GM foods: modify the argument | Editorial

Genetic modification may be part of the answer, but the bigger answers lie in asking bigger questions about the politicsOwen Paterson, the environment secretary, made a bold speech yesterday in defence of GM foods. His pitch was simple. On the one hand, Brussels' obsession with regulation meant the whole EU was being left behind in a vital area of science, while on the other a global Luddism was depriving millions of the advantages that GM foods could bring. GM foods mean less pesticide! More nature reserves! And, more seriously, life-changing benefits for generations of children with vitamin A deficiency who are currently denied genetically modified "golden" rice. Like both sides in this long debate, he overstates his argument and so compounds the stalemate.It is true that last year both Monsanto and the German firm BASF retreated from Europe, complaining of the stranglehold of regulation. Draft legislation allowing individual countries some freedom to make their own decisions on GM crops has been on the table for three years: few governments are willing to challenge their citizens' scepticism, either about the science or the involvement of big business (although that may be about to change if GM is included in the next round of EU-US trade talks). Yesterday Mr Paterson again argued that GM was just another step in the long march of agricultural improvement, on a par with better animal husbandry and selective plant breeding.But ignoring the substantive difference between exp...
Source: Guardian Unlimited Science - Category: Science Authors: Tags: Comment The Guardian Farming GM Politics Environment Science Editorials Comment is free Source Type: news