It takes a brave man to speak out on unpopular subjects, like 
Sir David King did today, when he supported the need to use GM technology and research for future crops.
Still, as the comments were made in his last speech in his capacity as the government’s chief scientific adviser, he knew it was too good a chance to miss to put across his views.
This is a press release I have issued for NIAB, which welcomed Sir David’s vision:
NIAB WELCOMES GOVERNMENT SCIENTIFIC ADVISER’S SUPPORT FOR GM CROPS
The National Institute of Agricultural Botany has today welcomed an announcement made by Sir David King, (pic),the government’s chief scientific adviser, in support of GM technology and its research to help develop new crops.
Cambridge-based NIAB is the only plant science research organisation in the UK which has this year conducted research on GM crops, a field trial for blight resistant potato. There are none currently being carried out in Britain.
Prof Wayne Powell, NIAB’s Chief Executive and Director, hopes Sir David’s endorsement will be heeded by the nation. He believes Sir David was correct in warning about the future need for GM crops to cope with an increasing global population, water scarcity and potential food shortages.
Prof Powell said:
“GM science and technology provides huge potential benefits and we should be grabbing these opportunities with both hands. Our regulating framework is the tightest that exists and Sir David is correct in stating that there can be more risk involved with eating ordinary food than GM food.
“NIAB has competency, capability and independent governance which allows for development of this new technology to be done safely. Trials are carried out under very stringent conditions in accordance with DEFRA’s regulations. Our science based evidence can provide crucial information to help decision makers.
“Unless we grasp the technology and have confidence in the regulatory system, then we will go through a huge innovation bottleneck where opportunities that have been created are not going to be exploited. People are shying away from exploiting this technology, they are going abroad instead.
“GM technology is crucial as the way forward to help feed the world, particularly those in drought stricken countries like Africa, and our independent research is looking at ways of achieving this at a time when farmers face increasing challenges from drought stress and climate change.
“I also strongly believe that the food produced in the UK should be trialled and evaluated here, and not abroad. We have the scientific skills and I have every confidence that our scientists could lead the way in this.�
As you say, the idea of GM crops are not popular right now; there seems to be a suspicion about almost anything that “scientists” suggest these days. But once the proper checks and controls are in place, and understood, I honestly believe it is the way forward to feeding a hungry world. As I mentioned in a previous comment, imagine the prospect of nitrogen-fixing cereals, or crops inherently resistant to pests. All this could be just around the corner.
How he has the nerve to speak in support about something that nobody wants is beyond me.
J-L P: I don’t think it is true that “nobody” wants it, though I agree most are opposed, often through misunderstanding, mistrust, or gut-feeling. However, I really do believe that the day will come (and probably to not too far away) when we will embrace these technologies (including nuclear power) as the way forward. GM crops are already in wide use around the world, and I expect you have already unwittingly consumed some of the products.
Maalie, your comments are spot on. It’s important to focus on the facts rather than scaremongering.
curious if you have seen any of the vertical farming concepts; which also seem to offer intruiging potential for the future.
The problem with GM crops is that they repel the insects which feed on non-GM crops and so change the bio-system. This may simply be evolution but it means that we lose insects and butterflies along the way. Prof Powell would probably reply, “Who cares, if more people can be fed?” There’s the conundrum.
Hi Elle,
some genetic modification, like selective breeding may be desirable – but the argument will always be if we can achieve it with selective breeding why do we need GM …
weight loss can be achieved by dieting, foing under the knife and a tummy tuck or radical srgery might appear to be a quick remedy (often with horrifying effects) – and we do not know yet how far science is prepared to go with GM splicing.
After all we may all like more meat on our chickens – but we are all horrified by images of factory farming, where the chickens are fattened so fast, their legs cannot hold them up, and they are sitting festering in their own waste.
Mid you if GM could fatten rabbits like pigs, we might see more rabbit meat on supermarket shelves – And yet the plentiful availability ostrich meat and turkey meat has still not replace our love for ‘chicken’ meat.
So I guess GM is limited in what it wants to achieve. I guess if they could make ostrich meat taste like chicken, they’s still have to market it. You think McDonald’s would have been the one to market ostrich burgers, but I guess they have plenty of beef to mince anyway.
Crop (maize) resistance to draught, or potato resistance to blight … I can live with
I do think that NIAB could apease the public and minimize risks, by conducting crop tests in ‘enclosed’ environments – if the potential is so great – surely it’s worth the nominal extra cost of research in ‘biodomes’ – so that there is no risk of polluting the air or contaminating the land …
after all you already know how easily bird flu escapes from highly secure(?) ‘government’ labs