Two American experts have
refuelled the controversy over genetically modified (GM) crops by saying no one
can be certain of the risks or benefits.
The scientists, from the US Environmental
Protection Agency, said that genetic engineering and selective breeding may not
have the same long-term effects.
"As more economically useful and
health-related genes are identified and isolated, it appears that the variety of
genetically engineered organisms will increase dramatically. This increase may
collectively represent an environmental risk," wrote LaReesa Wolfenbarger
and P R Phifer, in the journal Science.
Environmental campaigners have seized on the paper
as evidence that GM research is moving too fast. Pete Riley, food campaigner of
Friends of the Earth, said: "This review hits the nail very firmly on the
head and backs up what we have been saying for many years.
"The alleged benefits of GM crops are not
based on independent studies and there is hardly any research on the long-term
environmental risks.
"Why has the biotech industry been allowed to
grow commercial crops when the scientific case is so feeble? The biotech
industry is using us as guinea pigs and the environment as an open-air
lab."
The Environmental Protection Agency is now involved
in a dispute with the US Department of Agriculture, which has allowed the
commercial planting of thousands of acres of GM crops such as soya and maize.
No GM crops have been approved for commercial
planting in Britain, pending the results of "field trials" to assess
the impact. There is now growing consumer pressure in America for labelling to
beapplied to GM-derived food, as it is in Europe.
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |