Declaration of disinterest

Although I have worked all my life in agriculture and science-based industry, I have had no direct involvement with GM crops or the companies that produce them. These thoughts, therefore, are those of an interested, informed but outside observer, with no financial or other involvement in the GM sector. Finally, I must emphasise that the views expressed here are entirely my own and should not be attributed to any organisation with which I am, or have been, associated.

Summary

1. The debate over GM typifies mankind's historical ambivalence to technological change and thus should not be seen as unusual or threatening.
2. Technology is neutral; it is how it is used that matters. Each GM crop should be judged on its individual merit, as with all other technologies.
3. Governments should not decide whether a product is "needed". Once a GM crop has passed safety assessment the market should be allowed to judge its worth.
4. We should not impose our prejudices on other countries - they know best what is right for their circumstances.
5. Mankind has always "played God", deciding which species are good or bad - GM technology simply refines this age-old selection process.
6. The GM controversy has developed its own myths and muddles, not least over herbicide and antibiotic resistance and terminator genes.
7. In fighting prejudice we have not abolished the sin, simply changed the target. We must decide if the GM debate is to be based on science or sentiment, fact or prejudice - we must look beyond the headlines to investigate the properties of each individual use of GM technology.

1: Attitudes to Technology.

1.1 Mankind has always been ambivalent to new technologies, throughout recorded history there are examples of strong resistance to change, a fear of the new, contrasting with those whose vision saw only the positive opportunities. Motorcars, aeroplanes, vaccination, anaesthesia, television were all, when new, both applauded as the way to a sunlit future and vilified as heralding the end of civilisation. Areas of dispute have covered the whole spectrum from economics to morals. In this respect the debate on GM Crops must be recognised as nothing new or unusual.

1.2 It can also be noted that while all these technologies still have their critics, very often today's concerns have little connection with those of the original opponents, and that overwhelmingly the introduction of the technology has been beneficial. Even where there have been problems, it is what we have done with the basic knowledge that is the problem, not the technology itself. (The internal combustion engine has powered both Ambulances and Tanks; even with tanks, all but the most ardent pacifist would distinguish between the different regimes using them.)

2: Product or technology?

2.1 Both sides in the GM/Biotech debate are guilty of making sweeping generalisations that do not bear scrutiny. GM is not all good or all bad. Technology is neutral. It is not the technology that should be discussed, but what is done with it.

2.2 In all other sectors of modern technology it is the individual product that is assessed, and permitted or excluded, not the technology itself, this, it seems to me, is the logical and right approach to GM crops.

2.3 Even with GM/Biotech, Society has accepted a variety of uses with minimal fuss. In human and animal medicine vaccines and therapies, as well as diagnostic tests, are in general use and widely accepted in spite of depending on biotechnology for their existence. In food manufacture, many processes have been improved by the introduction of GM organisms into fermentation technology (and of course fermentation is itself an age-old use of biotechnology). For example, Glucose is manufactured using enzymes that break down starch, today those enzymes are produced by organisms whose productivity has been greatly enhanced by genetic modification, similarly, the "vegetarian" cheese sold in most supermarkets is made using artificial rennet, created by GM technology, which replaces the natural rennet from calves.

2.4 I would argue that the Biotech sector has scored a major "own-goal" by trying to promote all GM crops as a single beneficial entity, similarly the opponents of GM do us all a disservice by "tarring them all with the same brush". The only rational, logical, scientific approach to GM, as to all technologies, is to operate a case-by-case process, assessing each individual product or use on its merits.

3/ "But we don't need them."

3.1 Michael Meacher MP is reported to have declared that we do not "need" GM crops (18.02.2003). Given that the Government's science based review is still underway, this is an odd position for a Government Minister to take - has he already pre-judged the issue, or is it simply that he knows better than the Government's independent advisors?

3.2 Some 15 years ago a British MEP, Ken Collins, postulated the idea that all new technology should be subjected to a "socio-economic assessment"(i.e. was it needed?) I argued then, as did many others, that it was a dangerous concept that could fix the EU in a technological time warp, allowing European science and technology to atrophy while the outside world progressed (rather as had happened to the historic Japanese and Chinese Empires). As mentioned above, all new technologies have their critics and very often the loudest voices come from those with a vested interest in the status quo: Motorcars/horse owners, aeroplanes/ship-builders, Television/theatre, anaesthetics/medical establishment, and for many work-place technologies, the Unions. Today these historical arguments may seem bizarre, archaic, and yet with each new technology humanity repeats the same cycle.

3.3 I have already argued that we should assess each individual "product" on its merits; I would further argue that, once a product has successfully passed a rigorous independent assessment, it should be allowed on to the market to sink or swim. We should not try to pre-judge the worth of something whose utility may not yet have been fully appreciated.

4/ Neo-colonial campaigners.

4.1 A decade ago, at the height of the debate on BST (Bovine Somatotropin) a group of MEPs who were campaigning for this product to be banned invited the head of the Indian milk authority to speak to them. They were much discomforted to receive a severe dressing down from their eminent guest. The nub of his comments was that the European Parliament could ban BST in Europe if it wished, but they should not interfere in the affairs of a sovereign country; India had a milk shortage and would make its own decision on whether to use BST - The EP should keep its neo-colonial ideas to itself!

4.2 Today a tragedy is developing in Africa; thanks to a combination of drought, politics and economic mis-management the local farmers are unable to feed their compatriots. Grain, particularly maize, has been offered as famine aid by the USA. Anti-GM campaigners have persuaded at least one African government to reject this food unless it is guaranteed not to contain GM grain. This decision has been made on behalf of starving Africans by campaigners and politicians who will not themselves go hungry. The grain has already been approved as safe for consumption in the US, and is consumed there, the most litigious society in the world. It seems reasonable to assume that if there were the slightest whiff of a health concern with GM foods then US lawyers would already be locked in battle. As a former agricultural aid worker in Uganda I find the willingness of western activists to advance their cause over the bodies of starving Africans totally reprehensible.

4.3 In a world that is forecast to have another 2 billion hungry mouths in the next 20 years, what right do we in the well-fed West have to block the development of agricultural technologies which could help the third world to feed itself? In a world with finite resources of fossil fuels, dare we block technologies that could enhance production of sustainable bio-fuels?

5/ "Playing God"

5.1 One of the most common insults aimed at scientists and their activities is that they are "playing God", are "unnatural". Both allegations are true, but neither stands up to scrutiny as being either novel or derogatory: - No farm or garden activity is truly "natural", and never has been since mankind stopped being "hunter-gatherers." Each time we turn the soil, milk a cow or plant a flower we act in a way that does not exist in nature.

5.2 Mankind has always "played God", deciding which species of plant or animal to select and nurture, which one to suppress as a pest or weed. None of the major farm species of crop or livestock are "natural" to the British Isles, while many of our popular garden plants and shrubs were collected and brought here as recently as the 19^th century.

5.3 In particular, breeders of plants and animals have always "played god", selecting and discarding strains, choosing which individuals should reproduce, and which of their offspring should survive; which characteristics were desirable and which were not. Increasingly sophisticated and precise techniques have been developed as our understanding of genetics has increased. Thus the techniques of genetic engineering can be seen as only one more step in a process that has evolved over 10,000 years.

6/ Some myths and muddles.

6.1 Every highly charged debate collects its own myths; stories that are so sincerely believed that they are seldom subjected to scrutiny: -

6.2 "Herbicide resistant weeds". The legend is that genes will spread from "herbicide resistant" GM crops such as Oilseed rape to related native weeds, which will become resistant and overrun us. It is a good story, but the resistance conferred, even if it happened, would be to a single herbicide, glyphosate. Brassicas crops, such as Oil seed rape, and related native weeds (Charlock, hedge mustard etc) are extremely sensitive to a range of simple and widely available herbicides and so, even if they did become resistant to glyphosate, they could easily be controlled by these alternatives.

6.3 "Terminator genes". There is no doubt that some GM companies have contemplated the development of strains which could not reproduce themselves, so that farmers had to buy new seed each year. However this is not true of currently available GM seeds. It should also be remembered that not all "conventional" varieties breed true; "F1 hybrids", which cannot be replicated by commercial growers, have been sold for years and can be found in any Garden Centre. One positive aspect of the "terminator" is that it would remove fears of cross-pollination - the "antis" cannot have it both ways.

6.4 "Antibiotic markers". It is a fact that some developers of GM seeds used antibiotic "marker" genes in their breeding programmes to help identify successful genetic modification. Given the widespread concern that human pathogens were developing resistance to commonly used medical antibiotics, in hindsight this would seem to have been another "own-goal" by the GM companies, nevertheless, it is wrong to accuse all GM crops of carrying this gene when they are released for commercial use, indeed, even if such crops were commercialised, I am not aware of any evidence to confirm speculation that these genes could transfer to human pathogens and so render them resistant to medical antibiotics..

7/ Conclusion - science or sentiment?

7.1 It is one of the less endearing aspects of human nature that, all too often, campaigning groups seem to be defined by negatives - what they dislike, what they want to ban; hatred of those they oppose rather than love of those they support. Over the last half century Western society has rightly laboured to banish bigotry and prejudice against race, religion or gender; unfortunately we have not banished the sin, simply changed the subject. The focus of prejudice has shifted to farmers, multinationals, scientists, but while there is a world of difference between stoning synagogues and trashing crop trials, it seems to me that at the core are the same age-old attitudes. Our criticism should not, however, be for the dupes who throw stones or uproot trials but for their leaders driven by personal, political or financial ambition rather than altruism. The GM debate often seems to be driven more by hatred of multi-nationals (with more than a tinge of anti-American racism) and the need to gather donations than love of mankind, the environment, or truth.

7.2 My conclusion is that, in a sense, both sides, as well as politicians and officials, have got it wrong by focusing on the big question of "GM" rather than taking a case-by-case approach. My recommendation is that each proposed use of GM technology should be separately, independently, scientifically, examined with each individual use or product "licensed" on its individual properties - in other words a return to reason, to normality and a rejection of "pre-judice".

RR Cook - 28 March 2003

The Author Roger Cook served as the first Chief Executive and Company Secretary of NOAH (National Office of Animal Health Ltd), the UK trade association for animal medicine manufacturers, from its creation in 1986 to his retirement in March 2002.

Following 16 years in the Pesticide industry, from 1984 to '86 he was Company Secretary of the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association (UKASTA) with special responsibilities for pesticides and animal medicines. He is a member of the Institute of Public Relations and the Guild of Agricultural Journalists and a trustee of the integrated farm management charity LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming).