open i

While from a strictly scientific standpoint the results of the British Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) of genetically modified crops gave them a clean bill of health in an environmental context, the debate over their commercialization will surely continue unabated. (760 words)

In reporting on the findings the scientists stressed

"... the differences [between conventional and genetically modified crops] they found are not a result of the way in which the crops have been genetically modified. They arose because these GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trial new options for weed control."

This might appear to provide compelling evidence for those concerned about butterflies and bees to direct their attention away from genetic modified crops and towards herbicide use. But this seemed too subtle or dull a message for British press and media who largely ignored the stress the scientific committee made on this in its one-page news release.

Paradoxically, if concern shifted to herbicide application practices, glyphosate or glufosinate-ammonium resistant genetically engineered crops would be found to provide farmers with more flexibility to accommodate weeds and the environment without sacrificing yields.

The reality, of course, is that authentic environmental concerns are probably a minor part of the opposition to genetically modified crops. As the debate has been raging for five or more years, significant commercial interest has developed. In this context the issue is used to sell newspapers, raise funds by environmental activists, promote organic food and enhance the image of supermarket chains.

Unfortunately, widespread skepticism exists in the UK at this time in accepting scientific evidence. And this provides those who have a vested interest in continuing the debate to doubt the science without losing credibility.

And beyond the environmental issue are a host of others including food safety concerns which are likewise unsupported by scientific evidence, ethical and even philosophical opposition based the technology being privately as opposed to publicly developed.

All this has created a major challenge for the government and its very rational science-based biotechnology policy. Any politician elected to make informed decisions on behalf of his constituents could, needless to say, hardly support anything other than a science-based policy.

The challenge, of course, is people's perception as to the science. And those opposing the commercialization of genetically modified crops have been very successful in creating the perception that genetically modified crops are dangerous. It matters not that the stream of claims made against genetic engineering has consistently been proven to be irrelevant, the result of mis interpretation, or simply fallacious.

And it was probably this very concern that was foremost on the government's mind when it decided to conduct the Farm Scale Evaluations back in 1999. The hope, no doubt, was either that the results of this new research would be accepted, or more probably that with time the public would grow tired of the debate and believe mainstream scientific evidence.

It is evident that the government is still playing for time on the issue. The Secretary of State for the Environment has passed the report onto the government's statutory advisory body, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment(ACRE), for advice. As this is a committee of scientists the delay in involving ACRE might suggest that the ultimate decision will be a science-based one.

At the same time, however,

"the Government will also be reflecting on the findings of its GM dialogue - the public debate, the science review, and the costs and benefits study - as well as a forthcoming report on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops."

Assuming that the ACRE is not more able to find incriminating evidence within the eight scientific papers than the FSE Scientific Steering Committee was, the government will be left with a loss-loss situation. Either it will be subject to criticism for abandoning a logical and long-standing policy in favour of political expediency. Or it will have to face the consequences of crossing the politically adept opponents of the technology.

There is little basis for anticipating what the decision will be. But it is a fair bet, in view of the December or early January timing of the ACRE response, that if an excuse for further delays cannot be found, the decision will be announced just before Christmas to minimize adverse publicity.

October 16, 2003