SO, TODAY鈥檚 collection of genetically modified crops offers little economic value to the UK 鈥� or to the rest of Europe, for that matter. Even if governments give GM crops the green light, there is little point in farmers growing them if the public carries on refusing to buy them.
This reasoning, laid out last week by the UK government鈥檚 Strategy Unit, triggered a gloat-fest among anti-GM campaigners. But any 鈥渨e told you so鈥� triumphalism is misplaced, not least because it is absurdly circular: the war waged by campaigners is one of the factors that has led consumers to reject GM crops. More importantly, the Strategy Unit offers European governments a clear direction for escaping the bind they find themselves in.
On one side they face a potential transatlantic trade war if they do not lift their de-facto ban on GM, and are likely to find inward investment drying up if they appear to be hostile to science-based companies. On the other side sits an alliance of anti-GM groups whose views hold sway over a sceptical electorate. The big question is how to reconcile these opposing forces.
Advertisement
The Strategy Unit explores the economic costs and benefits of GM crops by setting out future scenarios that assume different levels for two factors. One is the height of the hurdles that governments put in the way of biotech companies. The other is the degree of public support for GM crops*. It is brutally honest in its depiction of possible outcomes: they range from a country where consumers benefit from cheaper GM food to a breakdown in trust between government and the public.
Yet the first thing to note about these outcomes is the lack of absolutes: nothing is all good or all bad. Lax regulations and lots of public support, for example, allow farmers to grow any new crop that comes along; but they also leave the country open to health and environmental scares and make it difficult to track down the culprit. These shades of grey reinforce a point this magazine has made before: GM crops cannot be lumped together and treated in the same way.
It is a safe bet that the review of scientific research into GM crops being prepared by David King, the UK鈥檚 chief scientific adviser, will also find shades of grey. Crop yields will depend on a variety of factors, from soil type and temperature to rainfall and the timing of spraying. Threats to the environment and to organic farmers and beekeepers from GM pollen will also vary by crop and by area. Any licensing system that does not address the foibles of individual crops 鈥� and where and how they are grown 鈥� is doomed to fail.
And here is where governments stand to regain the initiative on GM crops. If the public is to be won round, governments must set up a strict approval process, a clear plan for how GM farmers will coexist with organic producers, and even a system for monitoring GM crops and their pollen. Such a system, coupled with European Union rules on labelling GM food, would let people choose what to eat and reassure them that their fears are being dealt with seriously.
There is even a model for a body that could advise not just on GM crops but on all GM organisms. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence advises the British public and doctors on new drugs 鈥� the risks, benefits, cost-effectiveness and how they should be used. It has been widely praised, and other countries are slowly creating similar organisations. Adapting the NICE model to deal with GMOs would not be too hard.
There are, of course, disadvantages with adopting strict policing. Biotech companies searching for permissive countries may take their money elsewhere. They will also complain about the high costs of approval for their GM crops. But as the Strategy Unit makes plain, the companies have little to lose and everything to gain. High hurdles will ensure they only bring to market crops with clear benefits.
Which raises another salient point. Ten years into the GM revolution, we still have no 鈥渒iller application鈥�: no crop with unequivocal economic, environmental or health benefits for wealthy western consumers. Until that crop arrives, the public is being asked to take a risk for little return, and biotech companies and governments will continue to have a tough time convincing them to do so.
*FieldWork: Weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops ()