THE biotechnology industry and its government regulators took a pasting
last week from a jury of sixteen 鈥渙rdinary people鈥� at the end of Britain鈥檚
first public consensus conference. The jurors, participating in a method of
consultation pioneered in Denmark, had little knowledge of genetic
engineering, but cross-examined expert witnesses before delivering their
judgment.
Launching their report on plant biotechnology, the panellists condemned the
industry for not producing anything of substantial benefit to society, and
questioned whether the government is keeping the industry on a tight enough
rein. They called for clear labels to allow consumers to identify genetically
engineered products, and demanded a better transfer of biotechnology to
developing countries.
鈥淚鈥檝e not seen any great benefit to the consumer,鈥� said Berry Baker, a
marketing consultant from Surrey and one of the jury. 鈥淭he whole thing seems
to be mainly driven by the manufacturers.鈥� Michelle Hope, a postgraduate
student from Birmingham, agreed: 鈥淚 think a lot of what鈥檚 going to come onto
the market is cosmetic and not of benefit.鈥� Florence Anderson, a nurse from
Essex, suggested that the greatest need for biotechnology lay in Africa: 鈥淚f
you want to do research of real benefit, then stop postharvest losses [of
肠谤辞辫蝉闭.鈥�
Advertisement
The panel called for the industry and regulators to be more sensitive to
the feelings of people with religious or moral objections to some forms of
genetic engineering, such as the insertion of pig genes into a food plant.
These products in particular should be properly labelled, the panel argued.
The industry had claimed that labelling a product would give the impression
that biotechnology is dangerous, but the panel rejected this view. 鈥淲e don鈥檛
understand why there鈥檚 so much hostility to labelling,鈥� said Baker. 鈥淚 think
it would make people less suspicious.鈥�
The panel expressed worries about the escape of 鈥渇oreign鈥� genes from crop
plants into wild plants. 鈥淭his is especially a worry with herbicide-resistant
strains,鈥� says the report. 鈥淪uperweeds could be produced which will be
difficult to eradicate.鈥�
The panel also questioned the role of the Advisory Committee on Releases to
the Environment, which recommends to ministers whether or not to approve
releases of genetically engineered organisms into the environment. This
committee, the report points out, has not stopped a single experiment going
ahead and does not monitor releases once they have started. The panel
recommended that an independent ombudsman should be appointed to settle
disputes when the public opposes a release which has been approved by the
ACRE.
Tom Blundell, the chief executive of the Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council 鈥� which funded the conference 鈥� welcomed the report.
鈥淲e will take the report very seriously,鈥� he said, 鈥渁nd the public must get to
know about it.鈥�
In Denmark, the juries鈥� reports hold considerable sway. In Britain,
however, Lord Howie, who chaired a Lords investigation last year which called
for rules governing biotechnology to be relaxed, attacked the jury鈥檚
conclusions. He took industry鈥檚 side in the argument over labelling and
dismissed moral objections to genetic engineering. 鈥淏iotechnology is no more
than an enhancing of the evolutionary process,鈥� he said.
Panellists were infuriated by the attack. 鈥淢y suspicions about
[politicians] are being confirmed,鈥� said Anderson. 鈥淚 hope they will sit up
and listen to what people are saying.鈥�