Blinded by the Light of Technology 

SUE MAYER / The Guardian (UK) 20feb04

Science plays a disproportionately large role in the government's thinking on GM crops, argues Sue Mayer

Many people are probably wondering why the government bothered to hold a public debate on GM crops and foods last year. Reading the leaked minutes of last week's Cabinet Office committee meeting makes it seem as though the public debate findings are being used to inform the government about what opposition it has to overcome, and how it might wear that down, rather than being a guide to policy.

Scientific authority is brought in to justify going forward with plans to grow GM crops, despite public anxieties. But, if the science is so convincing, why should the public's views matter? And isn't the government right to take the scientific path?

For many years, politicians have used the authority of science to support their actions. Basing this authority on the "facts" and "independence" that science is supposed to bring to issues, political, social and economic judgments are apparently absent, giving us a purely rational decision-making basis.

However, as most people have become all too aware, science rarely deals in facts. It often has only a very restricted perspective, and is inevitably affected by political and social judgements. This is all too true in the case of GM crops.

It the UK, it is difficult to find senior plant molecular biologists who have not had some connection with the biotechnology industry. Ecologists have become thin on the ground, because the focus of science is at the molecular level and ecology does not perform well under the "wealth generating" criterion of our science policy.

Only a public furore led to the farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) of GM crops, and that knowledge would never have been gained without critical questioning by the public. In reality, we have an impoverished scientific base from which to judge the performance of GM crops.

While the government worries about how our science base would be affected by a decision not to proceed with GM crops, it has not evaluated the adequacy of science's depth and breadth or the implications of an intellectual and social bias towards a molecular view of the world.

The government, still blinded by the white light of technology, neglects these issues. It wants to be the friend of industry and maintain good relations with the US.

However, the public asks wider questions - and that is why it is so crucial that people's views should be heard and acted upon.

People see a lack of convincing evidence about the long-term impacts of GM crops, and have little confidence in the government or industry. They want to see clear benefits to offset any risks, and not just in economic terms to food producers. According to the public debate and the food standards authority's citizens' jury, people do not want commercialisation now.

The major reason given by the government for proceeding with growing GM herbicide-tolerant maize is that FSEs have shown it is better for farmland wildlife than conventionally grown maize.

The GM maize is tolerant to the weedkiller glufosinate, and the government's advisors have said that, as long as farmers grow the maize using only this herbicide, as was the case in the FSEs, matters will improve.

However, farmers are not well known for keeping to the rules as they strive for better yields. In the USA, where the same GM maize is already grown, yields were poor when glufosinate alone was used for weed control, so other herbicides are now also used.

There are no pesticide rules under which the government will be able to specify that only glufosinate should be used: farmers will, quite legally, be able to use other herbicides licensed for use on maize as well.

It is unlikely that FSEs will remain so tightly controlled. And, of course, there remain other questions about the adequacy of the safety assessment."

Science can only take us so far before a series of social, economic and political questions come to the fore. The strategy unit's report on the economics of GM crops found no real benefit for UK agriculture.

There is a movement growing here, seeking a new way of producing food which gives environmental and social benefits and is less intensive and more connected to people. The GM route does not meet those criteria.

However, the government is also seeking to use hunger in the developing world to justify its decision. The public debate showed people think that the developing world has special interests, so the government hopes that moral blackmail will work if science fails.

However, there is no evidence that, by growing GM maize from one of the five multinationals controlling the technology, the hungry will be fed.

If we go ahead with growing GM maize here, it will be the thin end of a very thick wedge, and a huge political gamble.

When something goes wrong, either now or in the future, the political repercussions will be huge - something the prime minister's strategy unit identified, but that the government has not understood.

Next time they meet, the Cabinet subcommittee on biotechnology would be well advised to do undertake some role-play on how they would handle the first GM "shock". Maybe, then, they will understand.

· Dr Sue Mayer is the Director of GeneWatch UK.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1152693,00.html 22feb04