EDINBURGH (AFP) - An international forum, this Monday
on the safety of genetically modified (GM) food appealed for caution but
also for reasoned assessment about these revolutionary yet controversial
products.
Opening the conference, British Cabinet Minister Mo
Mowlam stated, "The public reaction to GM foods in the UK and, I think,
many other countries represented here today, shows that there is a degree
of concern and confusion. We want to ensure (the food's) potential
benefits are fully researched and examined. But it is genuinely too early
to be definitive."
Scottish Health Minister Susan Deacon added that the
public has very real and legitimate concerns about transgenic food. "There
could be tremendous advantage for all of us if science can deliver these
benefits. We need to keep an open mind. But equally, we have a
responsibility to ensure that it does not put human health or
environmental safety at risk."
Genetically modified food is derived from plants or
animals that have had material spliced into their genes that, for
instance, cuts the need for pesticides or care by the farmer, boosts their
shelf life or adds nutrition.
The foods – the product of corporate biotech behemoths
– present no known danger to health, drive down agricultural costs and may
be an environmental boon by reducing the need for farm chemicals, say
supporters.
However, critics say it is far too early to make that
conclusion. They worry that biotechnology may imperil health or the
environment by contaminating plants with genes that, for example, may
cause them to proliferate out of control, mutate or die prematurely, with
huge repercussions for the food chain.
The three-day conference in Edinburgh, staged by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), gathered
more than 400 biotechnologists, ecologists and government regulators from
21 countries with the goal of clarifying the risks and advantages.
Scientists at the forum pleaded for the heat to be
taken out of the subject, fearing that uninformed, angry opposition may
destroy the potential bounty of transgenic crops. "Agricultural
researchers worldwide have kept pace with a burgeoning population," said
Charles Arntzen, chief executive of a US biotechnology organization, the
Boyce Institute for Plant Research. "We've made it possible by introducing
new technology to produce more food on existing amounts of arable
land."
OECD Secretary-General Don Johnston pointed out that
farmers have been by far the biggest destroyers of biodiversity by
introducing foreign species, chopping down vegetation, watering the soil
or dosing it with insecticides and fertilizers.
But Indian environmental campaigner Suman Sahai said
engineered crops were "primarily designed for corporate profit" that did
not take into account the livelihoods of small farming or the goal of
sustainable agriculture. "There will have to be a public debate on risks
and benefits, or else there will be a backlash," she warned.
Mowlam's comments came on the heels of remarks
published Sunday by Prime Minister Tony Blair, who appeared to take a step
back from his previously warm embrace of the new technology.
Mowlam insisted, however, that Britain had
not changed its position. "Our position has always remained constant... there
is potential – potential is the important word, (for) harmful effects
and potential benefits, and what the scientific research is crucially doing is
looking at that. Scientific evidence alone cannot prove 100%, there is always an element of
risk," she
said.
