Suffolk farmer Paul Rylott

FOLLOWING calls at the Oxford Farming Conference for a re-opening of the genetically modified (GM) crops debate, some 70% of respondents to a Farmers Weekly poll agreed. I echo the sentiment, but would ask that this time it be coupled with strong political will at both UK and EU level – something that seems to have been sadly lacking in recent years.

To send a link to this page to a friend, simply enter their email address below.

The message will include the name and email address you gave us when you signed up.

Email address

  Send link

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

In 2003, I was a member of the steering board that oversaw the last national GM debate.

This meant that I was fortunate enough to be able to view all of the results rather than just those reported.

At one particular event, that remains clear to this day, participants in the debate who were asked at the end of the evening “Should Britain become a GM Nation?” all 14 tables responded “No”.

When asked to rank their reasons why, 13 of the 14 stated that it was because GM technology was associated with multi-national companies.

Their second reason was that these companies were based in the US. Table 14 had the same reasons; they just ranked them the other way around.

Was this a case of orchestrated campaigning or was it, as the headlines from the findings of the debate suggested, that ‘the more that people learn about GM, the more they are against it’ ?

It can be argued that a symbiotic relationship between campaign groups desperate for publicity and a media hungry for sales helped perpetuate the myth that GM crops were an unnecessary US invention that was being forced on the rest of world. It’s little wonder therefore that at a time when we were heading towards an unpopular war in Iraq, alongside the US, that those seeking political power did not see GM as a massive vote winner.

One very well-known politician told me: “Don’t try and tell me that GM crops are a good thing. I’m convinced they are, but if you think I’m going to say that in public, you’ve got another think coming.”

A prospective candidate north of the border told me: “I think that GM crops could be good for Scottish farmers and very useful to the Scottish economy; but I will be saying quite the opposite – until the election is over.”

So why open a new debate? For me it’s simple.

The need to produce more food for an ever-increasing and more discerning population, whilst minimising the impact of this food production on the environment has been a conundrum that has been taxing politicians, scientists and farmers for many years.

It can also be argued that in these times of austerity, we should now, more than ever, add another dimension – the need to produce this food in a more cost-effective manner.

So could GM crops solve all of these problems? No. Could they help? Yes.

It is estimated that last year, GM crops were grown on approximately 11%of the world’s farming area.

This is a significant percentage, more so, when you take into account that there are no commercial GM varieties of many of the world’s staple crops such as wheat, barley and rice.

The vast majority of the crops grown –maize, soya and canola (Canadian oilseed rape) – have a genetic/inbuilt resistance to either insect attack or tolerance to specific herbicides.

Some have said that the benefits of these crops are solely of benefit to the GM companies.

However, it is has be estimated that, so far, these crops have, via increased yields and reduced pesticide usage, created US$65billion of added value, which is one reason why more than 15million farmers in around 30 different countries ordered GM seed last year.

For the last 15 years the opportunity to share in these benefits and reduced cost of production has been denied to UK farmers, putting them at significant disadvantage.

Recent studies have estimated that improved ways of growing these crops, such as minimal cultivation and fewer pesticide applications, has meant that producers have saved a fuel equivalent to taking 7.8million cars off the road, which must be helping farming’s carbon footprint and climate change.

It is now overwhelmingly clear that GM crops can help solve some of the food supply issues we face today.

However, it is also important to stress that no single method of food production, whatever it is, can offer a complete or silver bullet solution because the needs and wishes of individuals are so varied.

I’m sure we would find that if we asked a Waitrose shopper in Witney why they had chosen the food that filled their basket we would get a much different answer to that of the person shopping in Somerfield in Sheffield.

So if the coalition Government decides to pick up the challenge of “re-opening” the debate, it should be hoped that it does so with a genuinely open mind, that it ensures the thoughts of all its constituents are heard and is willing to make decisions and stop this current political fudge and give back farmers and consumers the right to choose.