---------------------------------------------------------------
THE BridgeNews FORUM: Viewpoints on genetically modified foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------
* UK Prime Minister's Remarks Before OECD Conference
Are Wrongly Portrayed As Anti-Biotechnology
By David Walker, agricultural economist
Bridge News
NORWICH, England--Genetically modified crops are in the British headlines
again, which would seem to be bad news for the British government.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration continues to be committed to a
science-based policy on genetically modified organisms. But it was Blair
himself who put the issue back in the news.
There may be a method in the madness.
The British government is sponsoring an international conference this
week in Edinburgh on genetically modified food and human health. Blair wrote
an article on the topic for The Independent on Sunday, one of the more
aggressive of the anti-GMO newspapers, with the pretext of publicizing the
conference and the government's sponsorship of it.
It was a long letter, five times the length of the Gettysburg Address and
twice as long as a typical newspaper opinion, probably indicating Blair's
personal interest in the issue.
His letter presented a balanced picture. It even warned of past media
misrepresentation of government policy on GMOs.
But the media has focused on a single sentence in the letter: ''There is
no doubt that there is potential for harm, both in terms of human safety and
in the diversity of our environment, from GM foods and crops.''
Taken on its own, this seems particularly damning. But two sentences
later, Blair states, ''But there is no doubt, either, that this new
technology could bring benefits for mankind.''
All manner of interpretation can, of course, be placed on these two
sentences individually or together and in isolation. The media generally saw
a greater degree of concern over ''the potential harm'' and read into it a
U-turn in British government policy, something that has subsequently been
denied.
But with the government pursuing an unpopular, even if objective and
moral, policy, this must have been anticipated. It is just four months since
the media last accused the Blair government of making a 180-degree turn in
its policy on genetically modified crops after the announcement of a
three-year ban on commercial planting.
But Blair's high-profile statement on GMOs almost certainly indicates he
had something other than a change in the science-based policy in mind -- and
that it was something that required more than a one-page news release on
government stationery.
The timing of the article was undeniably a commitment to be guided by the
science from the OECD conference, whether condemning or supportive of
biotechnology.
The conference is, of course, unlikely to deliver a knockout punch for
either side. Interestingly, the job of judging the winner in a British
context will lie with the new and independent Food Standards Agency, its
subordinate Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes, and the
former's chairman, Professor John Krebs of Oxford University.
Krebs, an expert in environmental policy, is also chairman of the
Edinburgh conference, an appointment made independently by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, the conference organizer. This
point was made early in the prime minister's article.
And there lies the clue to the prime minister's purpose. In order to
restore confidence in food safety at a time when the general public is less
than accepting of scientific opinion, the role of scientists in both the Food
Standards Agency and its advisory committee has been limited.
When the agency was set up, anti-GMO forces hailed the move as one that
would allow consumers to have a say on the issue. But Blair's Sunday article
infers that, while the evidence on GMOs should be scrutinized and decisions
made by people other than scientists, scientific evidence should still
prevail. His article is something of a model for the science-based argument,
without, of course, reaching a conclusion on the safety of GMOs.
The British government's current policy on GMOs is probably politically
correct, in that it attempts to be objective and moral. But it is politically
unpopular because it ignores the emotional concerns of a large proportion of
the public.
For the moment, the Blair government appears prepared to live with this.
If it were faced with an immediate election and troublesome opinion polls,
the approach would be different.
Britain is also not alone in the international community in facing the
challenge of keeping the voters' emotions out of biotechnology
decision-making.
If the British government is not successful in this, other governments in
less politically comfortable situations may not even attempt the feat. At
best, the adoption of this biotechnology would be delayed. At worst, it would
be abandoned. Humanity would be denied its benefits without a fair trial. End
DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of
the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. He also maintains a Web site at
http://www.openi.co.uk/. His views are not necessarily those of Bridge News, whose
ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/.
OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions
to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 World Financial
Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also
call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.
EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo Service.
[Begin BridgeLinks]
A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on
BridgeStation. (Story .5400)
[SLUG: BRITAIN-BLAIR-GENETIC-MODIFICATION:BN _ op-ed]
[End BridgeLinks]
|
