The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
Paul Johnston
The Ecologist, 23 August 2011
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/1026452/response_why_a_deregulated_approach_to_gm_crops_is_deeply_flawed.htmlGreenpeace's chief scientist Dr Paul Johnston on why recent proposals to expand GM technology support a flawed agricultural system and serve the biotech companies with the greatest vested interests
In a recent Ecologist interview, the scientist leading the controversial trials of genetically modified (GM) potatoes in the UK, Professor Jonathan Jones, outlined his vision for the future of GM crops, proposing economic and policy changes that appear to be based on some sweeping assumptions and his own perceptions of the supposed benefits of these crops. In my view, Prof. Jones’ vision is deeply flawed in relation to its potential scientific, ecological and public policy impacts.
Professor Jones states that in the future, he expects about 90 per cent of several important staple crops, including maize and soy, to be genetically modified, and recommends that public sector funding should be used to help biotech companies further develop these, and other GM crop varieties. In addition, he suggests that the costs of regulation to the GM industry be reduced to zero, and that the products themselves be labeled to promote their (supposed) benefits.
Professor Jones' ambitions for the future of GM would undoubtedly prove highly lucrative for Mendel Biotechnology - which he co-founded and is a science advisory board member - which carries out contract research for the biotechnology giants Monsanto and Bayer. More troubling are the implications of Prof. Jones' suggestions for the conduct of robust science and the use of scientific information in informing policy and the effective regulation of GM crops.
Return to Article