FSA accused of wasting money on GM debate

Helen Wallace, the director of GeneWatch UK, resigned from the FSA’s ‘GM Dialogue’ steering group, accusing the agency of running ‘nothing more than a PR exercise on behalf of the GM industry’ as she went.

In her resignation letter, she expressed her belief that the process ‘would be a significant waste of £500,000 of taxpayers’ money’.

Her resignation was prompted by concerns that the biotech umbrella body, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, was exerting excessive influence on the steering group.

Dr Wallace cited  Freedom of Information requests showing the FSA met with ABC in September 2009 to discuss a ‘GM public engagement programme’. She said the answers showed ABC gave its backing to the initiative and told the FSA GM ‘must be presented as an option within the wider context of food security as part of a solution to feeding a growing population’.

“The industry also suggested edits to a draft FSA report to the Food Strategy Task Force, which claims that lack of demand and rising costs will drive out non-GM feed supplies and that GM and non-GM feed should no longer be segregated,” Dr Wallace said.

She said that in a subsequent report, Defra and the FSA supported the industry’s line that ‘zero tolerance of unapproved GM crops in the EU threatens food supplies’, while this was also reflected in background materials provided to the GM steering group by the FSA.

Dr Wallace insisted that, ‘in reality, there is no shortage of GM-free feed supplies’, although she claimed biotech giant Monsanto was seeking to restrict the access of Brazilian farmers conventional soybean seeds.

“I remain convinced that the FSA process was set up from the outset to provide free “reputation management” to the GM industry at taxpayers’ expense,” she said

The FSA expressed ‘regret’ at Dr Wallace’s decision. But it said the steering grouphas reiterated its commitment to holding a’ well-balanced dialogue’ with the public about the issues surrounding GM food.

“This dialogue presumes no particular outcome,” the agency said in a statement. “The issues surrounding this topic are important to the future of agriculture and food production. Meanwhile, everyone has to assess the risks and benefits of the food they choose to eat.

“Consequently, the steering group believes it is important that members of the public are given the opportunity to participate in a dialogue in which the views and arguments expressed by a wide variety of stakeholders are aired and discussed.”

But Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett has written to FSA chairman Jeff Rooker calling for the process to ‘wrapped up’, as it can no longer be considered ‘impartial’.

Dr Julian Little, chair of Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), expressed ‘disappointment’ that Genewatch had used Dr Wallace’s decision ‘as a PR stunt to scaremonger and promote unfounded myths’.

He said ABC ‘stands by the need’ for GM to be presented as an option within the food security debate.  “We need to increase food production in a sustainable way and we should all be working together to find the best solutions, rather than have tit-for-tat arguments that are not addressing the pressing public policy challenges we face,” he said.

Have your say

Please do not complete the following form field for security reasons.

Name

E-mail

Comment

Post as

Anonymously

Display name