By James Randerson

UK - Ministers have given their strongest backing yet to GM crops being
planted in the UK.
The science minister, Ian Pearson, predicted the public would accept GM
crops if they could be convinced that the technology would benefit
consumers.

He acknowledged that the original public debate on the issue was handled
badly by government, but he said if the benefits of GM crops could be put
across to people they would be more enthusiastic.

"I don't think the GM debate in 2000 was handled very well," Pearson said.
"I think that the public want to see benefits for GM technology for the
consumer, not just for the fertiliser company or the farmer. If GM can
demonstrably provide benefits for people living in sub-Saharan Africa ...
then I think the public will want to support those as products and want to
see them commercialised."

He added: "If consumers see benefits from GM then I think a significant
majority of them will want to choose GM. That's what we have to do. We have
to show that there are benefits to the consumer of adopting GM
technologies."

The backlash against GM began in the late 1990s when trials were interrupted
by activists who ripped up the plants. Consumer fears also prompted
supermarkets to remove GM products from their shelves. In 2004, Lord
Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, declared "the end of GM
in Britain" after the government announced that no more GM crops would be
grown for the "foreseeable future".

The crops are grown widely in north and south America and China, but a
Eurobarometer survey of 25,000 Europeans in 2005 found just 27% thought the
technology behind GM should be encouraged.

Pearson said GM research held great potential for producing crop varieties
that would help poor people in developing countries. "We can produce
drought-resistant crops, salt-resistant crops. These could have huge
potential benefits for people in developing countries and I think that we
should be allowed to do the research," he said.

He added that the government needed to communicate its science message
better to the public. "We need to find new and better ways of consulting and
of working with people and making sure that we take them along with us," he
said.

Pearson's comments signal a concerted effort by ministers to reopen the GM
issue. On BBC radio's Farming Today this month, the environment minister,
Phil Woolas, said opponents of GM had a year to prove it was not safe. "If
you are opposed to GM it is now up to you to provide the evidence that there
is harm. Ten years ago it was the other way around," he said.

Claire Oxborrow of Friends of the Earth said ministers were using the global
food crisis as an excuse to align themselves with the biotechnology
industry. "It seems the government has forgotten what came out of its own
debate," she said. "There was this in-depth debate process sponsored by the
government ... which overwhelmingly showed that the public were not ready
for GM, did not see any benefits, did not trust the technology, and did not
want their food controlled by corporations."

Pearson's comments were welcomed by Dr Julian Little, head of the
Agriculture and Biotechnology Council, an umbrella group for the food
biotechnology industry. "Biotechnology can make a significant contribution
to rising food and fuel prices and environmental challenges," he said.

www.checkbiotech.org