As an interested member of the public, my comments on the
first report are as follows:
- overall the language of the report seems pro-GM commenting
on the pro-GM aspect first and then following up with the
- many of the Science Review Panel members have interests
in (and are paid by) agricultural groups such as Syngenta
and Monsanto. It is in the interest of these groups to promote
GM technology and hence their GM products and accompanying
herbicides etc. While I do not doubt their scientific expertise,
I question how independent some members of this panel are.
- many comments are made regarding how long GM crops have
been in existence, especially referring to the US but I do
not see any evidence of a long term research project to establish
the effects. In the pharmaceutical world, drugs are researched
for many years before being released into the market. Should
research not be done in the US (where this is in existence)
first before trialling here?
- I question why we are investing so much effort and finance
into GM. Given the environmental state of the world we should
be investing far more in improving the ecology of the land
through sustainable means. GM is not sustainable.
- who is demanding that the UK should have GM food? The public
clearly isn't (as the supermarkets have demonstrated); interested
scientists may want to see new techologies developed but why
not look to other means (as mentioned above); is it just the
commercial winners and hence their pressure onto the Government?
I am against GM and like the majority of the UK public, do
not wish to see it developed here - either pushed to us by
industry, the Government or foreign (US) policy manipulations.