Government comes under fire for its plans to prevent GM cross-contamination

GM proposals cause uproar

GM proposals cause uproar

Environmental campaigners and consumer groups launched a fierce attack on the government last night over its new plans to regulate GM crops in England.

The consultation document outlines suggestions for how contamination between GM and non-GM crops could be prevented when the technology eventually comes to the country.

But campaigners warned it was effectively giving the go-ahead to GM foods, and said the measures proposed were wholly inadequate to protect organic and non-GM products.

“This consultation is a complete sham. It highlights the lengths the government will go to back the biotech industry and pave the way for GM crops to be grown in Britain,” said Friends of the Earth (FoE) campaigner Clare Oxbarrow.

However, environment minister Ian Pearson denied it was giving a “green light” to the commercial production of GM crops in England.

“Our top priority is protecting consumers and the environment. We have a strict EU regime in place which ensures only GM crops that are safe for human health and the environment could be grown in the UK,” he said.

He added: “But we have a responsibility to be fully prepared if crops which meet the safety criteria are developed and grown here in future.”

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) consultation proposes strict separation distances between fields containing GM and non-GM crops, but critics warn that just 35 metres for oilseed rape is not enough.

The minimum distance for forage maize and grain maize are slightly larger, at 80 metres and 110 metres respectively, but campaigners warn cross-pollination through insects and wind can spread GM contaminated crops as far as three miles.

Defra also proposes that the UK adopt the European Union’s threshold of 0.9 per cent contamination for assessing whether a crop is GM or not, saying this would ensure GM farmers are not put under an “excessive burden” to protect surrounding crops.

But FoE are calling for a 0.1 per cent threshold, arguing that in Brazil such a measure is adhered to without any problems, and concerns have also
been expressed about the impact that the government’s proposals could have on the organic food industry.

Peter Melchett, policy director of industry body the Soil Association, warned: “If the government sticks to this policy, part of the prime minister’s legacy will be to leave a GM-contaminated country behind him.”

Today’s consultation also proposes that farmers growing GM crops need only inform their immediate neighbours, and appears to reject the suggestion of a public register of GM crops in England. However, it calls for stakeholder views on these issues.

But Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne warned: “This is another step in the government’s creep towards introducing unpopular GM crops into the UK.

“Commercial GM crops must be put on hold until we know they are safe for the environment and human health.”