THE debate about genetically modified crops has stagnated over the past few
years. We are no closer to resolving issues such as environmental damage, food
safety, globalisation and the rights or wrongs of tampering with nature. Wild
assertion and distortion of the facts have all too often taken precedence over
thoughtful discussion.
All parties should take some blame for this. You could point to scientists
who have been dismissive or condescending about public concerns, or lobby groups
and media who have manipulated the issue for their own ends. Meanwhile, industry
and governments failed to spot the public unease about GM technology early
enough, and failed to respond effectively or rapidly.
In the light of this, I have proposed the setting up of an international
panel to cut through the dogma and woolliness that is clouding the debate over
GM crops and food. The idea crystallised earlier this year at the OECD
conference on GM food safety in Edinburgh, which I chaired, and last week the
leaders of the world鈥檚 major industrial nations, the G8, discussed it at their
summit in Okinawa, Japan. There was some disagreement with the US wanting it to
focus strictly on science, and the French and Germans wanting it to reflect
other societal concerns. They have agreed to look at it further.
Advertisement
Could an international panel of scientists do for the GM debate what the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does for the global warming
debate? GM technology is advancing apace, and there is an urgent need to
underpin policy with rational argument and assessment of its implications. The
panel would be the focus of this. It would have two aims. First, to offer
governments and the public the best possible independent scientific assessment
of current knowledge about the uncertainties and risks of GM crops. Second, to
bring the science to the wider debate on the implications of GM.
To succeed, the panel will have to gain international respect and confidence.
It will have to be scientifically authoritative, but it must also represent the
diversity of scientific opinion, just as the IPCC does. It is true of all
scientific debates that there is a mainstream view and a range of dissenters on
either side. This is the essence of science and is a key part of its dynamic and
progressive nature. To be effective the panel would have to be
small鈥攑erhaps 20-strong鈥攂ut it should have a wide consultation
network to embrace the full range of views.
The panel will also have to be geographically inclusive. It will not do to
have a small set of scientists from the G8 handing out assessments on the risks
of GM technologies for governments in the rest of the world. Developing
countries will have to be fully involved, and leading where appropriate, as they
were in Edinburgh. The panel鈥檚 assessments would be used to underpin both
national policy and international agreements, just as with the IPCC.
Finally, the panel should encompass the whole range of concerns about GM
crops. The panel itself should be science-led and include the social sciences
and scientists from pressure groups, but to be truly inclusive it should also
embrace ethical, trade and other issues. One way it could do this would be to
present its draft reports to conferences along the lines of the Edinburgh
meeting, where a wider forum can contribute to the debate.
Some have argued that such a mechanism would be a step too far: that it would
reduce the credibility of scientific assessment by contaminating it with broader
concerns. I disagree. Scientific evaluation must, of course, be central to the
panel鈥檚 work, and it must be robust and rigorous, but unless a way can be found
to place it within a broader context, the GM debate will not move forward.
Some critics have said that the panel would simply duplicate what is already
going on. There are indeed international regulatory frameworks and committees
already in place, such as the obscurely named Codex Alimentarius Commission,
which issues guidelines on novel foods. It operates under the auspices of the
World Health Organization and the UN鈥檚 Food and Agriculture Organization. But an
international panel would build on rather than duplicate the work of these
groups.
Independence will be the key to earning the public鈥檚 trust and confidence.
The best way to secure this would be to place the secretariat in a host
organisation, such as the UN or OECD, that has international and independent
stature. In addition, the panel should be completely transparent in its
deliberations. Choosing the right chair will be decisive. I do not envisage the
panel costing too much to run: existing mechanisms for funding international
initiatives could well cover it, provided no constraints were put on its
independence.
Some might think that GM food and crops have no future, so debate about their
safety for human consumption and for the environment is unnecessary. The
Edinburgh conference showed clearly that this is wrong. While we in the northern
hemisphere can afford to pick and choose how our food is produced and may for
the moment eschew GM, there are many people鈥攑erhaps a billion
worldwide鈥攚ho are in a different position. The overwhelming message from
developing countries at Edinburgh can be paraphrased as: 鈥淲e would like to be
like you, with plenty of food for our people. We need every tool at our disposal
to achieve this, including biotechnology, which will allow us to grow things
without costly chemicals and irrigation systems that we cannot afford. We do not
want to be dependent on aid or redistribution, we want to be in control of our
诲别蝉迟颈苍颈别蝉.鈥�
In the face of this, calls for a worldwide moratorium seem to me to have no
moral or practical credibility. We need to explore thoroughly the implications
of GM technologies, rather than close the door on them. An independent
scientific panel would be best placed to drive this search and to separate the
facts from the propaganda.