The Government's public debate on Genetically Modified (GM) crops staggered on today, with the announcement of those scientists chosen to form the Science Review Panel, a select body of experts charged with overseeing the Science Review strand of the debate.
Dr. Doug Parr, Greenpeace Chief Scientist, said, "The opening statements announcing the formation of the Science Review Panel are unimpressive. They give little hope that a robust or impartial analysis of the science of GM, flowing from the concerns of the public, is likely. Indeed it already looks like spinning of pro-GM propaganda. However, it is important to remember that the real debate on GM is taking place amongst the general public - it would be nice if any of the three strands of Government debate could join in with it."
Specifically, Greenpeace note that:
- The Government Chief Scientist, Professor David King, has appointed a number of well-known and vocal advocates of GM, yet very few scientists who could be considered sceptical or even questioning.
- Whilst the safety of GM foods remains a key issue with the public, the only food safety experts appointed to the panel are already closely involved with the Government's food safety committee, the ACNFP. This committee has repeatedly stressed that GM foods are safe - if the Science Review asks the same questions with a similar mindset it will come up with the same unsatisfactory answers.
- The press notice for the Review Panel vastly overemphasises the role of NGOs in the creation of the panel. It cites seven groups as having been consulted, including GeneWatch, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, yet collectively these groups were only allocated 2 nominations out of the 27 places on the panel.
- The quotes prepared by the Science Media Centre come almost entirely from pro-GM scientists. Greenpeace is unaware of any critical scientists being approached to offer quotes. The Review Panel has stressed the importance of considering the views of the public, and a truly worthwhile public debate must do this. The Science Media Centre has singularly failed to do this, maintaining in the process an outmoded version of the relationship between science and society.
Notes to editors:
- The "GM public debate" is meant of consist of 3 strands; an economics strand, a science strand and a public debate. The public debate element has already been roundly criticised by independent academics and even the Government'' Central Office of Information has accepted that with current funds and timescale it will not offer value for money. The Scoping note for the Economics strand, run by the Prime Minister's strategy unit has been roundly condemned by many groups for its narrowness of focus and lack of sophistication in understanding the complex interleaved issues of GM crops, and for its bias in favour of GM. Today's announcement is the first substantive one on the science strand.
Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255
