Scotland will be left behind in global agriculture development because of its ban on genetically modified crop trials, a leading scientist has claimed.
Professor Howard Davies, director of science at the newly-launched James Hutton Institute, called for Scotland to abandon political bias and hold an objective debate on the subject of GM foods.
The SNP administration has been firmly opposed to GM crops, arguing little is known about their long-term safety. Under current rules, however, scientists are barred from growing trial GM crops, making it difficult to assess their potential.
The new institute combines the work of the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute and the Scottish Crop Research Institute. It is based in Aberdeen and Dundee and was hailed at its launch last week as one of the world’s leading research bases.
Professor Davies stressed the institute was not advocating the roll-out of GM food but simply wanted the right to experiment.
He said: “We’re not out there to rock boats, but what we are intent on doing is developing approaches that could be very useful in developing next generation products. Where we would be left behind, not just as an institute but as a nation, is developing products that go into the commercial sphere. That’s where we’re missing out.
“Part of the problem is that most of the GM crops out there are produced by large multinational firms. These are the companies that have enough money to get things to the marketplace. If you’re trying to do research and create crops for public-good purposes – not to make £20 million, £30m a year, but to have social impact, for example higher nutrition – the cost is so prohibitive that the public sector couldn’t do it.”
Professor Davies, who sits on the European Food Safety Authority’s panel on GM foods, said the Hutton Institute was able to study genes under the current rules but would have to use a partner in the US or South America to carry out trials to prove any discoveries worked. This would be impractical, he said, adding: “What’s needed is more of an open debate now, regardless of whether you’re pro or against. What could the technology contribute down the line to Scottish and UK agriculture?”
Professor Davies’s views were echoed by farmers’ union NFU Scotland. It said GM crops could be key to future food security.
Union chief executive James Withers said: “While this is a thorny issue, using the auspices of a respected institute such as the James Hutton to examine the role that biotechnology might have in future food production would allow science rather than emotion to drive the debate.”
But Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham, SNP candidate for Perthshire South and Kinross-shire, said her party maintained its anti-GM stance.
“No GM crop trials have taken place in Scotland under the SNP, and we remain opposed to such trials because we know very little about the long-term consequence of such experiments,” she said.
If the rules were relaxed, Professor Davies said GM trials would be difficult because policy could change again at the next election, but he added that in the very long term it was almost inevitable the UK would grow GM crops developed at home or overseas. Although there is no law against GM crops in Scotland, the Government would have to grant permission to test them - and it would not.
Growing them commercially would be up to the EU. In England and Wales, decisions are taken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Risky - or the way forward
- International opinion on GM crops is fiercely divided. They are popular in the US, South America, parts of Asia and some European states, including Spain, Portugal, Sweden and the Czech Republic.
- Other countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Austria and Greece, are broadly opposed, and restrictions are in place across the EU – a factor Professor Davies said would influence policy in Scotland.
- Professor Davies said GM crops were not a "silver bullet" solution to problems but could play a role in developing countries and, under some circumstances, could be a social good. Much of their development so far has focused on increasing yields for commercial gain rather than for humanitarian reasons.
©Copyright 2011 Herald & Times Group.
