• Environment minister says UK is falling behind trade partners
• 'GM could be as important as the agricultural revolution'
Environment minister Owen Paterson will on Thursday urge the UK to lead a European farming revolution using genetically modified crops, which he will say will reduce fertiliser and chemical use and improve efficiency.
Paterson's strongest speech yet in favour of the controversial practice is expected to make both a moral and economic case for them to be grown widely both in Britain and in developing countries.
"While the rest of the world is ploughing ahead and reaping the benefits of new technologies, Europe risks being left behind. We cannot afford to let that happen," Paterson will tell scientists at the Rothamsted research institute, near St Albans. "The use of GM could be as transformative as the original agricultural revolution was. The UK should be at the forefront of that now, as it was then."
"If we use cultivated land more efficiently, we could free up space for biodiversity, nature and wilderness. Research undertaken by a team at Rockefeller University has found that over the course of the next 50 years, new technology, combined with improved agricultural practices across the world, could release an area 2.5 times the size of France from cultivation," he will say.
But anti-GM groups criticised Paterson's enthusiasm for the crops. "There is no evidence they will deliver for farmers or food security. Despite decades of research, there are still no miracle crops to tackle the challenges agriculture faces, such as climate change, soil degradation, water shortages and growing demand," said Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth's head of policy, research and science. "Ministers must urgently get behind a different approach to food and farming that delivers real sustainable solutions rather than peddling the snake oil that is GM."
New documents released by campaign group Genewatch under the Freedom of Information Act show that Lord Rupert de Mauley, environment minister responsible for GM crops, met Christopher Pollock, the outgoing chair of the advisory committee on releases to the environment, and official adviser to the government on authorisation for growing GM crops, to discuss changing the European GM regulations.
According to the summary of the meeting, which took place in April, Pollock told de Maulay that "there will not be progress on GM until the UK has renegotiated the regulations and that [the current] regulatory approach based on process is not appropriate." Instead, he suggested that GM crops could be grown under an individual product licensing system, similar to the licensing of medicines. This, he said, would weigh up both the risks and benefits of a decision.
In 2012, government science ministers David Willetts and Lord Taylor met GM crop companies as well as research institutes and farmers, to discuss a future strategy to introduce the crops.
The summary of the meeting, written by the GM industry body the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), shows there are plans to spend more taxpayers' money on research and development for GM crops, to promote GM crops in developing countries and to remove regulatory and political barriers.
Prof Maurice Moloney, director of Rothamsted Research, said: "We are very happy to see clear leadership on this issue from Paterson. GM crops and the use of biotechnology in agriculture has been effectively on hold in Europe for many years. Meanwhile our trading partners, through biotechnology, have improved yields, protected the agricultural environment, reduced pesticide use and created many new jobs." Reported by guardian.co.uk 12 hours ago.
• 'GM could be as important as the agricultural revolution'
Environment minister Owen Paterson will on Thursday urge the UK to lead a European farming revolution using genetically modified crops, which he will say will reduce fertiliser and chemical use and improve efficiency.
Paterson's strongest speech yet in favour of the controversial practice is expected to make both a moral and economic case for them to be grown widely both in Britain and in developing countries.
"While the rest of the world is ploughing ahead and reaping the benefits of new technologies, Europe risks being left behind. We cannot afford to let that happen," Paterson will tell scientists at the Rothamsted research institute, near St Albans. "The use of GM could be as transformative as the original agricultural revolution was. The UK should be at the forefront of that now, as it was then."
"If we use cultivated land more efficiently, we could free up space for biodiversity, nature and wilderness. Research undertaken by a team at Rockefeller University has found that over the course of the next 50 years, new technology, combined with improved agricultural practices across the world, could release an area 2.5 times the size of France from cultivation," he will say.
But anti-GM groups criticised Paterson's enthusiasm for the crops. "There is no evidence they will deliver for farmers or food security. Despite decades of research, there are still no miracle crops to tackle the challenges agriculture faces, such as climate change, soil degradation, water shortages and growing demand," said Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth's head of policy, research and science. "Ministers must urgently get behind a different approach to food and farming that delivers real sustainable solutions rather than peddling the snake oil that is GM."
New documents released by campaign group Genewatch under the Freedom of Information Act show that Lord Rupert de Mauley, environment minister responsible for GM crops, met Christopher Pollock, the outgoing chair of the advisory committee on releases to the environment, and official adviser to the government on authorisation for growing GM crops, to discuss changing the European GM regulations.
According to the summary of the meeting, which took place in April, Pollock told de Maulay that "there will not be progress on GM until the UK has renegotiated the regulations and that [the current] regulatory approach based on process is not appropriate." Instead, he suggested that GM crops could be grown under an individual product licensing system, similar to the licensing of medicines. This, he said, would weigh up both the risks and benefits of a decision.
In 2012, government science ministers David Willetts and Lord Taylor met GM crop companies as well as research institutes and farmers, to discuss a future strategy to introduce the crops.
The summary of the meeting, written by the GM industry body the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), shows there are plans to spend more taxpayers' money on research and development for GM crops, to promote GM crops in developing countries and to remove regulatory and political barriers.
Prof Maurice Moloney, director of Rothamsted Research, said: "We are very happy to see clear leadership on this issue from Paterson. GM crops and the use of biotechnology in agriculture has been effectively on hold in Europe for many years. Meanwhile our trading partners, through biotechnology, have improved yields, protected the agricultural environment, reduced pesticide use and created many new jobs." Reported by guardian.co.uk 12 hours ago.
