Genetically modified crops are "categorically" safer than conventional crops
because they are subjected to much greater scrutiny than traditional
varieties, the Environment Secretary Owen Paterson said.

Stepping up his campaign to grow GM crops in the UK, Mr Paterson used a
speech in Hertfordshire to promote genetic engineering of plants and called
on the government, industry and scientists to join forces to convert the
public in the face of widespread fear and scepticism.

Mr Paterson said GM crops were safer than conventional ones because they use
"more precise technology and [come under] greater regulatory scrutiny".

"These products go through the most rigorous system. It's extraordinarily
closely regulated, at a national level and at a European level.We have not
come up with any evidence of human health being threatened by these
products."

Questioned after his speech on whether the safety case for GM crops over
conventional one was clear cut, Mr Paterson said: "This isn't speculation.
We have had a categoric statement from the [European Commission's] chief
scientific officer and you have the biggest field trial in human history
when you think of the colossal volume of GM material that has been eaten in
all those countries growing GM food."

Kicking off his campaign, Mr Paterson used a speech in Hertfordshire to call
on the government, industry and scientists to join forces to convert the
public in the face of widespread fear and scepticism.

Mr Paterson, who ultimately wants the European Union to relax very tight
restrictions on growing GM plants, wants to make Britain a centre for GM
research and development, which has the potential to become a multi-billion
pound industry. He began by arguing what he claims is the moral case for
"engineering" crops.Mr Paterson said in his speech: "I believe there are
significant economic, environmental and international development benefits
to GM but I am conscious of the views of those who have concerns and who
need reassurance on this matter."

"I recognise that we - government, industry, the scientific community and
others - owe a duty to the British public to reassure them that GM is a
safe, proven and beneficial innovation," he will add, delivered this morning
at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, where a controversial trial of GM wheat
is being carried out.

"Used properly GM promises effective ways to protect or increase crop
yields. It can also combat the damaging effects of unpredictable weather and
disease on crops. It has the potential to reduce fertiliser and chemical
use, improve the efficiency of agricultural production and reduce
post-harvest losses," he will say.

The Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC) welcomed
Mr Paterson's endorsement of GM, while pointing out that it is not provide a
solution to the growing food crisis by itself.

"GM is one tool in a range of options that can help us tackle complex
problems, such as the need to produce enough food for a growing population,"
said Douglas Kell, chief executive of the council, which funds research and
training projects.

GM crops are created by taking genes with beneficial qualities from other
organisms and injecting them into the plant. They can be engineered to grow
faster, increase their resistance to weeds, pests and pesticides, produce
extra nutrients or survive harsher weather conditions.

However, while many scientists strongly believe in the benefits of GM crops,
opposition remains widespread, both among scientists and the general public.

Opponents argue that it is far too early to conclude that GM crops - which
were first produced in the US in 1994 - are safe to eat. They are also
concerned that adopting GM crops could foster stronger pests, diseases and
weeds that evolve to adapt to engineered plants and that the injected
"rogue" genes could cause problems by spreading to other plants.

Mike Childs, head of policy, research and science at Friends of the Earth,
said: "There is no evidence GM crops will deliver for farmers or food
security. Despite decades of research, there is still no miracle crops to
tackle the challenges agriculture faces, such as climate change, soil
degradation, water shortages and growing demand."

Underling the scale of public opposition to GM foods, a survey from YouGov
this month found that only 21 per cent of the population supported the
technology, while 35 per cent opposed it.

In the most comprehensive analysis of the risks of GM foods, the European
Commission examined 130 research projects carried out by 500 groups over 25
years. In December 2010, the EC concluded there is "no scientific evidence
associating genetically modified organisms with higher risks for the
environment or food and feed safety than conventional plants or organisms".

[www.independent.co.uk]
er-than-conventional-crops-says-environment-secretary-owen-paterson-8665872.
html