A NATIONAL debate on genetically modified crops sponsored by government ministers is never going to be an entirely thrilling experience 鈥� as Britain鈥檚 attempt to launch one revealed last week. Such debates are not wrong in principle. The key problem in the UK lies in the way the debate is being framed. Everything about it including the title, 鈥淕M Nation?鈥�, suggests that the country faces a stark choice. Either it welcomes GM food with open arms, or it turns its back on the technology for good. But this dichotomy is a fiction designed to suit the dogmatic agendas of those on both sides of the argument.
The question that ought to be driving the debate is not whether GM crops should or should not be grown, imported or eaten. Rather, it is what regulations need to be attached to these activities to protect the environment and consumers.
Without convincing evidence that GM crops are harmful to health or the environment 鈥� and as yet there isn鈥檛 any 鈥� governments will struggle to find a long-term legal basis for banning imports of GM seeds and produce. Pleas that their electorates don鈥檛 like the smell of the technology won鈥檛 get them very far in international trade talks. The long-term options for Europe will be more honestly served by debating how, not whether, GM crops should be grown and sold.
Advertisement
Few technologies are all good or all bad, and GM crops will be no exception. What ought to matter is how we manage the risks to ensure that the technology delivers more of the good than the bad. If there are fears about herbicide-resistant genes spreading to create superweeds or farmers overusing herbicides to the detriment of wildlife, let鈥檚 have rigorous environmental monitoring and get the seed manufacturers and farmers to pay for it via a licence fee. If people are worried about GM crop patents being concentrated in a handful of greedy multinationals, let鈥檚 spend more public money on crop genetics. If there are concerns about GM pollen contaminating organic crops to a meaningful degree, let鈥檚 make the seed manufacturers and/or GM growers responsible for compensating the organic growers. If people want to shun GM food, let鈥檚 follow through with the EU鈥檚 plans to make labelling and traceability mandatory.
There are logical policy responses to virtually all the major concerns people have about GM crops and the companies that own them. But are they likely to get a decent public airing? Not in a debate framed around a false choice, dominated by two camps that appear to enjoy shouting entrenched views at each other over and over again.