Felicity Lawrence, in her article on the Royal Society's science-based study on food security, reported the comments of the anti-GM lobby, which claimed that the research would be "of limited value" and questioned why it was needed (It is too late to shut the door on GM foods, 17 October).
The research was needed, however, and should be welcomed, because food security is one of the biggest challenges we face, and we must find ways in which to produce more food while continuing to reduce the impact our agricultural practices have on the environment. Britain has a key role to play in helping to deliver this solution; however, as widely acknowledged, our current methods of production will not be sufficient to meet the increasing demand.
Lawrence wrote of the "concentration of corporate power" regarding GM crops. In fact, GM technology has done much to empower small farmers – over 90% of those who choose to use GM crops are small-scale farmers living in developing countries. They grow them because they work, contributing to exactly the kind of "sustainable intensification" which the Royal Society called for – producing more food from a lighter environmental footprint.
Additionally, it's worth noting that GM technology is highly accessible to small as well as large companies, and to university and public sector researchers, who have already developed GM crops of great potential value, such as virus-resistant papaya, insect-resistant vegetables for India, and vitamin-enriched "golden" rice.
A recent Belgian study reported that "on average, two-thirds of the global benefits are shared 'downstream', ie among domestic and foreign farmers and consumers, while only one-third is extracted 'upstream', ie, by biotechnology developers and seed suppliers." In addition, a study published by Terri Raney, senior economist of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, recently pointed out: "The benefits are shared by consumers, technology suppliers and adopting farmers, although non-adopting farmers are penalised as their competitors achieve efficiency gains they are denied."
With that sentiment in mind, Britain should be pursuing a policy that recognises the demonstrable benefits that agricultural technology, including GM, can bring.
If we are serious about allowing UK farmers to produce more food at a fair price to consumers while safeguarding our natural resources, they must be given the freedom to choose modern, efficient farming methods based on tried and tested science.
Sadly, the article gave voice to those scaremongering about GM crops (particularly those who question the crops' safety, even though more than two trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been consumed, without a single substantiated example of harm to health). We need science-based decision-making, something our politicians clearly understand. The world has moved on, and it's time the anti-science activists did too.