>>why the GM debate has a long way to go…clive beddall, editor-at-large, william reed publishing
Read recent headlines, and you could easily believe that the GM foods debate is done and dusted and any suggestion that genetically modified products could find their way onto British supermarket shelves has been consigned to a dusty file, deep in the heart of DEFRA.
A glance at the Daily Mail, and you would also think that crop-trampling lobbyists have donated their white suits to Oxfam and the promoters of GM have scurried back to laboratories in underground bunkers somewhere in America’s Midwest.
So, on the face of it, even putting aside the dramatic headlines, the anti-GM brigade has had its best summer since the concept hit these shores. The conclusions of the world’s biggest environmental-impact study of GM crops, although mixed, provided enough sound bites to be distorted into headline fodder to feed the lobbyists.
Of three crops tested, two were found to be more harmful to the environment than conventional ones; the third was kinder. Add the fact that Monsanto has announced its exit from its European seeds business and the Co-op has decided to ban the growing of GM crops on its land, and you can understand the glee in bastions of all that is agri-natural.
Of course, much of the euphoria has centred on the government’s attempts to consult with consumers about GM. And, sadly, all the evidence coming my way suggests that lobbyists with firm anti-GM agendas dominated at least some of those meetings. At one session an official was reportedly heard to comment ruefully: “We needed more of the silent majority. This meeting was meant to be for the man in the street, but the man in the street stayed there.”
But then, if well-practised, articulate activists are bussed to a meeting the result is inevitable. And that’s a pity, because, on the face of it, the regional sessions were a perfect way to not only gauge real public opinion but also present a balanced picture of GM.
So, despite the fact that GM crops have been eaten by America’s millions for nearly a decade and not a single example of harm from a GM product licensed for humans has been filed, 93% of the UK still believes they are unsafe to eat. Yet, significantly, the small print of the government’s recent GM Science Review found there was no evidence of any commercially available variety that was “toxic, allergenic or nutritionally deleterious”.
But then, that sort of technical, mind-blowing phrase was never going to be sexy enough for a tabloid journalist on a mission.
But despite the lobbyists’ celebrations and fear among a confused public, I believe we will see a market for British-grown biotech food. And before the Soil Association reaches for its rapid-reaction fax machine, let me explain why.
Sure, the agri-romantics who yearn for a return to the days of rosy-cheeked milkmaids will take some convincing of the merits of biotechnology in the food chain. Yet, most serious thinkers still charge the biotech promoters with putting up a weak defence in the face of the lobbyists when they could have been much more scientifically proactive. For history shows the
big groups were arrogant when they brought the idea to our shores, with the result that they have rarely failed to regain the media high ground.
“Bring out a GM product that has real merit for the shopper and watch it take off” is still an oft-heard phrase.
Clearly, several serious questions about GM technology need to be resolved, most notably the environmental. But, listening to some of the more articulate scientists recently, I don’t fear that food safety is one of them - a point that the concept’s promoters have not pushed hard enough.
And that’s something Tony Blair might ponder as he considers the commercial cultivation of GM crops in Britain. The debate is far from over.
Read recent headlines, and you could easily believe that the GM foods debate is done and dusted and any suggestion that genetically modified products could find their way onto British supermarket shelves has been consigned to a dusty file, deep in the heart of DEFRA.
A glance at the Daily Mail, and you would also think that crop-trampling lobbyists have donated their white suits to Oxfam and the promoters of GM have scurried back to laboratories in underground bunkers somewhere in America’s Midwest.
So, on the face of it, even putting aside the dramatic headlines, the anti-GM brigade has had its best summer since the concept hit these shores. The conclusions of the world’s biggest environmental-impact study of GM crops, although mixed, provided enough sound bites to be distorted into headline fodder to feed the lobbyists.
Of three crops tested, two were found to be more harmful to the environment than conventional ones; the third was kinder. Add the fact that Monsanto has announced its exit from its European seeds business and the Co-op has decided to ban the growing of GM crops on its land, and you can understand the glee in bastions of all that is agri-natural.
Of course, much of the euphoria has centred on the government’s attempts to consult with consumers about GM. And, sadly, all the evidence coming my way suggests that lobbyists with firm anti-GM agendas dominated at least some of those meetings. At one session an official was reportedly heard to comment ruefully: “We needed more of the silent majority. This meeting was meant to be for the man in the street, but the man in the street stayed there.”
But then, if well-practised, articulate activists are bussed to a meeting the result is inevitable. And that’s a pity, because, on the face of it, the regional sessions were a perfect way to not only gauge real public opinion but also present a balanced picture of GM.
So, despite the fact that GM crops have been eaten by America’s millions for nearly a decade and not a single example of harm from a GM product licensed for humans has been filed, 93% of the UK still believes they are unsafe to eat. Yet, significantly, the small print of the government’s recent GM Science Review found there was no evidence of any commercially available variety that was “toxic, allergenic or nutritionally deleterious”.
But then, that sort of technical, mind-blowing phrase was never going to be sexy enough for a tabloid journalist on a mission.
But despite the lobbyists’ celebrations and fear among a confused public, I believe we will see a market for British-grown biotech food. And before the Soil Association reaches for its rapid-reaction fax machine, let me explain why.
Sure, the agri-romantics who yearn for a return to the days of rosy-cheeked milkmaids will take some convincing of the merits of biotechnology in the food chain. Yet, most serious thinkers still charge the biotech promoters with putting up a weak defence in the face of the lobbyists when they could have been much more scientifically proactive. For history shows the
big groups were arrogant when they brought the idea to our shores, with the result that they have rarely failed to regain the media high ground.
“Bring out a GM product that has real merit for the shopper and watch it take off” is still an oft-heard phrase.
Clearly, several serious questions about GM technology need to be resolved, most notably the environmental. But, listening to some of the more articulate scientists recently, I don’t fear that food safety is one of them - a point that the concept’s promoters have not pushed hard enough.
And that’s something Tony Blair might ponder as he considers the commercial cultivation of GM crops in Britain. The debate is far from over.
No comments yet