open i

A recent report by the British Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission appears to have lowered the environmental hurdle for the commercialization of genetically modified crops in a set of recommendations that also recognizes the need for more general public acceptance. (830 words).

The plans for this commission were announced in May 1999 as part of a reorganization of the government's role in assessing the technology following a spate of positive reports but considerable public opposition. As environmental concerns appeared to be foremost in the public's mind, a voluntary agreement was reached with the industry for a three-year moratorium on commercialization while field scale environmental trials were undertaken.

The commission was eventually established in June 2000 with a mandate "to offer strategic advice to Government on biotechnology issues which impact on agriculture and the environment" and otherwise to liaise with other government bodies. This rather vague mandate is complemented by representation from a wide range of interests some with other than scientific expertise.

The role of the commission seems to be to provide for political input into what is a complex web of government bodies relating to biotechnology which is otherwise dominated by scientists. The diversity of interests of the commission membership is, however, such that it might not have been expected to agree on anything of significance.

It is a credit to the commission that it was able to reach conclusions in this report which in the main relate to the ongoing three-year farm-scale environmental trials. These trials have been the target of environmental activists.

The report of the commission recognized that any environmental impact of genetically modified crops may not necessarily be negative and that this, taken together with research on environment enhancing cultural practices, should be taken into consideration in the final analysis and decision-making. The supposition of those that oppose the technology is that any environmental impact would be sufficient reason to abandon the technology.

The apparent trade off appears to be that the decision to commercialise the technology should be made "within a framework which extends to broader questions." The supposition of those who are promoting the technology was that as the environment appeared to be the major concern at the time that the farm-scale trials were set up, so a positive conclusion to them would automatically result in a green light for commercialization.

This appears to open the door for the government to stall if there is still significant opposition. Opinion polls indicate that while opposition to genetically modified crops is still significant in Britain, it is declining even while the environmental question is still to be answered.

It would be tempting to conclude that a positive answer to the environmental question from the trials would end significant opposition. But this, of course, assumes that the public will understand and trust the trial results. And further that more oblique concerns such as the morality of genetic engineering and acceptability of private ownership of the technology are not significant in a political context.

The commission undoubtedly recognized this challenge when it recommended clarity and precision in Government press releases and publications, "so that messages are not distorted and cannot easily be misinterpreted."

Equally this was probably recognized in another commission recommendation for "improved understanding of the basis of public views by drawing on the work of social scientists in this field."

This may all seem very logical, laudable and acceptable to mainstream politicians, scientists and environmentalists. The challenge is that the activists have received most attention and have directly or indirectly, at least in the past, moulded public opinion. And activist minds have long been set, as evident from their attempts from the outset to stall the farm-scale environmental trials.

It is also entirely possible that those who oppose the technology on ethical, philosophical and other grounds have and will continue to use the environmental issue to further their cause. While those who truly care for and understand the environment are likely to be accepting of scientific findings, those who support the environmental cause for convenience are unlikely to be convinced.

While the commission believes social scientist may be able to distinguish between the smoke and fire, most people will undoubtedly believe that, while there is smoke, the fire still rages. And it is this perception which will count in political terms.

In reality, however, probably because of the consistency with which scare stories generated by activists' interest have to date been repudiated, public concern over genetically modified crops seems to be fading. And it is reasonable to expect this to continue if no adverse environmental issues are unearthed.

Further, having used the mantle of scientific evidence as protection when public opinion was running 70 percent against the biotechnology, the government is hardly likely to discard it when opposition has declined to 50 or even 30 percent.

Of course, if opposition increases even following the green light of environmental approval, the commission's report may provide the government with an excuse to drop its science-based policy.

September 17, 2001