The panel has now answered a selection of questions. Thank you for particpating in our Q&A.

As many of the world’s poorest people are now unable to afford basic foodstuffs and the global population is set to expand dramatically over the coming years, is it time for governments to reassess blanket bans on GM foods? Advocates of genetically-modified crops argue that these people can only be fed if farmers are able to improve crop yields and extend the growing season. So do the arguable benefits of GM crops outweigh lingering doubts about their impact on the ecosystem? Can consumers’ safety be assured by scientists and producers calling for a change in policy? On July 9 between 2pm and 3pm BST, a panel of experts has answered your questions on GM crops.

Related content:
Podcast: Is GM the answer? Hear views from both sides of the divide and post your comments

.....................................................................................................................

As GM crops do not appear to show increases in yield how will they help food security? Any extra margins will undoubtedly be scooped up by middle men and conglomerates as they always are - food will be no cheaper. We cannot risk our food chain being in the hands of big business more than it is now. Food waste, culinary ignorance, distribution and politics are the current culprits. We need a peoples renaissance not GM revolution.
John Pawsey, Suffolk, UK

Pete Riley: John, I think you analysis of the food chain is pretty good. The agricultural knowledge and technology we already have at our disposal is sufficient to provide everyone with a balanced diet. What is lacking are the systems needed to deliver the right to a balanced diet for everyone. That includes people who are under nourished and people who are seriously over weight by dint of their diet and lifestyles. You are correct that the GM crops do not yield more than conventionally bred crops. Crop yield increases have come through traditional plant breeding and these continue to account for yield increases. See http://www.gmfreeze.org/uploads/89D_yields_briefing%5B1%5D.pdf.

The use of parents and plant breeders’ rights by seed and biotech corporations is in danger of restricting the access of plant breeders (may of whom are farmers) to the world’s genetic resources. The recently published International assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development(IAASTD)challenged governments, scientists and industry to reform R&D in food and agriculture so that it serves the needs of poor people much better than it does at present. See http://www.agassessment.org/docs/Global_SDM_050508_FINAL.htm

Julian Little: Some GM crops have been designed to increase yields, some have not. In reality, there are many examples of GM crops that increase yields such as Canadian oilseed rape (Canola) that outyields its non-GM counterparts by 20%. In many cases, yields increases are observed but these tend to be ”guarding” or ”realising” the potential yields that are already present. A good example of this is GM cotton which controls only the insects that are trying to bore its way into the cotton boll - in cases of severe cotton boll weevil, GM cotton can outyield non-GM by 50% or more.

In terms of who benefits, a recent Belgium study suggests that for current crops, 50% of the benefit is with the farmer, 25% goes to seed companies, distributors and agronomists, with the remainder 25% being captured by consumers in the form of stabilised food prices.

Jim Dunwell: The present range of approved GM crops on the market does not have an inherent ability to give better yields. They are designed to maintain yields with less inputs in the form of pesticides, and are simpler for the farmer. Thus they are popular with the farming community in many parts of the world and allow efficiencies of production. (Details of approved products are available from http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php. For EU details try http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/messages/200601.docu.html#8 and http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/)

Future crops with different properties, including better ability to use nitrogen, and with improved tolerance to stress and water limitation, are now being tested with very promising results. For more details of the variety of GM plants being tested in the USA refer to http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm and the EU (mostly Spain in 2008) go to http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/gmp_browse.aspx. Some of these should reach the market in the next few years.

Your comment about the food chain and big business is very relevant. Many people argue that it’s unfortunate there is not a stronger public sector in this area. I agree that we all have a responsibility to use the scarce resources with more care. Our diet was more limited, but nutritionally preferable, during the hardships of wartime. (I’m just about old enough to remember the end of food rationing in the 1950s.)

.....................................................................................................................

Why is the debate centered around having or not having GM crops when there has been considerable technological advances in improving plant yields to the same levels through the use of high tech soil management systems that can be cost effective even in the developing world?
Mike Wort, Buckinghamshire

Julian Little: What is clear is that GM is NOT the silver bullet for solving the world’s problems - there is NO silver bullet, no quick fix, no magic answer. So all options need to be considered when looking for a solution to producing enough food for the huge increase in the world’s population that is predicted by the UN. Can GM help? Yes. Can high tech soil management systems help? Absolutely.

Jim Dunwell: It’s true that there have been great improvements in yields of crops over the last 50 years through conventional breeding, and by careful husbandry of land. This should continue, and should be supported by government. Over recent years the public sector expertise in this area has been allowed to decline, and few young people are entering the agricultural sector.

Part of the discussion about the role of GM is how it can help to supplement this underlying genetic and agronomic base. GM technology does provide a series of different options, but any success in incorporating these new ideas will certainly always be dependent on the skills of plant breeders.

Pete Riley: Mike you have raised a very important subject. How we manage the soil in the future will decide on whether we can produce sufficient food. Soil science has been the poor relation of agricultural research for far too long. Public funding has been systematically cut for decades. Good root growth is one of the keys to a health and therefore high yielding crop and good soil management both traditional and high tech is vital. Organic matter consent is crucial in improving the water holding capacity and structure of the soil both of which encourages healthy root growth. Rainfall is also absorbed more effectively in a well structure soil which reduces run off and soil erosion. Well structured soils (the classical crumb structure) are easier to cultivate as well.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) published in April 2008 highlighted the need for good soil management and the need for farming to be multifunctional to achieve all the demands being placed on it, including mitigating the effects of climate change. Mike I am sure readers would appreciate it if you shared some of your ideas with them.

.....................................................................................................................

Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent. The study carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields. How do you reconcile the results of this study with the claims that GMO is necessary to meet growing demand?
Matt Larrabee, New York

Pete Riley: Matt thanks for drawing attention to this study. Independent studies of this type are what politicians need to make good decisions about the right direction to go in. One reason why GM crops yield less is because they need to divert energy into producing GM proteins that conventional plants don’t have to. The random insertion of the GM trait into the soya chromosomes, either by agro-bacterium method or ballistic method, could affect other gene functions or how genes interact with the environment. This could also cause suppressed yields. We need to know a lot more about genes and how they work before becoming reliant on GMOs to “feed the world”. At the moment it’s clear there is no evidence to support such a policy,

Julian Little: Yes, I read this article as well. When a colleague spoke to the originator of the research, he was told that his research suggested no such thing and had not even been set up to look at yields. That said, such pronouncements of the failure of GM arise from time to time. My simple answer is that every year, we see a double digit rise in the area of land that is use to grow a GM crop - up 12% last year to 114 million hectares in 2007 - an area almost four times that of the UK. I have yet to meet a farmer who has tried a new product, found that it did NOT work, and carried on using it!!

The reality is that there are a number of reasons to grow a GM crop: for some it is to increase his yields - GM oilseed rape in Canada outyields its non-GM counterpart by 20% every year; for others, it is about reducing the cost of producing food - the introduction of GM soya in Argentina has reduced the diesel use in ploughing by one third; for others, it is about guarding the yields that they have got - GM cotton farmers in India and GM maize farmers in Spain were used to regularly spraying to control boll weevil and European Corn Borer, respectively - having a crop that can resist such pests mean that the theoretical yield of their crops is much more likely to be realised in practice.

Jim Dunwell: I don’t know the details of this report, but it seems strange that farmers would continue to grow these GM varieties if they were achieving smaller yields and lower incomes. It is estimated from the latest US statistics that GM soybeans now comprise 92 per cent of total soybean cultivation in the country, with the area planted to the crop rising from 23.6 million hectares in 2007 to 27.7 m ha this year. An increase of more than 95 percent has been recorded in the states of Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, South Dakota and Nebraska. More information is available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/#2008-7-2.

If the report is correct then we can expect a rapid shift back to non-GM varieties, for which there is even a premium in some markets

.....................................................................................................................

Much of the technology and rhetoric for GMO crops is based in Northern Hemisphere countries, whereas much of the raw genetic material and need for yield improvements and food security lies in Southern Hemisphere countries. Why is there an emphasis on improving temperate crop technology and not tropical crop technology as well? Will investments into crop improvements in Africa seek to improve yields for local staples and nutrition? Please do not refer to the Golden Rice project which has no commercial application to date.
Gene Kim, Washington, DC

Julian Little: It is true that in the last 10 years there has been much work on temperate crops such as oilseed rape, sugarbeet, cotton, soy and maize. However these crops are also grown extensively in developing countries such as Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, China and India, with 11 million of the 12 million farmers who grow GM crops today living in these areas.

You may have recently seen in the news that a GM cassava which has been both nutritionally improved and which will have the cyanide-producing aspects of its metabolism turned off. Likewise, there are many projects that have exciting opportunities in terms of improving resource-poor agriculture. One example of this is the drought-tolerant maize for use in central Africa - such projects involve both private and public partners with intellectually property issues being waived by the private partners to ensure rapid and unfettered access to the technology.

Pete Riley: Gene, I think you hit upon a very important issue. Plant breeders and GM corporations have concentrated on a few commercial crops in the past few decades and staples such as millet and sorghum have received less attention. This is unfortunate because both are adapted to drier conditions. One factor in this has been the reduction in publicly financed plant breeding. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development(IAASTD) (http://www.agassessment.org/docs/Global_SDM_050508_FINAL.htm) highlighted the need to harness local knowledge in plant breeding and research on improving agricultural outputs in the Global South. They also called for a greatly increased role for women farmers.

Modern breeding techniques such as Marker Assisted Breeding can greatly help in developing improved varieties of staple crops if it carried out alongside farmers. The genepoools of crops must be available for all breeders and not become the intellectual property of corporations. Farmer need to be able to continue to develop local varieties suited to local conditions. Given the uncertainty about the weather and plant diseases that farmers face every year, the production of mixed variety seed lots is looking more sensible. Will it be a drought or a flood ?– seed lots could contain varieties that do well given either scenario. Despite the lack of resources progress has been made in several crops such as rice, millet and sorghum – the potential is far greater though.

Jim Dunwell: The emphasis to date on Northern Hemisphere crops comes directly from the commercial priorities of the companies involved, and the large investment needed to bring GM crops to market. In many ways it is unfortunate that the same amount of investment has not been available to improvements in tropical crops. In this context it is notable than the limited investment that could have made in this area has been deterred by the response/resistance within parts of Europe. There has been an unwillingness to commit funds to crops that might then be rejected by the developed world. Similarly, the call for expensive regulatory testing has acted as a financial barrier to entry for the so-called “orphan crops”. Indeed one (unintended) consequence of the very high cost of regulation has been to limit investment to the largest companies, and to inhibit small programmes in the public sector.

However there is considerable activity in a range of GM projects aimed at African crops. These include pest and disease resistance aw well as nutritional improvement. You can access information on global projects from http://www.isaaa.org/. For a discussion of issues about GM and Africa please see notes on a recent interview with Robert Paarlberg at Harvard (http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1723/).

One example of tropical GM crops is the recent news that as a penultimate step in regulatory procedure for commercialization of GM crops, the Government of India through its biotechnology regulatory body (GEAC) has approved experimental seed production of Bt brinjal (eggplant) hybrids. These are insect resistant lines.

.....................................................................................................................

The ENCODE project and other genetic scientists have called into question the basic assumption of the biotech industry -- that one gene expresses one trait. The science now indicates that genetics is far more complex and that there is much more to be learned about how the genome actually functions. Given this uncertainty, shouldn’t we be more cautious about releasing genetically engineered material into the environment and human bodies?
H Lowe, New York

Pete Riley: This is a very important issue to raise and one that has been pushed to one side by the proponents of GM crops and regulators. Thanks you for asking it. There is over whelming evidence that the one gene one trait model of genetics is no longer valid. Marcello Buiatti from the University of Florence explained: “The human genome has approximately 30,000 so called “coding genes” and these can code for more than 500,000 different proteins. Therefore, gene “ambiguity” - more proteins coded by a single gene - is very high, and is present at the level of transcription, between transcription and translation and also after translation due to post-translational modifications of proteins. Ambiguity, leading to plasticity of responses is made possible by the presence of many sophisticated mechanisms fixed throughout evolution – that’s part of epigenetics.”

The impact of external factors on gene function is also significant. Biochemical pathways are also being found to be far more complex than previously thought with enzyme functions being more complex. I would recommended the proceedings of a conference on epigenetics in December 2005 to learn more http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/277/2006-002-en.pdfs .

Julian Little: I am aware of this project. What is clear is that the vast majority of scientists who have looked at the impact of introducing single genes into plants recognise that the impact are both minimal and are much less important than the plethora of genes that are introduced by traditional and non-GM methods of breeding where potentially hundreds of genes are mixed. The subsequent breeding that occurs post-modification is closely scrutinised by both plant breeders, agronomists and scientists and is, of course closely monitored by the regulatory authorities!

.....................................................................................................................

GM crops are mainly based on genetic manipulation not yet tested extensively on the environment and its relations. Would it be wise to adopt GM crops on a worldwide scale without assessing possible ’contamination’ throughout the ecosystem and thus pose a risk even higher than that of food shortage?
Pedro Czar Dantas, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Pete Riley: Pedro, concerns about the environmental risks and GM crops are well placed. In the UK the government rejected three GM crops because of their indirect impact on biodiversity. In these cases the problems was that the weedkillers used on GM herbicide tolerant crops greatly reduced weeds in field and this removed the food supply and cover for insects and birds (mammals were not covered by the research).

Herbicide tolerant soya is being grown on huge areas in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay and so far I am not aware of any studies into the environmental impact of the crops in these countries. Glyphosate is being used in massive amounts especially as weeds are becoming resistant to it through over use. The knock-on effects on ecosystems could be considerable as the UK based research has shown. Allowing crops to be released into the environment without researching their long term impacts is very foolish.

Julian Little: The great thing about the current regulatory system is that products coming out of the process have been shown to be at least as safe as their non-GM counterparts.

Ten years commercial experience of growing GM crops by millions of farmers around the world has been studied by a multitude of scientists looking at the direct and indirect effects of adopting this technology. The overwhelming conclusion has been that the ecosystem in which GM crops are grown is not negatively affected.

Indeed, to date, positive environmental impacts observed to date include: growing of GM soy in Argentina requires a third less diesel use than pre-GM days; the use of GM cotton and soy in North America has reduced the need to plough the field, reducing the carbon footprint of this agriculture and conserving soil moisture; the use of GM cotton in India means that farmers do not have to spray to control their major pest, the boll weevil.

.....................................................................................................................

Every feeding test of a GM crop that has been carried out by independent scientists (as opposed to industry-sponsored research) has found serious damage to the health of the animals. Why do the industry and the UK Government ignore these tests and continue to assure us that GM food is safe?
Dr Eva Novotny, Cambridge

Jim Dunwell: The facts relating the quality and statistical reliability of many of these tests are a matter of dispute, as they have not been subjected to peer review. Every one of these reports, however, is considered in detail by the regulatory authorities which have responsibility for advising government. There has to be a strict, science-based, assessment of these issues. For an example please see http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfpgmsoya.pdf

Pete Riley: Eva you are right when you suggest that bad news about the safety of GM cops has been ignored or sidelined by regulators, government and industry. Indeed, the case of Arpad Putszai and Stanley Ewing’s work on GM potatoes there was an organized attempt to discredit them and prevent their work being published (in the form of external pressure on the editor of the Lancet). There is also evidence that significant results from industry’s own research has been ignored or passed off as unimportant by regulators The work of CRIIGEN in France where they looked at Monsanto’s own safety data on the maize Mon 863 (see http://www.criigen.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=118 ), illustrates this point. Going back a few years, the UK public hearings into Bayer’s Chardon LL GM fodder maize showed up areas where significant nutritional changes had been ignored by the regulators and exposed some inadequate experimental designs in a chicken feeding study (again not picked up by the regulators).

Incidentally Chardon LL was a cattle feed but was not tested on cattle in advance before being approved. Unfortunately, the European Food Safety Agency chooses to dismiss any challenge to their opinions despite the volume of evidence. The independence and rigor of regulatory systems needs urgent attention.

Julian Little: Dr Novotny, you will be aware that from time to time, there are scientists who question the safety of GM crops and food. However, the results of these studies never appear in bona fide science literature and are thus very difficult to follow, analyse or corroborate. This is very unfortunate since without peer review of the literature, it is very difficult to assess the validity of the claims. In reality, the multitude of literature that has been peer-reviewed, that is reproducible and which is therefore scientifically valid has supported the regulatory authorities views from around the world, that GM food currently consumed is at least as safe as its non-GM counterparts. Such a view has been supported in the UK, for example by the Royal Society and the British Medical Association, and by numerous other internationally acclaimed scientific bodies.

.....................................................................................................................

GM crops have been planted for over 10 years now outside the EU, without causing the environmental or health disasters that were predicted. Isn’t the ban of GM in the EU the product of scare mongering rather than a genuine science-based assessment?
Isabel, UK

Pete Riley: Isabel this opens up the question of difference between the EU and the USA and other GM regulators. In the UK, extensive filed trails of GM oilseed rape (winter and spring) and beet (all herbicide tolerant) found that the crops would cause further harm to farmland wildlife because they reduced food supply and cover. The Government decided not to approve these. In contrast they approved GM fodder maize but the company that developed it voluntarily withdrew the product – much to the Government’s surprise.

So the reason we don’t have GM crops growing in the UK has nothing to do with scare mongering and everything to do with a science – based assessment plus a business decision made by Bayer CropScience in relation to the maize. On food safety, there is a rigorous debate going on about how to assessment GM food safety and what significance should be placed on observed significant differences between GM and conventional crops.

A major part of the problem is the US and EU regulatory system which assumes GM crops are substantially equivalent to non GM crops. This ignores the possibility that genetic engineering can produce unexpected changes. At the end of 2006 research work in Australia revealed that taking a gene for an insect toxin from a bean and engineering into a pea change the shape of the protein to the point it caused allergic reactions in pea-fed mice but not bean-fed ones (http://www.pi.csiro.au/GMpeas/PI_info_GMpeas.pdf ). The EU and US regulatory system would not have tested the protein in this way as it would have been thought to be substantially equivalent to the bean protein. I know of no public health studies looking for health impacts of GM crops, eg increased allergic reaction, in the US since GM crops were first introduced into the diet. Indeed such work would be very difficult given that GM ingredients are not labelled so exposure to individuals would be very hard to assess.

Julian Little: Isobel, many people in Europe remain completely unaware of the success of the application of new technology in agriculture elsewhere in the world; many are equally unaware that there is one GM crop available for use in Europe. GM insect-resistant maize was grown in many countries around Europe last year including Spain (the biggest by far since they have a big problem with European corn borer), France, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Portugal. there have been a recent survey carried out by the European Commission of experience in Spain - they concluded that GM maize had been a major success story in this country with yield increases averaging over 10%. See http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/newsandevents/new.cfm?new=124 for details. The irony of this, of course is that this GM maize was registered for use in Europe in the late 1990s - no GM crop has been registered for use since for political reasons

Jim Dunwell: You’re quite correct about the safe usage over the last decade. The latest estimate for area of GM crops in the USA for 2008 is about 60 million hectares. In the EU there isn’t an outright ban, but an exceedingly slow approval process that means each application can take several years before being granted, and even then some countries impose an independent ban. In other words there is no political will to allow the applications to be judged only on the basis of science.

.....................................................................................................................

In short, how do we know with absolute certainty that GM crops are safe to grow, to process and to consume ? Surely there is insufficient historical data. Furthermore, how can GM farmers ensure non-contamination of other conventional and organically grown crops ?
Jules, London

Jim Dunwell: As is often pointed out, they can be no such thing as complete safety in any aspect of life, including food consumption. People can choke to death on food, as well as dying from malnutrition. We can only rely on the best advice and experience gained from agriculture and food science over many decades. Food from GM plants has been consumed by tens of millions of people since its introduction, without any confirmed harm.

As regards pollen dispersal from existing GM crops, then this occurs to the same extent as with non-GM crops. For example, there is evidence of a small amount of gene flow from conventional oil seed rape into wild relatives in the UK. This has been occurring since these crops were first cultivated centuries ago. The issue relating to any possible environmental harm is always considered before GM crops are grown in the field, or indeed approved for commercialisation. Therefore, there has to be a policy of coexistence between different type of crops, and farmers.

I suppose the above question would also or partially answer the one below

Pete Riley: Jules thanks for raising this question which really relates to what level of risk is acceptable. Because GM crops are traded globally, billions of people and farm animals could be eating them so all the more reason to be certain about safety. Safety data for GM crops is based on short term feeding studies. Only one study involving people has been published and that showed GM traits had transferred to gut bacterium. In the USA, where people unknowingly consume GM crops because GM ingredients are not labeled, there are no published studies looking at public health since GM crops were first introduced. Allergic reaction to GM proteins is an area of concern and so far we do not have a fool proof test for this. In my judgment, we need more data than we have at present to pronounce GM crops safe. Contamination, either through cross pollination in the field or accidental or careless co-mingling of seeds or harvested crops, cannot be avoided and at present non GM farmers and organic farmers are picking up the cost. The likes of Monsanto are very keen to sue farmers in the USA for re-sowing their GM seeds saved from the previous crop but not very keen of paying compensation when other people’s crops are contaminated. A certain amount of double standards here..

Julian Little: The question of absolute safety is always an issue. How can we be certain anything is safe. In the end, you have to carry out all of the tests demanded of the regulators. The results are independently verified around the world and if appropriate, your crop can be registered for use, or the food can be registered for consumption. The overwhelming evidence is that current GM crops and foods on the market are safe.

In reality, over 2 trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been consumed without one sign of the harmful effects predicted by the campaigners.

.....................................................................................................................

Since it’s known that the food crisis is not a matter of production but mostly of access, price and distribution, how can privatizing further food help with these issues? And i.e. why should the prevention of autonomous seed production help farmers with low income?

Giorgio Marini, germany

Jim Dunwell: I don’t agree that the food crisis is not a matter of production, although there certainly is a requirement for better access and distribution. Production will have to increase in face of a growing population and an expanding middle class in developing countries, where more people are moving to a diet with more meat (that requires more land).

However, using GM technology to help improve or stabilise yields does not mean further control. Many of the GM techniques are now available as open source systems and can be used by any group, in the academic or public sector, with suitable expertise. (eg http://www.bios.net/daisy/bios/home.html).

I agree that the concept of preventing seed viability as a method to restrict access to germplasm is not helpful. However, there is no such product at present.

Pete Riley: Riley Giorgio’s your question refers to the growing ability of seed corporations to charge royalties on farm saved seeds and in the case of GM seeds prevent farmers saving seeds altogether. Millions of farmers save seeds every year and have done for generations. This helps conserve the huge gene pool of cultivated crops and for local varieties adapted to local climate, soil and pests to be developed, It also saves them many.

Corporations on the other hand mass produce seed lots with relatively narrow genetic bases and seek laws to prevent the free use of seeds from the next generation. Eventually they may resort to Genetic Use Restriction technologies (GURTs) (eg terminator technology) which are genetically modified to prevent farm save seeds from germinating. At present there is an international agreement that prevents GURTs being used. There is a clear need to develop farmer lead, publicly funded planted breeding programmes for staple crops backed by the best scientific advice and techniques available to conventional plant breeder such as Marker Assisted Breeding (MAB0. MAB enable plant breeder to identify plants which contain desired traits before crossing takes place.

Julian Little: Giorgio, you are right when you say that many of the problems today regarding food security in many countries are not a matter of production, but it is also true to say that access and price are also functions of supply and demand - the best way to reduce prices and help with access is to increase supply and reduce spoilage. In many countries such as India, as well as many parts of Africa, pest destroy over 40% of a crop (and sometimes a lot more when infestations are present). Most people would accept that giving people in these countries access to high quality seeds, including GM seeds that are resistant to insect attack, is a great way of empowering them - to produce more food themselves is a far better option than providing food aid. Should it be the private sector that provides that access? Well, up to now, only companies with enough resources have been able to surmount the number of regulatory hurdles that are put in the way of a GM crop. Incidentally, the second largest country in terms of public investment in GM in China - they realised the potential of this technology in agriculture a long time ago and have invested heavily in it.

.....................................................................................................................

More about the panelists:
Julian Little is public & government affairs manager of Bayercrop Science and chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, an industry group promoting a balanced view on GM crops in the UK.
Pete Riley is campaign director for GM Freeze, an alliance of UK organisations calling for a moratorium on the use of GM in food, farming and forestry.
Jim Dunwell is professor of plant biology at the University of Reading who spent 10 years in the commercial sector at Zeneca Plant Scienceshe, where he was responsible for an international programme on the development and exploitation of transgenic crops.