It is time to loosen Europe鈥檚 draconian regulations on genetically modified crops, say a group of biotechnology experts. In a report released today they argue that genetically modified crops have been used safely for decades, so no longer need to be automatically treated as unsafe. They also say that genetically modified crops should be reclaimed from multinational companies and treated as a public good.
鈥淲e are not now dealing with a new technology,鈥� says report author of the University of Reading, UK. The crops have been studied for 31 years, and grown commercially for 20. 鈥淭he assumption it鈥檚 unsafe is no longer valid.鈥�
In the European Union, each new GM crop is assessed by the (EFSA). Crops are only approved for planting in Europe if a majority of EU states agree, and that seldom happens as the EU is split between countries that support and oppose GM crops. As a result, since 1998 European farmers have been allowed to grow only one GM crop, a variety of maize. The US has approved 96 since 1990.
Advertisement
Dunwell and his colleagues at the UK government鈥檚 say that it would be better if each country had its own regulator. That way, if EFSA approves a crop, nations could decide whether to allow it to be grown on their land.
The team has also sent the proposals to UK prime minister David Cameron. Earlier this year the country鈥檚 environment minister Owen Paterson also proposed loosening the regulation of GM crops in Europe.
Superweeds
The report, GM Science Update, says the health and environmental problems predicted by opponents of GM crops when they were first used . For instance, there are no reports of people becoming ill after eating GM food, and there have been very few confirmed cases of the added genes spreading to wild plants.
However, there have been some practical problems on farms because GM crops have been so widely used. About 80 per cent of the world鈥檚 cotton and soy now comes from modified crops.
The most widely used traits so far have been in-built resistance to weedkillers 鈥� most often glyphosate or Roundup 鈥� and to pests, often by giving the plant a bacterial gene that allows it to make Bt toxins. But now some weeds have become resistant to glyphosate, and some pests can defy Bt toxins.
These problems 鈥渁re not to do with GM per se, but with agricultural practices鈥�, says Dunwell. The latest GM crops resist several weedkillers and pests, so if for instance a weed becomes resistant to one of the weedkillers, farmers can spray it with something else without harming their crop.
鈥淎fter 20 years鈥� experience, we understand that we can manage the rate of evolution of the weeds,鈥� says co-author of the Sainsbury Laboratory in Norwich, UK
Going public
Jones says the extra regulatory requirements for GM crops, compared with crops produced by conventional breeding, can add as much as $20 million to the cost of getting a crop approved. As a result, only multinational companies can afford the approval process, solidifying those companies鈥� control of GM technology. But in recent years even multinationals like BASF and Monsanto have deserted Europe because it is so difficult and expensive to get crops approved.
The high cost also means that useful traits like drought-tolerance developed in academic laboratories can never be adequately tested or made publicly available, says Dunwell.
To remedy this, the team is suggesting the creation of a UK public body that would test crops with new traits to see if they work, and if they represent a public good. 鈥淧ubGM鈥�, as they call this body, would accept ideas for new areas of research from the public. The idea is to shift GM research away from multinational companies.
Opponents of GM crops are sceptical about that idea. Even if beneficial traits were successfully tested by PubGM, multinationals could still buy up patents on them, says Helen Wallace of , a non-profit group that monitors genetic technology.
