Evidence based on independent scientific research is needed in developing policy on the use of genetically modified (GM) technologies in food production, speakers said at a recent event in Belfast organised by the UK’s national academy of science, the Royal Society.

Kevin Folta from the University of Florida said that he was disappointed by the public perception of GM technologies given that the scientific community is “aligned in saying that the benefits of GM technologies outweigh the risks”.

Folta said: “We cannot just speak to the public about information and facts. We need to talk about how GM technologies can solve problems that we all care about.”

Most of the problems discussed centred on food security and growing enough food for an increasing global population against the threats of climate change and fossil fuel depletion. Speakers maintained that some GM crops can be developed to be resistant to insects, disease or pesticides, as well as grow at different temperatures or in higher concentrations of salt water.

Evidence

Mark Lynas from the Cornell Alliance for Science said that he was formerly an anti-GM campaigner but changed his stance when he realised there was a lack of scientific research to back up many anti-GM arguments.

He dismissed concerns raised about environmental contamination with GM crops. Lynas said “a GM crop is just a crop” and questioned what the difference was by changing one gene by GM techniques or several thousand genes through conventional breeding. “It is the most predictable and surgical way to select traits in crops,” he said.

Both Folta and Lynas said that they would not describe themselves as “pro-GM”, but instead make decisions based on science. “If you showed me evidence tomorrow that goes against this technology, I would gladly speak about it,” Folta said.

The GM debate was likened to the ongoing issue of relicensing the Roundup ingredient glyphosate in the EU.

Folta suggested that the anti-glyphosate campaign was more to do with opposition to the multinational agrochemical company Monsanto, than an argument based on scientific evidence.

Lobby

Speakers pointed out that when developing policy in the EU, a range of stakeholders are routinely consulted, which means lobby organisations, and not always scientific based evidence, can influence policymakers.

An argument sometimes used against GM crops is that the global seed production market would be further dominated by a small number of large multinational companies. Folta said that strict regulation surrounding GM crops allows only large companies to overcome regulatory hurdles. “If we were to loosen the regulation, we may have a situation where smaller companies could compete,” he suggested.

Last year, GM crops were grown in 28 countries covering around 10% of the world’s arable land, mostly in the US and South America.

The European Food Safety Authority regulates applications to develop a GM crop within the EU with final responsibility for local implementation down to individual member states and devolved administrations.

Last September, former Environment Minister Mark H. Durkan announced that the cultivation of GM crops was being prohibited in NI.

When asked about possible changes to GM policy in the UK post-Brexit, speakers said that it was unlikely to be relaxed by the British government due to trade issues and the desire to maintain market access to other countries that oppose GM technologies.