-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 ecologicalagriculture, working regionally and globally,

to develop sustainable and resilient food

systems for the future. I would happilywork 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.


GM crops are notthe problem, butpart of the solution

to sustainablyfeeding 9 billionpeople.

Professor Giles Oldroyd

Senior Plant Scientist

John Innes Centre

Dear Patrick

Your statement that GM crops have failed to

deliver lasting benets is quite simply false.

Recent estimates put yield gains from the

cultivation of GM crops equivalent toproduction on 60 million hectares of land.

That is more than three times the arable

area of the UK! Furthermore, GM crops havereduced 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 GMcrops are as safe as crops produced by

conventional breeding.

The European Union, the Royal Societyand 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 movebeyond this polarising issue of GM and

focus on the real problems that face global

agriculture.

Best wishes, Giles

Patrick Holden and Giles Oldroyd havesince agreed to communicate outsideof the forum of this exchange.

14 Bite Issue 62011


17/32

PLAcE SETTINGS

What is the Governmentspolicy on GM?Lord Taylor o Holbeach, Parliamentary Under-Secretary o State

at the Department o Environment, Food and Rural Aairs and lead

Minister on GM, explains the Governments position

Lord Taylor of HolbeachUnder-Secretary o Stateo the Department oEnvironment, Food andRural Aairs and leadMinister 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 beregarded 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 followingkey 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 accountof the scientic evidence.

we will ensure consumers are able to exercise

choice through clear GM labelling rules and the

provision of suitable information, and will listen topublic 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 interestsappropriately protected.

we recognise that GM technology could deliver

benets 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 believethat 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 efciency,

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 torigorous, case-by-case risk assessments. TheGovernment wants people to keep an open mind

and look at the issues fairly, taking due account of

the relevant scientic 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 62011 15


18/32

GLOBAL cHALLENGE

Global ood system

aces challengesThe case or urgent action to ensure a sustainable, secure

and sae global ood system is now compelling, says

Government Chie Scientifc Adviser Sir John Beddington

Sir John BeddingtonGovernment ChieScientifc Adviser

I

n the next 40 years, the global food

system will experience an

unprecedented conuence of

pressures. The needs of a growingworld population, likely to demand a

more varied and high-quality diet, will need

to be satised, while critical resources such

as water, energy and land becomeincreasingly 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 worlds

natural resources at an unsustainablerate, and failing the very poorest, with

almost one billion of the least advantaged

and most vulnerable people still suffering

from hunger.The Government Ofce 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

food system adapts to and mitigatesagainst 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

inuencing demand from consumers.

Crucially though, this challenge will

require investment in research and

development of new practices and

technologies to increase the quantity,efciency and sustainability of foodproduction, secure ecosystem services,

keep pace with evolving threats and

meet the needs of the worlds

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-ecologicalapproaches. Further, research will need

to address a more complex set of goalsto encourage the sustainable intensication

of agricultural practices that simultaneously

raise yields and increase resource

efciency (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

intensication, 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 DNAsequencing to offer new and more efcient

ways to select for desirable traits,

compared with traditional breeding

techniques. Advances have also been

made with the use of genetic modication

techniques those that introduce gene

sequences from a different species to

develop GM crops.

GM crops have already demonstrated

benets in increasing yields and decreasing

losses from pests and diseases, and arebeing 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

16 Bite Issue 62011


19/32

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 worlds GM

crop production.Scientic 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 benets.

However, many people in the UK and EU

remain sceptical of GM. Concerns rangefrom health and environmental risks, ethicalissues, and the need to share access to

and benets 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 inpolitical 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 scientic

risk assessments on other applications.

From my position as Government Chief

Scientic Adviser, I nd 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, whichconventional 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 benets

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 scientic developments to

meet those challenges?

Further informationThe Foresight report can be found at:http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-

farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdfFigures from: http://argenbio.org/adc/uploads/isaaa_2010/ISAAA_Briefs_42-Executive_Summary_Feb_2011.pdf

Bite Issue 62011 17


20/32

ScOTLAND

The Scottish Government continues to beundamentally opposed to the cultivation o GMcrops. Scotlands Minister or Environment andClimate Change, Stewart Stevenson, explains why

Some have asked whether the

Scottish Government has

softened its position on

genetically modied (GM) cropssince it was rst 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 Commissions 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 GMcrops cannot take into account all Europes

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 Scotlands reputation for

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 condence 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 inScotland, 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 EUs

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

were condent 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 isno reason why we cant 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 Scotlands precious environment.

18 Bite Issue 62011


21/32

wALES

The Welsh Governmentsupports a broader andmore holistic evaluation

o GMOs and the righto EU regions to maketheir own decisions onthe cultivation o GMcrops in their territory.

John Grifths, WelshMinister or Environmentand SustainableDevelopment, explains

Across 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 issuehere, 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 inuenced

our policy. We are a small country of

around 2 million hectares, but a signicant

proportion of our agricultural land serves

a vibrant food and drink manufacturing

industry. We have made considerable

investments into agri-environment schemesand the organic sector to support thisindustry. Food and drink manufacturing is

the cornerstone of our rural economy and

it is vital that we protect this sector and

preserve consumer condence.We are also determined to maintain

Wales stunning natural environment.

Wales boasts 951 Sites of Special

Scientic 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 manyvisitors 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 beprepared 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 mustbe able to access clear, trusted

and veriable information on

GMOs. It needs to set out all

potential benets 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 undertakenwithin the regulatory regime that

not only considers human

health and environmental issues,

but also looks at wider socio-

economic 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 62011 19


22/32

ROUND THE TABLE

Where do we gofrom here?Reader in Molecular Microbiology Peter Lund, Which?Chie Policy Adviser Sue Davies, Food and Drink FederationDirector o Food Saety and Science Barbara Gallani, andNational Farmers Union Chie Science and RegulatoryAairs Adviser Helen Ferrier, suggest their preerredroutes (see boxes). FSA Chie Scientist Andrew Wadgetries to steer a course


23/32

Andrew: Some themes have arisen from

your initial statements: choice, theimportance of safety in science, and the

fact that consumers remain unconvinced

of the benets 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 wasnt

such an established part of the supply

chain globally. Were perhaps in a betterposition now to have a more rational

debate that starts with making peopleaware that its here, so were 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 youre 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 wayforward. I think we need to have a debate

Weighing up the issues: rom let,Peter Lund, Sue Davies, Andrew Wadge,Barbara Gallani and Helen Ferrier

about what are the food security

challenges, what are the problems facingthe 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: Its not a theoretical thing that

were 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, its reasonable to

start with where we are now.

Peter: You want some means of arrivingat a consensus where the outcome is not

predetermined, and you want that to be as

open and as transparent as possible. Im

not terribly optimistic. GM has become a

proxy for so many different things. It

covers issues to do with consumer choice,

peoples 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 abetter way of going about it.

Sue: We need to have a genuine debate

about what kind of trade-offs people thinkare acceptable in terms of the things that

were 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 its

also important to really ground the debate

in UK-specic issues.

Barbara: The research that the FSA

published in March on public attitudes toemerging 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 ndings from thatwas that the more that people understood

it, the more concerned they were. So it

isnt necessarily the case that you give

Sue DaviesChief Policy Adviser,Which?

A Which? survey in June 2011 found approval, traceability and labelling, the

that 62% of people are still concerned complexity of the supply chain and

about eating GM ingredients, 30% are uptake of GM cultivation in other parts

not concerned and 11% do not know. of the world still make this difcult to

Seventy per cent think it is important achieve in practice.

that retailers have policies not allowing With the potential use of the

GM ingredients in food and feed. technology rising up the agenda in view

This is in line with our previous of concerns about food prices and food

research, which has found that many security, it is time for an honest and

people have not been convinced about open debate about the role that GM

the benets of GM foods and do not think should play. Understanding and

that enough is known about the long-term addressing consumer attitudes has to

consequences, although they arent be central to this and we need to movenecessarily completely opposed to it. away from a polarised debate between

Concerns have been compounded pro-GM researchers and anti-GM

by the difculties of enabling people to lobbyists. The starting point for any

have a meaningful choice. While many discussion has to be the challenges

of the regulatory aspects in relation to facing the supply chain and whether

GM foods have steadily been GM, along with other options, could

addressed through requirements for have a role in addressing them.

Bite Issue 62011 21


24/32

ROUND THE TABLE

There are two areas in which thereis potential for consumer benet.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: Im 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: Wouldnt it be useful to identifythe obvious gaps in knowledge and

understanding in a very neutral way? Infact, 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.

Sue: It would be good to have a review

of where weve got to. The FSAs 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 tolook at it in that broader context.

Andrew: There is a really interesting

point about the benets. It seems that if

there are benets they are much closer to

the producer in the UK than to the

consumer. Is that right?

Helen: Looking for specic consumer

benets misses the fact that a more

efcient and productive farming system

that produces high quality food is of

benet to consumers. People want the

best value from what theyre getting.

Peter: There are two areas in which

there is potential for consumer benet.One is to make food cheaper. The other is

to make it better in some way. The kind ofexamples Im familiar with are changing

the balance of saturated and unsaturated

fats in oil. The factors that drive food

prices are so far out of peoples 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 nger and say: This pricedecrease is down to GM. But its 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 theyve already got FDA approval

for those products to go into a chocolate

bar or whatever.

Sue: But how valuable is it to have someof these very niche products that may be

targeted at people as being healthy for

them, when weve got a huge obesityproblem 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 benets for a whole range

of technologies. Microwave ovens werent

present in British kitchens in the 1970s.

Virtually every kitchen has one now. Whats

2222 BBiittee IIssssuuee 6622001111


25/32

the reason? Because theyre seen as very

helpful and convenient for producing food.

Im really interested as to what benets 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 Im eating and that I

have a meaningful choice about whether or

not Im 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

dont want this particular variety of wheat to

be made into my [breakfast cereal], I wantthis other variety.

Peter: The other thing thats tricky is

that in some cases its a false choice

because there is no difference. The means

of production has no effect whatsoever on

the nal product, they are genuinely the

same thing.

Andrew: At the moment weve got GM

animal feed being widely used in the UK,

but actually we dont have GM food on sale

in our shops. What are the barriers? Whats

got to happen to get to the point whereconsumers can exercise that choice as to

whether they want to purchase GM or not?

Sue: I dont 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 Im 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 availableglobally, so presumably theyve got through

whatever the retailers process is fordeciding whether something is going to

sell. But again, we need the retailers input.

Its quite a difcult thing to say: Were not

going to use this particular technique until

people say they want it, when they dont

know what it is or how it would benet

them or otherwise. It might be a new

variety of apple that doesnt 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, its something

that could be produced. If you had

something like that, which could bebrought into the market, then the general

feeling of distrust with GM would probably

begin to evaporate.

Barbara: I think the debate has changed.

Its not about the silver bullet to solve a

particular problem. Its about using GM as

part of a number of different strategies to

address food shortages in the future. So

while acknowledging that were not

describing GM as the silver bullet for a

solution, why do we need to nd a veryspecic, very dened, very well-provenbenet?

Peter: Its because were 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, wasthe iPod of food.

Sue: We have to remember that were

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, wed 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 GMand non-GM crops]. There are lots of things

that have changed in primary production.

Peter LundReader in Molecular Microbiology,School of Biosciences, Universityof Birmingham

My involvement with this debate dates

back to when I worked for an American

agri-biotech company, which did therst 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 FSAcommittee 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 scientic, some

socio-political, and some frankly

metaphysical, that it can be extremelyhard to see the wood for the trees.

Many of the scientic 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 scientic qualms

about either eating GM food or seeingGM crops planted in the UK.

Socio-political issues from consumer

choice to monopoly control of foodproduction 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 62011 23


26/32

ROUND THE TABLE

Its about using GMas part of a number ofdifferent strategies toaddress food shortagesin 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

supercial pretending that people, in

effect, have a choice. If youve actually set

thresholds at quite a high level people dont

really have a meaningful choice. I think wehavent 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 rst came

in, but it was reduced to 0.9% because

it sounded more reassuring. There was

absolutely no scientic basis for that.

Sue: If people feel reassured that its

clear and that they will be able to make

a choice, then theyre likely to be more

accepting of certain things. I think they

become suspicious when they feel thatthey dont have a choice or theyre 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 nd a way to cope with

the practicalities. Hence the thresholds. Im

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 bytoxicological 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. Thats a more

or less rationally arrived at gure. People

will be terribly concerned about the safety

regulations affecting GM, but theyll blithely

go and buy coffee and cream and peppers

and other things that demonstrably will

damage them and that would never getthrough contemporary safety regulations.

But if they regard aspects of GM as

unacceptable thats what has to be

addressed even if it doesnt make sense.

Barbara: If you test consumers

unprompted, and Im referring to the FSA

Public Attitudes Tracker, pesticides always

come top of the list in contrast with, say,

5% of consumers [spontaneously]

mentioning GM. Youre allowed to use

pesticides, youve got pesticide drift, youve

got a communication strategy around it.Why should it be different for GM?

Peter: Its because it is a lightning rod

for so many different things. Its why the

debate is so interesting and so

complicated.

Sue: Its a complex supply chain but its

a marketplace and ultimately if consumers

arent going to accept a product then there

is no future for it.

Helen: But how can you talk about

benet if you cant say: This could do

that? And who is going to say that other

Dr Helen FerrierChief Science and RegulatoryAffairs Adviser, NFU

The NFUs policy on GM can be

summed up in one word: choice.

Farmers must have access to the bestinputs and practices to grow their

businesses. What is best varies

hugely, and I wouldnt advise our

members what markets they should go

for. But if seed companies dont use all

the techniques available to research

and develop the best varieties for theUK 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 whilereducing 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,

pesticides, fertilisers and fuel, for thebenet 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 globalmarkets for the raw materials British

farmers produce. Like the government,

we see benets in using GM for UKcrops, 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 scientic analysis, not

on assumptions about consumer views

and perceptions.

2244 BBiittee IIssssuuee 6622001111


27/32

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 GMshould 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 havent had the apple that doesnt

go brown in the bowl, which was mentioned

by Helen the killer app, as you put it,

Peter. Provided that its safe and labelled

properly, there might well be a demand

for that. But at the moment there does seemto be a real need to identify products thatwill bring about a benet 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.

Thats 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 havefaced 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.

Barbara GallaniDirector of Food Safetyand Science, FDF

FDFs long-held position is that modern sensationalist media coverage about

biotechnology, including GM, offers Frankenfoods. It is important to

enormous potential to improve the provide the facts behind the

quality and quantity of the food supply. statements, for example that most GM

Clearly, the impact of this technology applications involve the improvement of

must be objectively assessed through existing crops and products and that

scientic investigation. Robust controls maintaining the current non-GM status

are necessary to protect the consumer of the EU will come at a cost to society.

and the environment; and consumer We support the Foresight reports

choice and information are fundamental conclusions that we need to produceto public acceptance. Our members are more from less and with less impact,

committed to providing a wide range of and that recognition should be given to

safe and nutritious foods to suit all the role of GM as a tool in the

consumers, including those who, for sustainability challenge. We are

their own reasons, reject the use of concerned that the current situation in

technologies such as GM in food the EU is unsustainable and we believe

production. that EU governments and regulatory

We believe that the time has come to authorities should base their decisions

reopen a free and unbiased debate regarding GM on safety and science,

about GM. Consumers need objective acknowledging and supporting the

information from well-informed, stringent assessment and approval

trustworthy sources, to balance procedures already in place in Europe.

The British Retail Consortium, whichrepresents retailers in the UK, declined theopportunity to take part in the roundtable.BRC Director of Food and SustainabilityAndrew Opie said: The reason thereare no GM products available on UKsupermarket shelves is that there isno consumer demand.


28/32

FEEDING THE wORLD?

An additionaltool in the boxHow can GM crops beneftthe developing world?

Stephen OBrienParliamentary Under-Secretary o State atthe Department orInternationalDevelopment

With a rising globalpopulation, the question

that is increasingly askedis: how will we eed aworld o 9 billion people?Stephen OBrien believesthat GM has an importantrole to play

Currently, more than 1 billionpeople are hungry; another

1 billion are undernourished.

Food prices are at levels higherthan 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 oods 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 nutritiouscrop varieties that:

are better able to resist drought, salinity,

pests, and diseases

maximise the uptake of soil nutrients

and water

are more efcient at using light

are more resilient to storage and

transportation.

Biotechnology, including geneticmodication (GM), has an important role

to play in developing new crops alongside

more traditional technologies and innovative

approaches to agriculture such as integratedpest 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 efciently and

that are more resistant to abiotic stress

such as salinity, temperature, drought or

ood 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.

26 Bite Issue 62011


29/32

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 developingcountries, plant disease can lead to long

term impoverishment and hunger.

The Department for International

Development (DFID) and other internationaldevelopment 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 consumerdemand and political acceptance on GM

is very mixed and dynamic

bite summer 11

Documents