Scientist insists EU backs funding of GM food research

The EU is not backing off from the funding of biotechnology research because of the controversy surrounding genetically modified foods, according to an Irish member of a key scientific advisory committee which approves GM research projects.

Contrary to claims - made mainly in British newspapers - the committee met this week and approved additional funding for GM projects under a £1.9 billion five-year programme, said Dr Jim Ryan of BioResearch Ireland.

This increased funding, under what is known as the Fifth Framework, reflected its belief in the importance of GM research, he said. There was never any question of the EU being brow-beaten into backing off from such work.

The programme is one of the most important in Europe. While it supports other areas of research, it has been funding major work on genetic modification as it applies to pharmaceuticals, diagnostic techniques and crop production.

It is believed that the failure of many proposals to get funding, because of intense competition, may have fuelled speculation about cutbacks reflecting growing political and public concern over the genetic engineering of plants. One application in eight is successful.

Green MEPs have stepped up their criticism of the new European Commission over responsibility for GM foods. With speculation that the Irish commissioner-designate, Mr David Byrne, will have ultimate responsibility, Dublin MEP Ms Patricia McKenna said confusion was rife, with up to four commissioners appearing to have a stake in GMO regulation.

At hearings last week the environment commissioner, Ms Margot Wallstrom, indicated that she would have ultimate responsibility. But it was clear Mr Byrne had a significant role to play, having responsibility for consumer protection.

The Greens are pushing for Ms Wallstrom. Ms McKenna said she "demonstrated a much greater appreciation of the public concern that surrounds genetic engineering and of the importance of precaution coming before trade."

She claimed Mr Byrne appeared to suggest that the precautionary principle was an optional extra and not a guiding rule.