The 'Frankenfood" myth must not block progress What was most surprising about Owen Paterson's thoughtful speech yesterday on genetically modified food was that it even needed to be made at all. The Environment Secretary wants to reopen debate about the merits of planting GM crops in an effort to lift what amounts to an effective ban inside the European Union. Yet the very idea that an organisation representing some 500 million people should simply turn its back on a technology with the potential to increase food production is extraordinary. As Mr Paterson pointed out, even though the EU has licensed just two GM crops, it actually imports huge quantities of genetically modified animal feed from around the world. It is, therefore, no longer possible to say that the poultry and eggs we eat are GM-free. But why does that matter? Opposition to GM focuses principally on the alleged risk to health and the environment from these crops and their produce. Yet as Mr Paterson observed, the EU has funded more than 50 projects on GM safety over the past quarter of a century, and found no scientific evidence associating it with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety. As Prof Anne Glover, the European Commission's chief scientist, has said: "There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health." Yet despite this, opponents continue to promote the idea that GM causes cancers or catastrophic plant mutations. For too long, this debate has been dominated by an unscientific distrust of biotechnology - perhaps understandably, in the wake of the BSE scandal and other food scares down the years. Mr Paterson was at pains to debunk some of this "Frankenfood" mythology; though his task was hardly made easier by the refusal of a Downing Street spokesman to say on a total of 10 occasions whether David Cameron would eat GM food or give it to his family. With the world's population due to rise by another two billion over the next 50 years, the EU's risk-averse attitude cannot be sustained. Other parts of the world, notably the Americas, recognised this long ago, and GM crops are now routinely planted there. Europe - and, by extension, Africa, where countries fear being shut out of the EU market - are being left behind. If properly monitored GM crops can improve yields, protect against pests and give children nutritional benefits they would not otherwise receive, then it can only be a superstitious fear of the new - and internal EU politics - that is preventing their use. No one is suggesting that GM is the only answer to the problem of feeding the world. But it must be one of them.