Well-known environmental campaigner Mark Lynas has used the Oxford Farming Conference as a platform to declare that farmers should be free to choose genetically modified (GM) technology if they want to.
He also demanded anti-GM protesters stop hijacking future food production.
Mr Lynas controversially changed from being a sceptic of GM to a supporter after studying the science involved.
He told the conference yesterday that "the GM debate is finished", adding: "We don't need to continue to discuss it. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food."
Earlier in the conference, Defra (the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) Secretary of State Owen Paterson told delegates: "We need to be able to translate research into new products, processes and technologies.
"When we're talking about innovation, we should consider GM. In 2011, 16 million farmers in 29 countries grew GM products on 160 million hectares. That's 11% of the world's arable land.
"To put it in context, that is six times larger than the surface area of the UK.
"I fully appreciate the strong feelings on both sides of the debate. GM needs to be considered in its proper overall context with a balanced understanding of the risks and benefits.
"We should not, however, be afraid of making the case to the public about the potential benefits of GM beyond the food chain, for example, significantly reducing the use of pesticides and inputs such as diesel.
"As well as making the case at home, we also need to go through the rigorous processes the EU has in place to ensure the safety of GM crops.
"I believe that GM offers great opportunities, but I also recognise we owe a duty to the public to reassure them that it is a safe and beneficial innovation."
Support for GM technology by the scientific community has been steadily growing. The European Commission's chief scientific advisor, Anne Glover, said last summer that GM organisms pose no greater risk than those farmed in a conventional way, adding: "There was no evidence GMs had any impact on human, environmental or animal health."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article