Why Britain is going its own way on GMOs

Britain is set to plant genetically modified crops on British soil in the next few years—perhaps to the dismay of its neighbors in staunchly anti-GMO nations France, Germany and Hungary.

The European Union compromise signed on January 14, 2015, and going into effect this spring, gives countries the right to choose to grow GMOs that have been approved by the European Food Safety Authority. Previously, because of a weighted voting system, many GM crops were doomed for rejection.

For almost the last two decades, opposition to genetically modified foods in Europe has had a firm hold, and genetically modified foods have been the scapegoat for criticisms about industrialized agriculture, globalization and deterioration of local economies, said French researcher Sylvie Bonny.

According to Eurobarometer surveys, in 2001, 71 percent of those surveyed in the European Union outright rejected GMOs. Even at that time, respondents were less hostile in the UK, while France and Austria had some of the strongest opposition.

The results were less stark with the pollster Ipsos MORI in 2003, but even so, 42 percent of people in Britain viewed GMOs as more risky than beneficial, reported the Economist. But by 2011, the numbers dropped down to only 27 percent of the British public who thought GMOs were risky. And, over the last few years, support in Britain has only grown—both in public perception and political will.

Former UK Environment Minister Owen Paterson and Prime Minister David Cameron have been vocally supportive of GMOs since 2012 and were responsible for helping to develop the new EU compromise that goes into effect this spring.

Last March, a group of scientists, chaired by David Baulcombe from the University of Cambridge, issued a report to the Council for Science and Technology suggesting that support of this kind of compromise may be the only way the UK could take advantage of the technology.

Yet British politicians have grown confident enough in GMO technology that they actually abstained from the final vote due to the concerns that rules on cultivating GMOs along the borders of member states who ban the technology are too restrictive, UK’s head of GM policy and regulation Sarah Cundy told the Guardian.

So, why has Britain gone its own way?

Perhaps, it is the work of British science and its ambition to continue to be globally competitive and relevant.

Though it will likely be a few years before a genetically modified crop is grown in the UK, British researchers had been working on genetically modified crop varieties for years—even without hope of releasing them.

For example, the Rothamsted Institute is testing a wheat variety genetically engineered to express a pheromone that will deter aphid infestation and reduce the use of pesticides, while the John Innes Centre is developing crops that take in nitrogen from the air, which could substantially reduce economic and environmental costs of using nitrogen fertilizer.

A letter to the prime minister signed by UK chief scientific advisor Mark Waldport and co-chair Nancy Rothwell of the Council for Science and Technology, brags:

The UK’s plant science is world class and we are well placed to develop tools that would enable the whole world to tackle the global challenges of food security. We should take every opportunity to reveal the strength of UK science and encourage inward investment. The EU is currently hostile to growing GM crops, but the UK can still benefit significantly in developing innovations that the rest of the world will use.

Secondly, Britain’s small geographic size and location forces it to import some of its food, and Britons want self-sufficiency. According to a speech by UK Environmental Minister Elizabeth Truss, Britain produces 60 percent of the food it eats, down from 74 percent 20 years ago. She stressed the importance of local food: “We know consumers want to buy British because it is local, because it is seasonal and because it is tasty.”

This means reducing exports from other countries and building its own agricultural sector. High-yielding varieties are particularly needed—something genetically modified technologies may be able to provide.

Truss called for decisions on GM crops to be based on science-based evidence.

Ultimately we want to see far more decisions to be taken in Britain for the benefit of British producers.

Thirdly, its politicians and scientists have also gotten increasingly savvy about science communication.

Key among these messages, Walport and Rothwell urged politicians not to make grandiose statements about the benefits of GM foods. Genetic modification is just one of many tools that can be used to improve food security, they said.

They also asked that the term “genetically modified” be parsed apart and each technology and plant modification be examined individually.

It appears that in the UK, the pro-side will come out on top in time, though proponents still face challenges, such as a waning but still present public concern over the technology and political resistance in Wales and Scotland, which have declared themselves GMO-free.

But in the new Europe, where nations can now make their own approvals for genetically modified crops, the question is: Whose victory is this?

In a column by Geoffrey Lean at the Telegraph, he surmises that no one is actually completely happy. Industry supporters are upset that national bans will only further cement the anti-GMO sentiment, ensuring genetically modified crops will never be allowed in the market in countries like France, while those fearful of GMOs worry that national bans could still face legal challenges.

This round of politics shows some promise for those looking to advance Britain’s science and agriculture.

Rebecca Randall is a journalist focusing on international relations and global food issues. Follow her @beccawrites.

Additional resources:

12 thoughts on “Why Britain is going its own way on GMOs”

  1. If the EU continues it’s luddite stance on biotech, the UK may have little choice but to leave the EU to pursue policies that ensure enough food for her citizens.

    • We currently grow enough food for 150% of the worlds people. The problem is not production. The problem is distribution. We could cut production by 24% and still feed every human alive, if we could just get it to them.

      • The idea of having to constantly depend on far-off sources for your food security is not wise, nor is it consistent with the concept of “eat local”. So, this constant question about distribution being the problem seems more like an excuse.

    • Britain won’t leave the EU over something like this, and the EU will ultimately not stop British gardeners from growing the best fruits, vegetables and flowers they can. An Englishman’s home is his castle, but the garden is his moat, and the only frogs that belong in a moat are amphibians, so the EU NGO countries can go take a long walk off a short pier.

  2. How unfortunate that the suppression of information, which has always been considered anti-science, is now being touted as pro-science. When did hiding information, Suppressing contrary studies and doing less and shorter studies become scientifically acceptable? The very definition of science requires that all information be put out for discussion. Science cannot move forward without transparency.

    • You’re absolutely right.

      The Anti-GMO movement is getting far too much attention, and being allowed to get away with completely phony scientific claims far too often without the strong and public condemnation of the scientific community that it deserves.

      I’m glad that you agree so strongly with this sentiment, and are committed to fighting the corrosion of scientific values being promulgated by Luddites.

      As you of course know, such people regularly engage to suppress the evidence proving GMO safety – claiming that it is dangerous to know that it is safe. They also try to destroy test crops wherever possible, so as to prevent safety being demonstrated. They also attempt to abuse the concept of transparency, as in the recent labeling issue, where they willfully attempted to pervert common sense and induce a fear of the unknown – and make their economic opponents pay the price for it.

      Truly, it is good that you agree with all of this, and aren’t attempting to make a not-so-subtle jab at a scientific consensus that doesn’t agree with you and must therefore be on the payroll of corporate interests that you don’t support.

  3. I read the attached Guardian article. The Guardian is a high-brow left wing news paper that was always popular with the university crowd.
    I have to point out that cross pollination should not be a big problem, as touted in that article.
    If farmers have to buy “clean” seed each year from the seed companies, it’s the seed companies problem not the farmers, the farmer can always sue the seed company if the variety isn’t what they paid for. If farmers save their own seed, then they are already getting cross pollination from other varieties in neighboring fields anyway, and should be collecting their seed from areas not close to other varieties.
    Another example of scaremongering from a left wing paper, to a country that has had opponents on both sides of the political fence, but now the educated public has realized that there isn’t a calamity waiting in the wings and they want England to benefit from technology. Shame the U.S. public get all their news from popular blogs and celebrity quotes.

  4. One wonders what the Left’s attitude would be if GMO’s had been invented in say Russia, Cuba – that sort of place, rather than the US. Also, it should be pointed out that maize and potatoes (among many others) are GMOs, developed in the distant past by selective breeding. That is simply the long way around.

  5. Not impressed – quite disappointed to say the least, thought Britain will be strong enough to make its own decisions. This is of a national importance and you’re willing to risk your soil for it?? Follow the progress on GMO, do your own tests like Germans are doing, but don’t ever assume it is safe yet. It is already difficult to weed through the shop shelves to get GMO free food-since the labelling is non-existent. One has to read supermarkets policies and statements often not straight-forward in order to buy what one prefers. Meaning the only way is to buy organic-labelled,the most expensive food in order for one to taste food, and not put one’s health at risk.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend