Genetically modified crops pose a "very low" risk to public health, according to a scientific review published today.The findings could be a major step towards commercial GM food production in the UK.
The report, by a panel of 25 experts, says that there is "no
scientific case for ruling out all GM crops and their products". Its
authors stress that their findings should not be taken as "blanket
approval" for GM crops, which "need to be considered on a case-by-case
basis".
However, critics said that the panel's research had not been rigorous
enough to provide a solid foundation for GM policy. The former
environment minister Michael Meacher called the report a "public
scandal".
The review is one of three strands of research - the others being a
national consultation and an economic study - aimed at helping the
government to decide whether or not to allow GM crops to be commercially
grown in the UK. A decision is expected later this year.
It concluded that the "risks to human health from GM crops currently
on the market are very low". However, it added that it would be
important to develop "safety assessment technologies, effective
surveillance, monitoring and labelling systems" to deal with "greater
risks" that could arise from future GM crops.
The scientific panel said that, for the current generation of GM
crops, the most important issue was their potential effect on farmland
and wildlife. The report identified areas in which more scientific
research was needed, including soil ecology and farmland bio-diversity.
It stated: "Detailed field experiments on current generation GM crops
show that, in a range of environments, they are very unlikely to invade
the countryside and become problematic plants. Nor are they likely to
be toxic to wildlife. But it is clear that gaps in our knowledge and
uncertainties will become more complex if the range of plants and traits
introduced increases."
The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King, who chaired
the panel, said: "GM is a subject of intense debate, and attracts a
wide range of views, from supporters who point to potential benefits to
opponents with significant concerns.
"GM is not a homogeneous technology on which scientists can make
blanket assurances on safety. Applications of GM technology will have to
be considered on a case-by-case basis.
"We cannot know everything, but if we are paralysed by uncertainty,
innovation and progress will be stifled. The very best science must be
brought to bear on the important decisions that will need to be taken in
the future. GM technology must not be considered in a vacuum, but
alongside conventional agricultural and food applications."
Professor Jim Smith, who chaired the Royal Society working group on
GM foods, said that the society "supports the report's findings that the
risks associated with GM in terms of food safety and the creation of
so-called superweeds are minimal.
"The report shows that recent attempts to create public anxiety about
GM food safety, supported by sections of the media that are openly
campaigning against GM, have been ignoring the scientific evidence."
However, Mr Meacher, interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme,
said that more testing was needed before commercial GM crops were
introduced to the UK.
"They say that they have found no evidence that eating GM food causes
a health risk, but what I think is a public scandal is that no-one has
actually looked for the evidence - it is just assumed," he said.
Pete Riley, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "Far from
giving GM crops the green light, this report admits that there are gaps
in our scientific knowledge and significant uncertainties about the
long-term impacts of GM food and crops on our health and environment."
Greenpeace chief scientist Dr Doug Parr said: "This committee was
deliberately stacked with GM flag-wavers, but its so-called findings
still come nowhere near justifying the risks."
Peter Cotgreave, of campaigning group Save British Science, said: "In
concluding that current GM foods are unlikely to be a great risk to
health, I don't think the review said anything surprising.
"This will not satisfy the anti-GM lobby, who will say there may
still be some risk, because scientists, by the nature of their subject,
can never say there is no risk.
"All in all, I think this is a thorough report. But it will not, and
was never going to, settle the arguments between the pro and anti GM
groups, each of which is going to find some support for their positions
in the report."
