Tim Yeo
Genetically modified (GM) food
When Tony Blair's spokesman revealed that the Prime Minister happily ate genetically modified (G M) food, television news showed pictures of John Gummer feeding his reluctant daughter a hamburger a decade ago. The message was clear. Politicians are suspect on matters of food safety and G M food is dangerous.
Few controversies have generated more heat and less light than the row about G M crops and the food made from them. " Frankenstein foods invade Britain " scream the tabloids. " Wildlife threatened " warn the broadsheets more soberly. Leaving the defence to lobbyists driven by vested interests and the ill-informed Jack Cunningham has given the critics of G M crops a field day.
Despite the welter of claim and counter claim three truths have emerged. G M crops carry environmental risks whose extent is not known. Respected scientists led by English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation, who in February publicly contradicted Tony Blair's claim that Labour policy was based on sound science, agree that considerable research is needed before G M crops can be declared environmentally safe.
On the health front, however, there is little evidence yet to suggest that foods containing G M ingredients are dangerous. Only time can remove all doubt about novel foods but G M products should not be regarded as more risky than many others on sale.
Despite this many consumers don't want them. America's crass failure to segregate G M from conventional crops makes this difficult though retailers are increasingly responding to customer concern by seeking G M free suppliers. The immediate need is for simple accurate labels which alert shoppers and people eating out to all G M ingredients.
Even those who advocate caution before planting G M crops on a large scale recognise the technology may have environmentally benign aspects even though these are as yet unproven. They could also raise agricultural productivity, though claims that G M seed producers are trying to feed the Third World rather than dominate the market lack conviction.
Having led the Conservative campaign for a more scientific approach I have been appalled at Labour's handling of the subject. Secrecy, deception and muddle have characterised Ministers' unhappy retreat from denial that a problem existed, through confusion about its handling to panic at the scale of public hostility. The determination of Tony Blair to rush ahead with planting G M crops before their environmental impact is understood is astonishing. Labour appears more concerned with its American political and business cronies than with the British environment.
Only a fresh approach can restore confidence. Firstly the Government should ban outright the commercial planting of G M crops for as long as it takes - perhaps five years - to finish the research, including the field scale trials now under way. This ban has been requested by English Nature, the British Medical Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the Chief Medical Officer, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and many others.
Secondly all food containing G M ingredients must be clearly labelled. It is technically possible to identify even low levels of G M ingredients. Labelling should involve a recognisable logo on all packets, jars or bottles of G M food. The same logo could appear on animal feedstuffs to help farmers who wish to avoid feeding their animals with G M ingredients.
Thirdly the European Union Directive controlling the release of G M organisms into the environment must be strengthened. Risk assessments, for example, need to take account of the cumulative impact of G M organisms. The potentially harmful effects of G M organisms should include genetic pollution from cross pollination that affects the ability of neighbouring farmers to produce G M free crops.
Fourthly, Government decision making must be more open. Unless contacts between leading G M companies and Ministers and senior Civil Servants are disclosed suspicion will grow that policy is driven by business interests. The activities of the Biotechnology Presentation Group, where Ministers order Civil Servants to identify scientists who back the Labour line on G M issues and arrange for them to appear as apparently independent experts on the media and to which the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Medical Officer submit their advice for revision before it is published must be exposed.
Finally, the process by which food containing G M ingredients is approved for public consumption should no longer involve the principle of substantial equivalence, a concept which allows corners to be cut at the expense of public protection.
Adopting these five policies now would halt the present slide towards the triple disaster of an environment in danger, a public misled and a technology discredited. Tony Blair should recognise that the issue of G M crops goes beyond politics. After a bruising few weeks he might even learn that admitting a mistake increases rather than reduces public respect.
