Scientists Stress Uncertainties of GM 

PAUL BROWN / The Guardian Weekly 24jul03

Review finds no health effects, but urges need to protect consumers and countryside

Government hopes of an early introduction of commercially grown genetically modified crops in Britain suffered a further setback this week when the world's most comprehensive scientific review of the subject emphasised the uncertainties and potential dangers of the crops rather than the advantages. Following the Cabinet Office review two weeks ago, which saw no economic benefit to consumers or the economy in growing GM crops, the government's genetic modification science review highlighted dangers both to the environment and the livelihoods of other farmers if the crops were grown in Britain.

The report was compiled by scientists from both pro- and anti-lobby groups and was chaired by the Government's chief scientist, Sir David King.

The tenor of the report was far more cautious than expected and emphasised the need to protect the consumer and the countryside, and to promote more studies to avoid undesirable side-effects of GM technology.

Although the report said throughout that there were no known health effects from the introduction of GM foods, it was equally impossible to say they were completely safe. Allergies were a potential problem.

Perhaps the most damning conclusion from the Government's point of view was that it would be impossible to grow some GM crops without cross-contamination of organic and conventional fields of the same species.

One of the most commonly grown crops in Britain - oil seed rape - was almost impossible to grow without likely contamination from GM crops if commercial cultivation was allowed, the report concluded. This might leave conventional and organic farmers with produce contaminated above the level at which they could sell it without describing it as GM. A working party has been set up to assess who would be liable for damages for loss of sales if cross-contamination were to occur, but it has yet to come to a conclusion.

Sir David said the panel had reviewed 600 papers on GM crops and concluded that there was no case for ruling out genetic modification either in food or for growing in Britain, but nor should there be blanket approval.

The panel had identified four areas where further work was needed: food allergies; possible changes in soil ecology because of GM organisms; farmland biodiversity from the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops; and consequences of gene flow between species.

"The public has correctly defined that there is currently no benefit, and potentially some unknown risks, in genetic modification, so proper la belling is vital so consumers can make informed choices," Sir David said.

Environmental groups were delighted with the tone of the report, but the biotech industry was also supportive.

<I> Steven Morris adds:</I> Supermarket bosses have told the Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, that there is little prospect of them stocking own brand genetically modified foods in the foreseeable future. They say there has been hardly any shift in the attitudes of shoppers since consumer power forced stores to remove GM products from their shelves in the late 90s.

Ms Beckett invited the chief executives of Safeway, Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury's and the trade association the British Retail Consortium to a meeting as part of the government-led debate on GM food.