The challenge of political decision making
- February 1 2004
New Zealand's Bioscience News and Advocate editorial by David Walker, February 1, 2004
It is increasingly evident that the challenge that the UK faces with genetically modified crops relates not to their control, but to the control of political decision making. David Walker writes that current UK regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops appears to be based on the supposition that once released for general use they are some how beyond human control, like a raging tiger or virulent disease.
This concept seems increasingly quaint in the context of current concerns about how GM crops should be managed to avoid excessive weed control and their increasingly universal release outside Europe.
The UK's Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002 states its purpose as "ensuring that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid damage to the environment which may arise from the escape or release from human control of genetically modified organisms."
This piece of legislation is an amendment to the Environment Protection Act of 1990 mandated by a 2001 European Union directive.
"The escape or release from human control" element is a carry over from the 1990 Act, rather than anything dictated by Brussels in 2001. This rather dated concept is also apparent in the title of the committee responsible for advising the government on the commercialization of GM crops, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE).
Justifiable concern over genetically engineering of crop varieties, food safety and the environment has been fading fast in recent years as all such questions seem to have been answered.
It is almost ten years since the technology was first used commercially in the US. The growth in its use has been rapid, as has its spread to almost all agriculturally significant areas of the world, Europe excepted.
This has left Europe as something of a technological backwater. This is very unfortunate as in terms of the rate of adoption it must surely be one of the more successful technological developments of all time.
As with any innovation, there can never, of course, be any co mplete and ultimate guarantee that nothing adverse will occur, but the extreme caution being exercised over GM crops at this time both in the UK and more widely in western Europe looks increasingly misplaced.
The question arises as to why decision making processes in UK and the EU have failed society the way they have. That this should be such a challenge for the EU was to be expected. It is a legendary Tower of Babel when decisions have to be made. Processes for decision making on genetically modified organi sms have, however, at last been put in place, even if they are hardly conducive for decisive action as there seems to be more than enough opportunity for political backtracking on scientific advice.
For the UK political circumstance has been the challenge. Back in the spring of 1999 the opportunity to press ahead presented itself. The governing British Labour party had the kind of parliamentary majority that might seem to have allowed it to act decisively. But this majority was the consequence of a wide spectrum of philosophy with the left of the party very much opposed to the technology which had been developed by private enterprise.
With the government espousing to accept scientific opinion on the issue, the decision to undertake a three-year study was sufficiently credible to be accepted. The political reality was probably that it was expected that the decision would be easier to make after three years.
Almost four years later the need to make the decision is more urgent, but the political environment is also more challenging as the government seems to be increasingly divided with each successive issue it has to face.
The biggest irony, however, is that the human control of GM crops in terms of using herbicide techniques for weed control is now an issue, when those techniques could just as easily be used to control the GM crops themselves and when the stated purpose of relevant regulation presumes GM crops in the field are beyond human control.
It is the decision making process on GM crops rather than the crops themselves which is in danger of being beyond human control.
February 1,2004
top of page