Seriously silly - Angst about GM foods is creating a farcical double standard in our thinking
Editorial
From New Scientist, 27 February 1999
AS EVERY fan of Monty Python knows, sketches can
become too absurd for their own good. That's what seemed
to be happening to Britain's great genetically modified food
saga earlier this week when it emerged that scientists at the
nation's biggest biotech company may have been breaking
the letter of the law when they merrily tucked into tomatoes
that had been genetically modified.
The newspaper scoop claimed that government officials
would now have little option but to investigate on the
grounds that seeds from the tomatoes could have passed
through the scientists and germinated in a sewage farm. To
date, only GM tomato paste, which contains no seeds, has
been approved for sale in Europe. The scientists were
rumbled when a photographer snapped them (see p 7)
munching tomatoes as part of a stunt to reassure the nation
about GM food.
It sounds like a spoof but in the present climate anything is
possible. Are officials really concerned about this petty
breach of regulations? Or are they merely playing a joke on
the media and its current obsession with all things GM?
Either way, the story exposes a serious issue. While we
worry about the hazards of GM crops (would it really matter
if a GM tomato germinated in a sewage farm?), we
apparently care little about the environmental dangers of
conventional crops. This double standard is reflected in
European Union legislation, which manages to be both
stringent for GM crops and virtually nonexistent for
conventional varieties.
Since GM farming seems fraught with potential hazards, you
could argue that this is justified. Looking at the facts,
however, suggests not (see p 4). Cut through the anti-biotech
propaganda and you find that there is nothing about GM
crops that gives them any special power to create
superweeds and landscapes chemically cleansed of wildlife.
But we should already know that. Across Europe, farmland
wildlife--especially birds --has been in decline for decades,
long before GM crops caught the eye of pressure groups.
The problem has been caused by the everyday use of highly
toxic chemical sprays, by ripping up hedgerows, and by the
relentless spread of intensive farming practices which we
have never quite had the collective energy or will to resist.
The question that really matters in the GM debate is whether
genetic engineering simply offers us more of the same or a
chance to farm more intelligently. Or rather this is what
matters in Europe. In the US, farmland wildlife is not such
an emotive issue because most of the nation's biodiversity is
locked up in vast national parks. Pocket-sized nations like
Britain, by contrast, expect the countryside to provide us
with cheap food, romantic landscapes and a home for our
wildlife all at the same time.
Will genetic engineering help us get what we want? Without
a lot more research into things such as the impact on wildlife
of genes which produce "natural" insecticides, and the pros
and cons of herbicide-resistant crops, it is difficult to give a
defini-tive answer. But what is clear already is that the way
farmers use these crops will be crucial.
In the hands of an enlightened farmer, crops that have been
engineered to be resistant to herbicides could, paradoxically,
work wonders for our herbivorous insects and songbirds by
enabling the farmer to let weeds grow alongside crops for
longer, secure in the knowledge that they can be eradicated
later in the season. In the hands of someone more ruthless,
the same crops could be a recipe for a sterilised landscape.
The story is similar with crops engineered to be resistant to
insect pests. Ecologists worry about these crops because
they are designed to produce a steady supply of a natural
insecticide that could harm beneficial predators such as
ladybirds (see p 5). They argue that the wider effects of this
could be quite different from those of chemical sprays
which, because they are used intermittently, can allow insect
populations to recover. To minimise any problems, it may be
necessary to set aside areas of land to serve as GM-free
refuges for insects.
In other words, it all comes down to the farmers. Again.
Strange, then, that amid the fuss there has so far been little
discussion about these custodians of the environment. Egged
on by pressure groups, people have been asking whether
they can trust the biotech industry and its political allies.
Perhaps they should also be asking whether they can trust
the farmers.
newscientist.com |
