A CONTROVERSIAL decision to ban the cultivation of GM crops in Scotland was not based on scientific evidence, Nicola Sturgeon has admitted.
The First Minister said the move, announced last month, took into account "potential wider economic ramifications" for the food and drink industry.
Her comments were described as "flabbergasting" by the Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser, who said they raised questions about the role of specialist scientific advisers attached to the Scottish Government.
The ban took Scotland's scientific community by surprise when it was announced by Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead.
Mr Lochhead argued it would protect the "clean, green" reputation of Scottish produce at home and abroad.
But in an open letter to the minister, around 30 organisations and research institutions, including the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Roslin Institute and the European Academies Science Advisory Council voiced their concerns about the "negative impact" a ban could have.
They warned it risked "constraining Scotland's contribution to research and leaving Scotland without access to agricultural innovations which are making farming more sustainable elsewhere in the world."
It later emerged ministers were unable to consult the Scottish Government's chief scientific adviser because the post has lain vacant since last year.
Ms Sturgeon was drawn into the row last week when she failed to clarify whether Professor Louise Heathwaite, the lead scientific adviser to Mr Lochhead's rural affairs and environment department, had been consulted prior to the announcement.
Replying to a letter from Mr Fraser, she said the Scottish Government wished to take advantage of changes to EU rules allowing countries to opt out of growing GM crops that have been approved for cultivation.
She wrote: "The science and the decision on the suitability of a GM crop for a particular area are quite distinct.
"The decision that the Scottish Government took, therefore, was not one based on scientific considerations but, rather, one which took into account the potential wider economic ramifications that growing GM crops might have for Scotland."
She said Professor Heathwaite "was consulted on the scientific background that was made available to ministers prior to the decision." but added: "That was not the primary factor in reaching the conclusion."
She said Scottish food was "internationally valued" for being produced "under clean, green and natural conditions" and insisted the ban on growing GM crops in open fields would "not impact" on the work of research institutes in Scotland.
She added: "The Scottish Government remains committed to drawing on the very best science advice and expertise."
Mr Fraser said: "The SNP appears to be admitting this significant decision has not been made on scientific grounds.
"So if it hasn’t been made on scientific grounds, on what basis has it been made?
"People will conclude the ideology and dogma of the left is dictating key environmental and economic decisions – that is a flabbergasting state of affairs."
He added: "While this letter says the adviser was indeed informed, it doesn’t detail what the reaction was.
"Presumably, that omission tells its own story.
"No wonder the SNP cannot recruit a new chief scientist if this is the way they treat scientific advice."
Mr Lochhead was also asked what scientific evidence he considered prior to the ban.
But, responding to a parliamentary question from Labour's Drew Smith, he failed to cite a single example.
Scotland is a world leader in "bio-sciences," a field that includes genetically modified crops.
It is one of a select group of "growth sectors" identified in the Scottish Government's own economic strategy where Scotland enjoys an advantage over its competitors.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel