---------------------------------------------
THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy
and related agricultural issues.
---------------------------------------------
* Blair Government Is Accused Of 'Spin' Job,
As Gap Between Facts And Fears Grows In Britain
By David Walker, agricultural economist
NORWICH, England--Three high-profile reports released last week on
genetically modified organisms have triggered a blizzard of media attention in
Britain.
All three largely exonerated the technology that permits genetic
modification of food. But from the tenor of the media coverage, neither the
reports nor the measures planned by the British government to meet the reports'
recommendations has done much to inspire public confidence.
This highlights the growing gap between popular and scientific wisdom on the
issue of GM -- genetically modified -- food.
Britain's venerated Royal Society reported on a controversy arising from the
highly publicized but unofficial comments made by a scientist about his
research.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reported on the
British government's Scientific Advisory System for Genetically Modified Foods.
The third report on the health implications of genetically modified foods,
by the British government's chief medical officer and the chief scientific
adviser, concluded that genetic engineering posed no more of a danger than
mixing up genes through convention
al plant breeding
The Royal Society's report relates to research by Arpad Pusztai at the
Rowatt Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. In August, he suggested on a
current affairs television program that, based on his ongoing research, the food
industry was using the public as ''unwitting guinea pigs.''
He said his research proved that genetically modified potatoes, when fed to
rats, resulted in stunted growth, damaged organs and impaired immune systems.
Following an internal investigation, and because of the resulting publicity,
the Rowatt Research Institute referred the matter to the Royal Society that,
among other things, acts as the UK's Academy of Science. Six independent,
impartial reviewers found the research flawed for a number of reasons and that
any conclusions were, therefore, unjustified.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report was part of its
ongoing inquiry into the government's scientific advisory system. It was
impressed by the robustness and expertise of both the Advisory Committee on
Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and
Processes. These are the two main government advisory bodies in Britain with
responsibility for genetically modified food and crops.
The Commons committee also gave genetically modified organisms a clean bill
of health. It commented that there is ''no evidence to suggest that the risks
associated with [genetically modified] food are any higher than thos
e associated with conventional food.''
The British government is committed to a science-based policy on genetically
modified food, but is faced with an electorate hostile to the use of such
technology because of perceived food-safety and environmental risks.
The reports did not provide the government with a convenient pretext for a
change of attitude to genetically modified crops. So it was left with the
challenge of pushing ahead with an unpopular policy.
This it has done -- with announcements of two new bodies, the Human Genetics
Commission and the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission, to
monitor biotechnology developments alongside existing agencies. The existing
agencies are to receive better lay representation. Also, they have accepted the
voluntary code drawn up by the industry for the safe growing of genetically
modified crops.
As was to be expected, political opposition parties and conservation and
environmental interest groups took good advantage of the opportunity for an
ambush.
But the surprise was a statement by the British Medical Association, a
mainstream professional association and the trade union of the country's
doctors. In its own words, the BMA ''plays an influential role in health and
health policy, in science and ethics.''
The BMA's statement, which it said was based on scientific evidence, called
for ''a moratorium on the commercial planting of [genetically modified] crops
until there is scientific co
nsensus on their long-term environmental effects.''
The BMA made 19 recommendations -- rather distant from medical practice --
on a variety of issues related to genetically modified organisms, including the
environment, agriculture and international trade. Even on human health-related
issues the BMA appeared to be at variance with mainstream scientific opinion.
Anybody, of course, has the right to express an opinion, but one would have
expected the BMA to have been on the side of conventional science.
The BMA noted that without public confidence ''there is a danger that
medical biotechnology advances will be rejected by the public.'' This is perhaps
the main motivation behind the BMA's report. And, while this is a legitimate
concern, the media generally missed this in their coverage, which simply
portrayed the doctors as opposing genetic-modification technology.
There also was wide coverage in Britain of research findings from Cornell
University in Ithaca, N.Y., that an increasingly popular genetically engineered
US variety of corn, which produces bacterial toxin to protect against corn
pests, had the unwanted side effect of killing monarch butterfly larvae in
laboratory tests.
Also on the front page was a claim by two Australian scientists that -- in
their opinion -- the US government's testing of genetically modified soybeans
was less rigorous than it might have been.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report noted, ''Public
values, which once formed may be lasting, are shaped by information and debate.
It is therefore essential that information provided to the public is accurate
and debate well-informed. Thus, it is important: that the government should
promote the public understanding of science vigorously; that scientists involved
in research should be equipped to respond effectively and competently to media
pressure; and that media reports on scientific matters should be factually
accurate.''
This comment is sadly prophetic.
Unfortunately the committee did not provide guidance on how the government
could avoid its efforts being regarded by the Friends of the Earth as an attempt
''to spin its way out of the GM crisis.''
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. His views are not necessarily those of
whose ventures include the Internet site 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. End
A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on BridgeStation.
(Story .5400)
[SLUG: FOOD-GENETICS:BN _ op-ed]
|
