Evening Standard (London - Letter to the Editor)
Monday, 1st February 1999By Lord Reay
Food Debate: Let's Hear All The Facts
The House of Lords select report on genetic modification of crops, published last week, did not claim "untold benefits" and adopted a more cautious approach to the technology than your report (Experts call for a total ban on Frankenstein food, 26 January) suggested. While recognising that the technology held the promise of substantial benefits, the committee, which I chaired, also considered that there were potential dangers, particularly for the environment, and for that reason proposed a strengthening of the existing regulatory system. We recommended, among other things, the creation of a new strategic committee to consider the longer-term cumulative effects on the environment and wildlife of growing GM crops, and the monitoring by an independent body of any crops grown commercially.It would surely be to the advantage of the environment if it could be firmly established that herbicide-tolerant or pest-resistant crops resulted in the application of fewer chemicals by the farmer. This is also in the interest of the farmer and explains why, in the US and Canada, soya, maize and oilseed rape producers are converting so rapidly to GM varieties.
Potential advantages to the consumer include lower prices because of lower production costs, improved nutritional qualities and taste, and the removal of allergic properties from foods such as peanuts. Improved yields are also likely.
House of Lords committees are independent, investigative bodies whose conclusions are reached on the basis of evidence from all interested parties and those with special expertise. We welcome the debate our report has helped to stimulate. But the public needs to hear all sides of the argument in order to make a balanced judgment.
Lord Reay, House of Lords, SW1.
Monsanto in the UK | Biotech Primer | Knowledge Centre | Discussion
About Monsanto | Links | Comments & Questions | Home | News
Copyright Monsanto Company