The government has a duty to explain the benefits of genetically modified crops to the British people, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson is to say.
In a speech today, he will argue that GM has significant benefits for farmers, consumers and the environment.
The UK and Europe risk being left behind unless the technology is embraced, he will say.
But green groups say this new push for GM is dangerous and misguided.
The environment secretary has never made a secret of his support for GM technology. In his speech he will set out the scientific, financial and moral arguments in favour of genetic engineering.
Persuade the public
Mr Paterson will say that GM could be as transformative as the original agricultural revolution - and the UK should be at the forefront.
He will argue that the government, along with industry and the scientific community "owe a duty to the British public to reassure them GM is a safe, proven and beneficial innovation".
"At the moment, Europe is missing out," Mr Paterson will say.
"While the rest of the world is ploughing ahead and reaping the benefits of the new technologies, Europe risks being left behind."
The European Union has been deadlocked on GM for a number of years. Only two crops have been approved for commercial growing - another seven are awaiting the green light.
But Mr Paterson is expected to say that member states who are open to the safe use of GM crops should not be prevented from moving forward with the technology.
But critics have been quick to condemn Mr Paterson's view that GM is a "safe, proven and beneficial innovation".
Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said that GM would make it harder, not easier, to feed the world.
"The British Government constantly claim that GM crops are just one tool in the toolbox for the future of farming. In fact GM is the cuckoo in the nest. It drives out and destroys the systems that international scientists agree we need to feed the world.
"We need farming that helps poorer African and Asian farmers produce food, not farming that helps Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto produce profits," he added.
Mr Paterson's stance was backed by a number of scientists, including Professor Dale Sanders, the Director of the John Innes Centre in Norwich. He wants to see a greater focus on solving global problems such as malnutrition rather than arguments about one technology or another.
"Evaluation of potential scientific solutions to agriculture should be evidence-based," he said.
"The overwhelming global conclusion regarding the deployment of GM technologies in the field is that the risks associated with the technologies are infinitesimally small."
Mr Paterson's speech comes in the same week that the National Farmers Union warned that the UK's wheat crop could be 30% smaller than last year because of extreme weather.
The environment secretary will say that GM could "combat the damaging effects of unpredictable weather and disease on crops."
The technology has "the potential to reduce fertiliser and chemical use, improve the efficiency of agricultural production and reduce post-harvest losses. If we use cultivated land more efficiently, we could free up space for biodiversity, nature and wilderness."
At present there are no commercial GM crops grown in the UK although cattle, sheep and pigs are often fed on imported GM. There is only one active GM trial of wheat that has been modified to deter aphids.
Follow Matt on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment