GM CROPS REJECTED IN POTTERSBAR DEBATE.
On Tuesday the 2nd of September, between 90 and 100 people took part in a riveting
debate that was held in St Mary’s church Potters bar.
This church has a modern exterior but inside two delightful levels of Gothic
arches, reveal a magnificent space that provided an ideal setting for the debate.
The chairman the Reverend Peter Bevan, introduced the nights topic, which
was to discuss the implications of allowing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s)
in UK agriculture, which would have been part of the governments GM nation debate
had enough notice been given.
The chairman explained that there would be six speakers, with three
supporting GMO’s and three opposing GMO’s. They would look at the issue from
farming, scientific and environmental perspectives.
FARMING PERSPECTIVE.
Michael Barker: - a farmer who is also a farmers son and as well as being a
representative of the farm World network, opened the debate by arguing in favour of
using GMO’s by pointing out that with the introduction of any new technology there
are going to be good points and bad points. He illustrated this with the example of the
motorcar, which has the good points of allowing us the freedom to travel large
distances that many of us appreciate. However it also brings with it the car accidents
and pollution, which many of us would rather not experience. Similarly, he argued the
Internet brings with it serious problems such as pornography, but no one would say
that the Internet was all-bad.
On the issue of GMO’s he recognised some of the concerns that people have
with them, such as the risk to organic farming and the environment from
contamination by GMO’s but urged us not to reject all GMO’s but instead to cherry
pick those that would be of most benefit to us. He gave an example of a genetically
modified potato crop that could increase yield significantly and because potatoes have
no seeds the risk of contaminating another crop or the environment was very small.
He also argued that many of the Worlds farmer’s problems stemmed from the World
Trade Organisation and perhaps we would be more effective by trying to influence its
policies.
Susan Atkinson: - a farmer who also represents the farm World Network, spoke
passionately against GMO’s, by arguing that once you plant such crops it is
impossible to contain them and that it would do irreparable damage to the burgeoning
organic farming sector and natural environment by contaminating it.
She also put forward the argument that GMO’s would lead to even more excess food
production from European Union farmers, which would then be effectively dumped
on third world countries and worsen the appalling plight of farmers there.
The chairman then asked for questions from the audience as the farmer’s
section of the debate was finished.
These questions largely focused on the dangers of cross contamination by GM
crops with examples taken from Canada, the USA and others. Michael Barker
responded to these concerns by pointing out that it was not possible to compare the
UK with these countries. Susan Atkinson disagreed, and also pointed out that there
was some evidence from Spain of contamination.
The chairman now asked for the two speakers from the scientific perspective to help
clarify matters.
SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE.
Sue Mayer: - a scientist and founder of gene watch, an organisation that is dedicated
to analysing the implications of this technology.
Sue gave an excellent and informative description, using diagrams, of the two
main methods by which Genetic modification is achieved. She also brought up the
prospect of contamination of the food supply. The risk was not deemed to be
excessive but she did concede that there had been some cases where laboratory rats
had been found to contain genetically modified material in their stomachs.
Dr Nigel Halford: - who is a principle research scientist at Rothhampstead Research,
the UK largest institute for arable crop research. He is using genetic modification as a
research tool and to improve a crops composition in the UK’s staple crops such as
Potatoes, Wheat and Oil seed rape.
He argued that as the government is conducting extensive trials of this new
technology, we should wait for the results before condemning it.
The chairman then asked for questions from the audience to the two scientists,
which concentrated largely on the risks to the environment, that these trials might
represent. A question of particular concern was raised about the possibility of
horizontal gene transfer into other micro organisms, and the effect on the food chain
of animals feeding on GM crops. These fears were partly answered by the knowledge
that although we eat Tomatoes, we do not absorb any Tomato DNA, which
presumably will be the case with animals that are fed on GM crops.
The chairman now asked the last two speakers to look at the environmental concerns,
which he believed was of primary importance to the audience.
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE.
Alan Malcolm: - who is a member of the Novell foods and processes committee,
whose role among others is to advise the government on health and safety issues
surrounding novel foods including GM products.
Alan explained that the concept of substantial equivalence is the accepted
principle by which the government determined whether or not any new product is
safe. This basically states that if a new product can be shown to be substantially the
same as a product that is already in use, then the new product can be considered safe.
For example if a genetically engineered potato is found to be essentially the same as
an ordinary potato, then the genetically engineered potato would be considered safe
under this principle.
Gundula Azeez: - who studied biology at Cambridge University and now works for
the National Farmers Union in its Brussels office.
Gundula opposed Alan’s argument by pointing out that her work with the soil
association had shown that organic farming was more beneficial to farmers and the
environment. She also argued that if those in favour of GM crops were going to use
the argument of substantial equivalence to show that a product was safe, then equally
those against could use the same argument to show that the problems experienced by
GM crops in Canada and the USA are likely to happen in the UK. The possible effect
that GM crops could have on Organic agriculture was of particular concern to the Soil
Association, because they believed that this method of farming offered the best
prospects for farmers and the environment.
The chairman asked for questions from the audience, one of which asked
about the effect GM crops were likely to have on farmers incomes, and another which
asked that as one of the moral principles which guides our society is that you are free
to do what you want provided this does not interfere with another’s rights, have we
not shown that using GM crops are likely to interfere with an Organic farmer’s rights.
Gundula largely agreed with this.
At the end of the debate the chairman thanked the organiser Kevin Pressland
along with the speakers and the audience, he also took a straw poll, which indicated
that the audience was not in favour of GM crops being used in the UK. Significantly
the poll indicated that some people, who had begun the debate in favour of GM crop
use, were opposed to it after the debate.
The overriding opinion of those who attended was that the evening had been
both informative and enjoyable, and it is to be hoped that the future debates will be as
successful.
By Graham Laverick.