UK Government ministers want GM crops on supermarket shelves by the end of the decade after declaring they are ‘categorically’ safer than conventional food.

The UK Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson MP, made the extraordinary claim that millions of children in the developing world are ‘dying or going blind’ because the controversial practice has not been more widely adopted.

He blamed European reluctance to grow ‘Frankenfoods’ for ‘generating unwarranted resistance to the technology in the parts of the world’ that need it most.

In a statement Mr Paterson said:

… Over the last 15 years… every attempt to deploy Golden Rice (modified to boost Vitamin A) has been thwarted and in that time seven million children have gone blind or died.

… I think all those who have thwarted the attempts to bring this in, for free, should reflect those are real young people.

… Young people will wake up this morning able to see and they will go to bed blind for life. Some of them will die today.

His bold claims that GM crops are safer and would save lives were dismissed by critics as ‘hysterical’ and ‘emotional nonsense’, which deflects from more sustainable ways of improving food security.

Earlier this year, the International Rice Research Institute, which is working on the Golden Rice project, denied reports that it was available for commercial planting, saying it has yet to pass safety tests or prove it could reduce vitamin A deficiency.

Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch, an organisation which campaigns to ensure any use of GM is in the public interest, said: ‘Owen Paterson has lost the plot when he starts claiming that GM food is safer than the food we all eat every day.

Dr Wallace continued:

… Genetic engineering can introduce new proteins into food or cause unexpected changes that are not fully understood and it is important that people can avoid such foods if they don’t want to eat them.

… Claims that critics of GM are killing babies everywhere in the world are verging on hysteria. A decision on whether to grow Golden Rice will be made in the Philippines, not Europe. It is in any case an unproven approach to tackling vitamin A deficiency and better ways exist to stop children growing blind.

Peter Melchett, the policy director at the Soil Association, said: ‘Paterson is simply ignoring the science when claiming GM crops are safe when there is no scientific evidence to support that statement… And his claims that millions of people have died in developing countries because efforts to grow Golden Rice have been thwarted is emotional nonsense. No one in Europe had any control over GM Golden Rice and therefore, no way of stopping it.’

Due to public concern, there are only a handful of products containing GM-crops currently available on British high streets.

For the record, the Prime Minister, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, and David Willetts, the Science Minister, have all voiced support for the controversial technology. Many scientists, too, have also voiced their support for the technique.

But a British Science Association study showed public support for ‘Frankenstein foods’ declining from 46 per cent in 2002 to only 27 per cent now.

Various campaign groups have also raised concerns over ministers’ secret meetings with GM lobby groups – details of which emerged following freedom of information requests.

Currently, there are no commercial GM crops in Britain, but livestock is commonly reared on imported GM feed. So far biotech firms have been deterred due to tough European regulations.

Mr Paterson, a long-standing advocate of GM technology, wants to see an easing of the restrictions. He said he wants to see the controversial produce on British supermarket shelves before the end of the decade or ‘as soon as possible’.

Mr Paterson delivered his statement from the Rothamsted Research Centre in Hertfordshire, which is conducting the only active GM crop trial in Britain. He insists the technology was safer than conventional farming methods.

Regardless of the view in Westminster, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales remain firmly opposed to GM.

An analysis of claims made by the Environment Secretary:

PUBLIC HEALTH

Claim: GM food is ‘probably safer’ than the meals we eat today. ‘There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health,’ said Mr Paterson.

Reality: In May 2011, independent doctors in Canada reported that toxins implanted into GM crops to kill pests were reaching the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies.

Ninety-three per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent of umbilical cords showed traces of the chemicals, probably ingested by eating meat, milk and eggs from livestock fed GM corn.

There is no conclusive evidence about the health effects, but these toxins could conceivably trigger changes in the body, including allergies, miscarriages, abnormalities and even cancer.

GOLDEN RICE

Claim: This modified crop – which developing countries have been reluctant to accept because of fears over GM – contains high levels of Vitamin A, which can protect the eyesight.

Mr Paterson’s emotive claim was that: ‘Over the last 15 years… every attempt to deploy Golden Rice has been thwarted and in that time seven million children have gone blind or died.’

Reality: Children do not go blind overnight through a lack of Vitamin A in their diet. In any case, the same vitamin is available more cheaply through many other natural foods such as green vegetables. Doctors can also offer cheap supplement tablets where there is evidence of a problem.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Claim: GM farming is good for the environment. ‘There is a very strong environmental case for GM,’ said Mr Paterson. ‘We can farm more efficiently, using new technology and using less land. It gives a wonderful opportunity to free up land for wilderness and forestry.’

Reality: Evidence from UK trials and commercial cultivation in the US points to real damage to the ecosystem.

British farms were planted with crops of oilseed rape and beet that had been genetically modified to make them immune to heavy spraying with a powerful weedkiller.

The results, published in 2003, revealed this spraying not only wiped out weeds, but also wild plants and insects. Butterfly numbers were down almost a quarter in some areas.

One strain of GM corn – Mon 810 – has been created by US biotech firm Monsanto to include a toxin which kills pests. Poland banned the crop last year because its pollen was believed to be harming bees. It is also banned in Germany, France, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, and Luxembourg.

PESTICIDES

Claim: GM crops are better for the environment because farmers use fewer pesticides.

Reality: Evidence from the US suggests that initial reductions in the use of chemicals on GM crops are now being reversed.

A study by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University, found the weight of chemicals used on US farms has increased by 404 million lb since GM was introduced in 1996.

Professor Benbrook warned: ‘Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GM crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 per cent.’

SUPERWEEDS AND SUPERBUGS

Claim: ‘Thanks to biotechnology, farmers around the world have been able to protect yields, prevent damage from insects and pests and reduce farming’s impact on the environment,’ said Mr Paterson.

Reality: Weeds and insects sprayed with chemicals on GM farms in the US have evolved to become immune to them.

As a result, superweeds are now so rampant in some areas that growers have resorted to machetes, flame throwers and defoliant chemicals used during the Vietnam war. The biggest threats are giant ragweed and pigweed, which grow at a rate of more than one inch a day and reach a height of 10ft.

YIELDS

Claim: High-yield GM crops will save billions from starvation: ‘At this very moment there are one billion people on this planet who are chronically hungry,’ said Mr Paterson.

‘Are we really going to look them in the eye and say we have the proven technology to help, but the issue’s just too difficult to deal with, it’s just too controversial?’

Reality: Research published in the last few days shows that increases in crop yields have been much greater in countries which have not adopted GM.

Yields of maize or corn in Europe, where farmers have rejected GM, have risen more quickly over the last 30 years than those in the US. Yields of oilseed rape have always been higher in Western Europe than Canada. This gap has grown since Canada started cultivating GM varieties.

The research was carried out by a team based at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, and published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.

INDIAN COTTON FARMERS

Claim: Growing GM cotton has been of huge economic benefit to poor communities in India. ‘It has been a massive boon to some or the least advantaged people in the world,’ said Mr Paterson.

Reality: Prince Charles has pointed out the high rate of suicide in India among farmers growing GM cotton.

Speaking in 2008, he highlighted the ‘truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties.’ He has been accused by the GM lobby of being ‘Luddite’ and ‘ignoring’ the potential benefits of GM crops to feed the Third World.

Related:

• Research suggests GM diet ‘can lead to disease in pigs’…
• Environment Secretary says GM farming would save the countryside…