Each Member State in the European Union will decide whether it approves growing 
GM crops in its own country. My MEP Robert Sturdy, who is a farmer and sits on the Agriculture Committee, believes it is crucial that full scientific impact tests are carried out to enable rational decision making.
It is impossible to argue against that, and we should not let scaremongers dominate the serious debate which is needed on this controversial topic.
Here are Robert’s views on this subject which were made following a conference on GMOs in Brussels this week:
“As a member of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, I have long campaigned for a fair, honest and balanced debate on the commercial production of GM crops in Europe. I welcome assurances that the Commission will undertake full scientific assessment of the effects of GMO before initialising any kind of legislative review.
“Too often we have seen the formidable force of Europe’s green lobby dominate the agenda without comprehensive scientific assessment and it is time to disregard unfounded prejudices and fears and approach this subject with an open mind. We need to evaluate the evidence on this very emotive subject very carefully and rationally.
“I campaigned hard against ludicrous legislation to withdraw vital crop protection chemicals from the European market place. The Commission refused to carry out a full EU wide impact assessment and while we were successful in watering down the proposals, we cannot let such important regulations, whether for or against GMOs, go through without a clear and detailed understanding of the full scope of the situation.
“The United States has been commercially cultivating GM crops for more than 10 years now and if we want to become a competitor on the global market place and avoid becoming reliant on overseas production and supply, we must start to consider all our options. We must encourage research and development, be open to investment opportunity and share information and expertise. The current economic downtown, a potential global food crisis, concerns about providing our future energy requirements, and reduced land availability are all valid reasons to at very least explore the costs and benefits of diversifying agricultural production.”
Mrs H, Starving people with hungry bellies want food, regardless of the concerns you wish. I enjoy locally produced food too, but not everyone around the world is able to grow conventional crops in the conditions needed for this, especially drought ridden areas. So what is the alternative? Starve? Or turn to science for help, but ensure it is proven to be safe first.
Ah, a farmer in my experience there are few of them who care about anything other than making the most money they possibly can out of their land, in their shoes who can blame them but who wants food like America, the perfect and tasteless apple etc., why should we be desperate to follow them?
Surely any “potential global food crisis” is affected by world population and emmigration?
We could have a situation where man circumvents natural population controls and so has to use unnatural methods to feed the result, ergo man plays God. Bound to fail.