GE lessons from Britain - 2

by

CARROLL DU CHATEAU

HOW BRITAIN MISMANAGED THE INTRODUCTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

"Of course it will work. Give a scientist enough time and money and he can do anything." Ken Barton, vice president R&D Agracetus. (5)

Bad timing.

Back in 1992, when US biotechnology companies were looking for British registration for their first commercial GM crops, the British public was recoiling from any remotely risky foods following the BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, "mad cow disease") scandal. The BSE scare had irrevocably altered the public’s perception of safety and trust with respect to the safety of food standards and supply. Primarily it had destroyed public faith in the government, its regulatory bodies and the scientists, who -- people perceived -- had lied for it.

Julie Hill, a member of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) and also the Green Alliance (in these troubled times an unlikely mix) states the position clearly. "This had eroded faith in the government’s ability, or indeed will, to protect consumer interest, both from a safety and an environmental point of view." (6)

Loss of faith in scientists.

Guardian columnist, Jonathan Freedland, puts the new attitude bluntly:

"The Guardian/ICM poll published yesterday, found that scientists have lost their place among the professionals we trust…Now just one in three of us believes what scientists say, with a distrust in the new cutting-edge fields at a record levels: only 28% of us believe scientists on the safety of mobile phones, 16% on GM food, while a measly 13% accept their word on cloning…In the words of John Durant, assistant director of the Science Museum: ‘The days have just gone when experts could go ahead and make decisions for the wider public.’ We no longer defer to bishops or politicians: scientists are simply facing the same fate." (7)

John Archer of Cambridge University Genetics Department now routinely prepares his first-year students for public approbrium: "As one in every 1000 people in Britain who are well informed, you will probably be very unpopular for what you do." (9)

Distrust of the Biotech Business.

The British public did not trust the industry developing the technology. (10)

Because considerable knowledge and money is needed to develop GM crops from the test tube, through a series of trials and finally to marketing approval, the technology was already concentrated in the hands of less than a dozen multinational companies, most of them with links to chemical companies. "

These companies need to be sure of being able to recoup their large investments in the technology, and some have gained a reputation for aggressive marketing of GM products, while appearing to ignore the concerns of consumers. The US company Monsanto, for instance, has been heavily criticised for trying to introduce bovine somatotrophin (BST), a genetic modification designed to boost milk production, into Europe against a background of strong animal welfare and economic concerns.…The aggressive stance adopted by Monsanto is widely thought to have coloured perceptions of the rest of the industry." (11)

Big business was seen as being driven by profit before safety, let alone public duty.

Why take the risk?

The first GM products did not offer clear benefits for the buying public. Instead they exploited relatively simple gene technology which, on the surface at least, was geared towards the biotech companies, scientists and farmers rather than consumers. (11)

For example, the Insect Resistant Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) strain of maize and soya produces toxins lethal to insects such as the European corn borer and Colorado beetle (which together destroy 10% of the world’s maize and soya crops) improved farmers’ incomes.

Antibotic marker genes, which helped scientists identify which genes had been successfully modified in the lab, had possible negative implications around the human antibiotic-resistance problem. And chemical/GM seed packages such as Roundup Ready Soya made money for biotech companies like Monsanto on two levels, first by selling the seed, second by selling the Roundup (glypshosphate) to which the seed was resistant.

Inevitable questions were raised about whether the technology would be exploited in the public or the private interest. (12)

Fast-track safety testing.

Governments both in the UK and US, were reluctant to insist on standardised and rigorous laboratory-testing procedures for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), similar to those used to test the toxicology of drugs.

Footnotes:

Read the rest of this report:

1

| 2 |

3

|

4

|

5

|

6

|

7

|

8

|

9

|

10

GE links

GE glossary

GE discussion groups