What hopes for GM food?

URL: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v407/n6803/full/407431a0_fs.html

Date accessed: 26 September 2000

Nature

26 September 2000

The industry based on genetic modification of plants has suffered new setbacks.

Europe's public is at the least sceptical, but still potentially accepting, of GM crops,

provided progress in technology, regulation and communication is maintained.

It has been a grim year for consumer confidence, not least in genetically modified (GM) foods.

The discovery in the United States this week that millions of taco shells need to be recalled

owing to contamination by potentially allergenic Aventis corn follows on the heels of the

episode in May when the Canadian exporter Advanta Seeds accidentally sent GM

oilseed-rape seeds to Sweden and the United Kingdom. Couple that to the fact that the

international media-tailored campaigns of crop destruction by Greenpeace and others find

ready sympathy with much of the public, and GM proponents might contemplate throwing in

the towel. The bizarre but unanimous verdict by a British jury last week that such destruction

can be lawful, reportedly influenced by a visible sympathy of the jury with Peter Melchett and

his Greenpeace co-defendants, sets the seal on such a pessimistic perspective (see page 438

). Is there hope for those who, like Nature, adopt an open-minded attitude to the scientific

assessment of this technology but also anticipate many benefits from its judicious application?

Uncertainties about the cause of the Advanta contamination are delaying the outcome of a

review by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the crop-separation

distances required to achieve acceptably low levels of cross-pollination. But there is no

indication that the tens to hundreds of metres recommended for the government's farm-scale

trials reflect an underestimation of cross-pollination levels. These trials, the targets of

Greenpeace's action, are intended to test the hypothesis that the introduction of maize, sugar

beet and oilseed rape, modified for herbicide resistance, will not significantly affect

biodiversity. Although it is arguable that they are an excuse for the government to delay the

commercial introduction of GM crops, there is no doubt that they could play a leading role in

addressing relevant ecological questions. Most positively, they may point to ways in which

GM crops could encourage biodiversity.

But for anti-GM fundamentalists such as some of those in Greenpeace, and for many with

vested interests in organic farming, such knowledge is irrelevant. Tying their beliefs to

misleading sound bites about potential risks, constantly exploiting fears and misunderstandings

about DNA in food, and in the absence as yet of clear benefits from the technology, they have

successfully captured much public sympathy.

But that sympathy can quickly evaporate, especially when the public recognizes the

manipulation of information — by industry or anti-technology campaigners — for what it is, as

has happened in consensus conferences. More potential benefits of GM crops can be

expected to emerge, and one can reasonably expect that problems revealed by the science

will, as with any technology, lead to appropriate regulation. In short, public confidence can

grow, given a chance.

In the meantime, far better public presentation of the state of the science and stricter regulatory

precautions are required in Europe. In Britain, the centre of so much debate, the transparency

of advice, contrary to general belief, is good (see, for example,

http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk ), as is the willingness of scientists to talk at public

meetings. But much of that is ignored in the midst of media heat. The fledgling Agriculture and

Environment Biotechnology Commission should try to ensure that, as happened during the

BSE crisis, advisory bodies respond rapidly to media debates with informed comment and

information.

The thresholds of acceptability of some presence of GM product in organic produce need to

be pursued as a priority. It is here that the technical and social issues underlying the inherent

conflict between organic farming and other types of agriculture can be resolved with a

compromise acceptable to most. This will in turn introduce an additional element of rationality

when considering the real and apparent risks posed by GM crops.

And Europe's industry needs to speak rather than, as happens too often, remain silent — and

to be less careless than their US and Canadian colleagues in controlling the standards of their

products.

Category: 29. GMOs