It would be wrong to assume that the decision of the European Parliament to lift the EU-wide ban on the growing of genetically modified (GM) crops represents a major breakthrough in a prolonged stalemate.
The Parliament’s support for the EU Commission’s proposals to allow member states to decide whether to grow GM crops begs more questions than answers, and is already being viewed as a complex muddle.
Member states can now decide against GM crops on grounds including ethical and socio-economic issues, but not on environmental or safety considerations. In effect, this means national governments can block cultivation of GM crops whether or not they are approved at EU level. Bans can be based on non-scientific grounds.
Characteristically, views on the EU decision represent the polarised passion that has surrounded the debate for decades.
The EU Parliament’s decision has opened up major quandaries, not least that the new regulations would not prevent the free circulation of GM products into Scotland, and deal with inadequate labelling.
The UK Government will encourage the growing of GM crops and the use of new technology, while the Scottish Government is implacably against them.
Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead remains adamant that GM crops would sully Scotland’s reputation for quality produce and jeopardise the country’s ‘green’ image. In particular they could cause endless harm to the Scottish whisky industry.
But the fact is that GM crops enter Scotland as food, animal feed and biofuels.
NFU Scotland has repeatedly called for a new, science-based debate on the subject.
The union has also recognised that Scotland’s world-leading research facilities could play a key role in informing any debate, and are well placed to decide in an unbiased, scientific manner on whether GM or any emerging biotechnology has a place in the way Scottish food is produced.
This is at the heart of the matter, and the decision of the EU Parliament will do nothing to bring the essential science into the debate.
The question is whether the proposals, which are to be implemented in the spring, will have an impact on the current approvals and authorisations process which are cumbersome.
Under the new system there is a real risk that the science behind the role of GM crops is lost. At a stroke this would devalue the debate, and rob the whole issue of a dispassionate and sound assessment.
Leaving the final decision to EU member states could be a recipe for confusion. This approach fails to take account of changes in administrations, with the potential for different interpretations of GM policy at every election. This is a real risk in devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
If individual governments set their own coexistence targets it could produce a plethora of separate policies throughout the EU, with a detrimental impact on farmers, food producers and consumers.
While the Scottish Government is quick to point out that there is no demand from consumers and supermarkets for GM produce, there are some key practical issues around the enforcement and policing of controls if Scotland and England take different approaches which is highly likely.
Behind it all, there is, however, a growing sense of inevitability about the increased use of GM crops.
Supermarkets are moving away from their previous GM-free policies, and GM is gaining in influence and status around the world.
Countries which hold to the GM-free approach will not be able to block imports and restrict free trade.
If that inevitability proves to be unstoppable it is all the more important that future discussions and options are underpinned by science and not emotion.
There is a role for scientists to help agriculture develop to meet the awesome challenges of the future, not least aiming to feed nine billion people worldwide by 2050.
There is urgency in dealing with this against a backdrop of pressure on natural resources, unpredictable weather patterns and the need to manage chemical inputs more carefully.
Two years ago scientists at the Rothamsted Research Centre made a telling and timeless point about their GM research: “We do not see how preventing the acquisition of knowledge is a defensible position in an age of reason”.