GM Science Review: Background

Text of Science Media Centre Press Release issued on 29 November 2002

Scientists welcome launch of science review of GM

Professor Julia Goodfellow, Chief Executive, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, said:

"We welcome this initiative as a way of gauging the full extent of scientific knowledge in this important area and I encourage all scientists working on GM and related fields to take part in this review. Science is not a black and white issue and it is vital that we take the full range of scientific and public opinions into our considerations for the future."

Professor Chris Pollock, Research Director, Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, said:

"I welcome any opportunity for open debate around the science of novel agricultural technologies, and I support the format that is being adopted. I believe that there is real value in helping the public to appreciate how scientists deal with uncertainty and differentiate between opposing views. The scientific community will also gain understanding of peoples concerns and perceptions of where the risks and benefits lie."

Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society, said:

"The Royal Society is strongly supportive of public debate on GM issues and has been at the forefront of this debate since 1998.

"It is crucial that this debate, which will range from the human health aspects of GM foods to the potential impacts of GM crops on the environment, is underpinned by sound science. Personally, I hope the debate will also extend to more general aspects of how new technologies of genetic modification can be best used to produce crops which reconcile environmental friendliness with consumer benefits. The Royal Society is encouraging all scientists to become actively involved in the debate."

Professor Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics, University College London, said:

"It's ironic that the British public are happy to accept stem cell research - which clearly may have ethical implications - but seem not willing to accept GM crops - which are almost certainly safe to eat. In The United States it's exactly the other way round. This just shows that the perception of science often stands apart from the science itself. Scientists often prefer to rely on the research - but of course the public must have a say - after all they are paying for it."

John Lawton, Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council, said:

"I welcome this review which will look at what we know, what we don't know and what we can agree on. Science is an important part of the GM debate, but it's not the only issue that society needs to consider - there are many other aspects to it. We need to ensure that we get the right science in the right place to help provide independent advice for this thorny issue."

Professor Chris Lamb, Director, John Innes Centre, said:

"I welcome this process as an opportunity for careful and thorough discussion about what modern plant science and, in particular, GM as a new breeding tool, can contribute to the economic and environmental sustainability of UK and world agriculture, food safety and security and the development of new "green industries".

Stephen Smith, Chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), said:

"We welcome the Government's determination to stimulate open and balanced debate on the GM issue, for too long the dialogue has relied on "sound bites not sound science". A rigorous, evidence based evaluation of the science together with thorough economic assessment will provide reliable information to enable the "grass roots public" to contribute fully in the debate process."

Professor Ian Crute, Director of Rothamsted Research, said:

"Coherent presentation of the science behind the production and exploitation of GM crops has been sadly lacking from the moment they first entered the public consciousness. The selective advocacy of politically motivated anti-GM pressure groups working through a scare-mongering media has consciously created a mystifying fog of misinformation embracing, without consideration, such disparate scientific fields as mammalian toxicology, molecular genetics and invertebrate ecology.

"Unlike their opponents, serious scientists have been reticent to pronounce in areas outside their specialism and, not surprisingly, have largely failed to present effective arguments substantiating the benefits of GM crops. But now there is no excuse; scientists and other interested parties are being provided with the opportunity to engage in rational debate and dispassionate analysis of the facts. I expect Professor King's GM science review panel to be authoritative. Nevertheless, its success will be measured by the clarity with which it can differentiate, for the layperson, substantiated scientific fact from mere opinion and speculation."

Professor Derek Burke, Chairman of the British Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes from 1989 to 1997, said:

"Foods derived by a process using genetic modification first appeared on the shelves of UK supermarkets in 1994, and since then a very large number of North Americans have eaten such foods with no demonstrable harmful effect. As the OECD Conference said in 2002, 'Many consumers eat GM food. No significant effects have yet been detected on human health.' That is still true; we have therefore an excellent baseline from which to conduct the debate."