and answered point by point
The Electronic Telegraph
Prof Derek Burke, an expert on biotechnology and former chairman of the Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, was cited as criticizing the decision by Prince Charles last week to ban farmers entering into new tenancy agreements on Duchy of Cornwall land from growing GM crops, adding, "It seems perverse, even criminal, to walk away from an increased source of food when we need it desperately."
The story says that the professor, a staunch supporter of the new food technology, is the first member of the scientific community to challenge the Prince so strongly about his anti-GM views, which refuelled the controversy over biotechnology when publicised two weeks ago. In an article to be published in Feedback Magazine, the official journal of the Food and Drink Federation, Prof Burke questions the Prince's credentials and answers all 10 key questions posed by the Prince about GM food.
Prince attacked over GM hostility
1. Do we need GM food in this country?
Not now you may say; we have enough. But food has become cheaper, and
better throughout my life - I grew up in a family where chicken was an
annual treat - because farmers have used every new technology to our
benefit. We can do the same with GM and use the higher yields to stop
using marginal land and to restore the hills and coastal strips to their
natural state. And when have we British turned our backs on a new
technology? New technologies are not all good or all bad: they change
things and they pose new questions. So why should we run away from GM?
2. Is GM food safe for us to eat?
Just what is the basis for treating GM foods as so intrinsically dangerous
that they should be regarded as the Devil's concoction? Why so black and
white? Of course it would be possible to make GM "food" that was
dangerous, but I contend that the three GM foods approved for sale in the
UK - cheese, tomato paste and soya - are as safe to eat as any other, and
I have no hesitation in doing so. Why not treat food on its merits?
3. Why are the rules for approving GM foods so much less stringent than
those for new medicines produced using the same technology?
This is a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question. The answer has
already been given in the question. The answer is clear: the rules are
less stringent, they are different and the same as used elsewhere in the
world. Drugs are tested on animals at hundreds of times their clinical
doses; that is not possible with food, so different ways have been
devised. But if you really want to start trials in humans, 300 million
Americans have been eating GM soya for several years now without any ill
effects.
4. How much do we really know about the environmental consequences of GM
crops?
A huge area - one and a half times the size of Britain - is now sown with
GM in North America and, although the environment is not the same, there
have been no big problems. The well publicised experiments with the
Monarch butterfly show that under laboratory conditions caterpillars
force-fed corn pollen are damaged, but it is unlikely that in the wild the
caterpillars would eat corn pollen at all. The effect is small and needs
to be guarded against but it is not the catastrophe that some claim.
5. Is it sensible to plant test crops without test regulations in place?
We already have EU regulations which have the force of law. Now we are
using a voluntary code of practice that goes beyond EU rules, is voluntary
because we don't want to wait for the EU, and which is overseen by an
independent body recently appointed by the minister. We need these trials
so that real choices can be made about appropriate regulation, and so it
is important that vandals do not destroy them and that farmers are not put
under pressure by green groups to abandon them.
6. How will consumers be able to exercise genuine choice?
Consumers had choice over the first two products, and only when GM soya
was introduced was choice lost. Now the emotional campaign against GM
foods has removed choice for those of us who want to eat GM soya. So who
is being autocratic now? I notice too that the Prince has removed choice
from those farmers who farm on his land. Why don't the farmers have choice
like US farmers do? There is absolutely no evidence of risk.
7. If something goes wrong with a GM crop who would be held responsible?
Exactly the same bodies as before; for we have been introducing new crops
for years - [oilseed] rape and short-stalked wheat, for example - and
there have always been mechanisms for dealing with any damage. To pretend
otherwise is misleading.
8. Are GM crops really the only way to feed the world's growing
population?
No one has ever said it was, but it seems perverse, even criminal, to walk
away from an increased source of food when we need it desperately. And it
can help; a new rice with increased vitamin A and iron content is almost
ready to meet a huge need in South-East Asia.
9. What effect will GM crops have on people of the world's poorest
countries?
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics in its recent report points out that,
with care, this new technology can help the poorest; a challenge that it
is unwise, I suggest even immoral, to walk away from.
10. What sort of world do we want to live in?
I do not want either of the Prince's worlds; neither the Orwellian future
nor his organic world, and fortunately for nearly everyone there are many
other choices. I want a world where we use technology safely and
constructively and we can do that if we keep our heads, which at the
moment we are signally failing to do.
© 2009
, Postfach, 3000 Bern 14 - Tel.: +41 31 356 73 84, Fax +41 31 356 73 01
Letzte Änderung: 2004-11-30 00:00:00
