Narrowing the GM Debate

While the official, government debate on genetically modified food appears to be a non-starter, the unofficial debate it has inadvertently caused rumbles on. While there is little doubt that the official debate is nothing but a smoke-screen for government decisions that have already been taken, the wider debate is almost equally pointless. The essential problem is the polarisation of opinion.

The anti-GM lobby is perhaps the most vocal, opposing all use of GM technology. Their argument is, essentially, that the technology is poorly understood, and that the consequences of introducing GM crops is unknown. Horror stories abound - super weeds, diseases, contamination of natural plants by GM pollen. The pro-GM lobby is equally certain in its predictions. GM will ease world hunger, lower pesticide use, improve nutrition and health. The argument between these two sides is so intense that the true debate, the one we need to have is being smothered.

By adopting an extreme position, both lobbies make themselves easy targets. Someone with a sympathy for the other side finds it easy to dismiss the arguments of the other. Take the example of cross pollination with non-GM crops. Terminator genes offer a solution to this problem; one which, if not currently perfect, provides every promise of forthcoming perfection. Those who are already leaning towards the pro-GM lobby, such as our political masters, is further swayed in their direction by the thin arguments of the anti lobby. Similarly, the pro-GM claims of complete safety because of terminator genes is easily dismissed by opponents, who can point to a small number of studies in which cross pollination did indeed occur.

The problem is that the debate is too broad. The camps are arguing about whether we should adopt GM or not, as a whole. Replace "GM" with "pharmaceuticals" and see how stupid the arguments sound. GM is going to be a part of our future, there are too many potential benefits for this not to be the case. The current, irresponsible debate misses the point. We should be discussing under what conditions we should be allowing GM.

No one would consider allowing all pharmaceuticals, without question. Equally, no one but the most extreme luddite would consider banning all medicines. There are too many benefits and dangers for either option to be sensibly considered. Yet, this is exactly the debate we are having about GM. Instead, we should be following the pharmaceutical model, and discussing how to regulate the introduction of GM crops. And the pharmaceutical model provides us with our gravest warnings of the risk we run should this go wrong.

The problems facing the regulation of GM crops are an order of magnitude worse than those involved in regulating pharmaceuticals. The largest problem, and the one our government will not face without severe pressure, is that field testing of GM crops is not a viable option. When a GM crop is field tested, it has the opportunity to contaminate an area of several square miles. In our small country, that is simply not acceptable. Instead, we need to develop methods for replacing field testing with meaningful laboratory testing - replicating British growing conditions inside sealed eco-bubbles. That's going to cost, but is necessary, and given the obscene profits the biotechnology companies stand to make, the money is available.

The framework for acceptance testing needs to be put in place now, and needs to be orders of magnitude stricter than anything we've seen before. An unexpected side-effect of a new drug crippled thousands, an unexpected side-effect of GM corn could kill millions. And worse, could have entered the food chain in such a way that it will never be eradicated again. Some will take those last two sentences as reason for banning all GM crops. That is a mistake, and a dangerous ones. There are many safe GM crops, and there will be many more in the future. We need the means to ensure every crop is safe, before we are exposed to it. Arguing the extreme position is counter-productive.

The need for a viable, strict framework now is largely political. Pressure from the US is increasing for the EU to accept all GM crops it has approved. By introducing our own framework, we can reassure ourselves that the dangers of GM are being contained, while providing our strongest argument against US pressure. When American companies can see the requirements needed for approval, they can plan how to introduce their products to the European market, just as European pharmaceutical companies can currently plan to enter the US. A transparent and fair, if strict, approval system is hard to argue against. An arbitrary "no" isn't. Worse, by polarising the discussion, we risk that arbitrary "no" turning into an equally arbitrary, and far more dangerous, "yes".

There are many others issues connected with GM that need to be solved. The ownership by third world farmers of their own seed is one. The ability to track and distinguish GM crops is another - although, ironically, recent advancements in chromosome bar-coding would seem to provide a potential solution. But how to prevent GM becoming a weapon for multi-national dominated globalisation is another debate entirely. Introducing a frame work to allow the safe introduction of GM crops into our food system should be our highest priority. As an additional benefit, the crop labelling and tracking that will need to be carried out by any farmers hoping to target our markets will allow other countries to implement their own GM policies.

Regulation, not prohibition, is the only viable result of the GM debate. Those who are genuinely concerned about the potential dangers of GM need to turn their energies to ensuring that the regulation put in place is robust enough to protect both us and our environment.

Graham Robinson. 2nd July 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.