The name of the game, The battle over genetically modified foods is not what it seems
From New Scientist, 22 May 1999
IT'S NOT OFTEN that a nation sees its leading doctors,
scientists and parliamentarians publishing reports on the
same topic at the same time. But the British Medical
Association, the Royal Society and an influential
parliamentary select committee have all weighed in on
genetically modified foods this week.
There are no surprises from the Royal Society, whose report
simply confirms that the experiments at the centre of the
transgenic potato row which engulfed Britain in February
were deeply flawed. And who could argue with the select
committee's calls for more public participation in making
decisions about engineered crops and the creation of a single
government authority to evaluate the health and
environmental risks?
The problem with these sensible moves is that they won't
calm the hysteria, while some of the BMA's
recommendations will positively inflame it. On the basis of
no evidence of any actual harm, for example, the BMA
suggests that all antibiotic resistance genes used to make
such crops should be banned, rather than simply phased out.
Even with its less controversial suggestions on labelling,
there's a hidden problem: many engineered foods are so
heavily processed that there is no trace of any novel protein
or DNA. To stick labels on them which imply nutritional or
safety differences that don't exist would be misleading. So
what sort of labels should we use? How do we make sure
genetically modified crops and foods are adequately tested
and labelled without at the same time pandering to irrational
fears about the technology?
The BMA calls for a blanket ban on commercial planting of
modified crops until scientists have reached a consensus
about the long-term environmental effects. This sounds good
but is actually rather naive. Who decides when a consensus
has been reached? Is a consensus even possible? And who
decides which studies are valid?
Take the claim that pollen from maize engineered to make
the natural Bt insecticide can be toxic to the Monarch
butterfly in the US when it drifts onto leaves eaten by
caterpillars (see p 4). Astonishingly for a company with
Monsanto's resources, it doesn't have a pile of data on
everything there is to know about the potential threat of
Bt-maize. But none of this proves Bt-maize is a bad thing.
The caterpillars may have been exposed to far higher doses
of genetically modified pollen in the lab tests than they would
ever get in fields.
And even if the conditions were realistic, the relevance of the
study remains debatable. What ought to matter is not so
much whether this pollen is more toxic than normal
pollen--as the study claims--but whether it is any less toxic
than pollen from maize treated with chemical pesticides.
Unless governments define their aims and methodology
clearly, no amount of research will produce a consensus on
whether the risks to wildlife are acceptable.
Another reason to reject blanket bans is that they encourage
the belief that all GM crops are equally risky simply because
they have been genetically modified. One of the biggest fears
is that once planted, genes from modified crops will escape
via seed and pollen, creating superweeds and
cross-pollinating the crops of organic farmers. Even if there
is a potential problem, why should it hold up the commercial
growing of modified plants which don't produce pollen, such
as potatoes or cabbages? Or prevent the growing of
genetically modified versions of crops which are not grown
organically?
Another important question is also being ignored. Does it
matter if a few genetically modified pollen grains are
occasionally carried by wind or insects into an organic field?
Organic lobbyists claim that as much as 1 per cent of their
produce could become "tainted", but even if this figure is
accurate, what would such a level of cross-pollination really
mean? The organic industry is willing to consider food
organic even if up to 5 per cent of it was produced
nonorganically. But in the case of genetically modified crops,
it seems to want a tolerance level of zero.
Of course, many opponents do not want a consensus about
acceptable levels of risk. What they really want is for the
crops never to be grown because they object to them on
ideological grounds. They recognise what many others don't:
that this controversy is really an emotional and political battle
in a wider war against unfettered free trade, globalisation and
the power of multinationals.
And you don't win such battles with science. You win them
with propaganda.
newscientist.com |
