March 9, 2004

scientists welcome government announcement on GM crops

This followed the Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett’s announcement that a variety of genetically modified maize could be growm in Britain after 15 years of field trials and four years of farm-scale evaluations (FSEs).

Professor Julia Goodfellow, Chief Executive BBSRC, said:

“GM technology has great potential benefits for both the public and producers. It is right that we assess each application of this technology case-by-case based on the scientific evidence while taking into consideration the understandable concerns regarding the use of this relatively new technology.”

Professor Ian Crute, Director Rothamsted Research, said:

“I applaud the government’s decision to allow commercial cultivation of herbicide tolerant (HT) GM fodder maize in the UK. HT varieties provide the prospect of reduced economic inputs for hard-pressed farmers striving to compete and sound scientific studies have also demonstrated the potential for some environmental benefit from the way these varieties are likely to be managed. It is particularly heartening to the scientific community in this country that the government has clearly signaled its resolve to act on the basis of factual argument and a rational assessment of risk rather than emotive rhetoric and opinion unsupported by evidence.”

Professor Chris Lamb, Director of the John Innes Centre, Norwich, said:

“I warmly welcome the Government’s decision today, not least because they have chosen to make policy based on scientific evidence, rather than campaigning rhetoric. The lesson we must all learn from GM is that if society is to reap the benefits that plant science can bring, we need long-term, visionary policy-making that identifies what it is that society requires from agriculture and new plant-based industries. Scientific knowledge and scientific method can then be applied to help meet those objectives.”

Dr Brian Johnson, English Nature’s Biotechnology Adviser, said:

“It is important that any impacts on wildlife of growing GM crops continue to be scientifically assessed crop by crop. English Nature does not approve or disapprove of the commercialisation of this specific GM maize but the evidence from the field scale trials showed that growing it is better for biodiversity than growing maize using conventional methods. We shall continue to supply independent scientific advice to the Government on impacts on biodiversity of all GM crops and their management systems.”

Professor Jules Pretty, Deputy Chair of ACRE, who chaired the ACRE deliberations and advised on the FSEs, said:

“This decision by government correctly shows that GM crops should be treated on a case by case basis. Any generalisations suggesting that all GMs are good or all are bad are scientifically incorrect. This particular GM, herbicide-tolerant maize, is better for wildlife than its conventional equivalents, and given no other concerns risks to consumers or the environment, the scientific community has concluded that it should be made available to farmers.”

Professor John Lawton, Chief Executive of NERC, said:

“We at the Natural Environment Research Council are very pleased that the debate on the environmental consequences of growing GM crops continues to be informed by good science.”

Professor Chris Pollock, Chairman of ACRE, said:

“I am, of course, delighted that the secretary of State has accepted ACRE’s advice, and that she remains committed to a case-by-case, evidence-based regulatory system linked to the maintenance of consumer choice. I am equally pleased that she has recognised so explicitly the wider issues that the farm-scale evaluations raised about the close relationship between the farmed and natural environment in the UK and the need to manage this relationship across the whole of UK agriculture.”

Dr Sandy Thomas, Director Nuffield Council of Bioethics, said:

“The Council welcomes the Government’s decision to assess GM crops on a case-by-case basis. The possible costs, benefits and risks must be considered for each new crop. The Council believes that there is an ethical obligation to explore the potential of GM crops responsibly. It is particularly important not to neglect the perspective of developing countries when discussing GM technology. This important dimension was recognised in the ‘GM nation?’ debate.”