2012-05-15
EU´s hesitation makes scientists leave Europe
Research priorities in regard to the environmental impacts of agriculture are not directed in a productive way. This is concluded by four SLU researchers, Jens Sundström, Torbjörn Fagerström, Ulf Magnusson and Christina Dixelius, in a review of current risk research on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) published in the upcoming issue of the scientific journal EMBO reports.
Twenty-five years of risk research on GM crops have established beyond reasonable doubt that biotechnology is not per se riskier than conventional plant breeding technologies. Still, the approval process of GM crops within the EU is putting a massive regulatory burden on a technology that could enhance sustainability and is completely out of proportion compared with other science-based endeavours. The whole seemingly endless discussion about purported risks of GM crops is akin to the famous Monty Python sketch in which John Cleese is trying to return a dead parrot to shopkeeper Michael Palin, who, despite the evidence, insists that the bird is well, alive and “pining for the fjords”.
Instead, we need to highlight the opportunities missed by not accepting GM crops. These include lost revenues for farmers, breeding companies and consumers, brain drain and lost technology innovations, reduced agricultural productivity and sustainability, foregone health benefits, especially reducing malnutrition, and many more realized or expected virtues of GM crops.
Read the article here:
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/embor201259a.pdf
Written by:
Mikael Jansson