ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

A GOOD clean fight it is not. In the battle over genetically modified foods,
both contestants have been hitting way below the belt.

In the green corner, environmental groups are lined up with those protesting
against the power of multinational companies. They’ve been punching wildly,
using extravagant speculations based on tenuous research to convince us that all
GM foods are dangerous to health and environment.

In the other green corner—the money corner—stand companies
pushing their modified crops. They countered that genetic engineering will end
global food shortages. But while the companies’ crops are good for profits,
they’ve offered little to perplexed consumers.

In Europe, the first round went to the environmental bruisers. In the US, the
bell still hasn’t rung. But many people sitting ringside are asking if the
referee needs glasses. Come to think of it, where is the referee?

The answer is that there isn’t one, though this may be about to change. John
Krebs, head of Britain’s Food Standards Agency, has just released his
conclusions from an OECD meeting on GM foods
(see p 4). He proposes that
governments should set up a group of independent experts to do for GM foods what
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does for global
warming.

The group would review research on GM foods and supply governments with the
latest thinking on the science—the risks and benefits to health and the
environment. It would make clear where doubts remain and acknowledge minority
views. The group would also be charged with unpicking scientific arguments from
commercial, political and ethical agendas.

The second generation of GM crops is about to emerge and the next round of
the contest to begin. If consumers are ever to trust GM foods we need a voice of
reason. Even government regulators aren’t up to this job. Krebs’s report and
another, published last week by the US National Research Council, stress the
need to improve the testing of GM foods for allergens and toxins. They also
argue that not enough is known about the environmental impacts of the crops.
These comments do not instil confidence in the bodies set up to protect us.

Perhaps the best reason for the expert group is that it will bring developing
countries into the debate. Genetic engineering stands to have a big and
immediate impact where food is scarce or nutrition poor. China is already
growing thousands of hectares of GM crops while many African and Asian
scientists are keen to apply the technology to local crops.

But poor countries can’t afford extensive environmental and food-safety
tests. The expert panel could plug these holes. To do this,
somebody—either a body such as the World Bank or the GM group
itself—will need a pot of money to fund research. Studies of the impact of
GM crops on the rich ecosystems of the tropics are a must.

Krebs’s group would be a good way to bring sense to the GM debate and to
avoid disasters. Unlike global warming, GM crops are not a global curse. Only
indiscriminate use of genetic engineering could turn them into one.