[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

nature editors want organic movement to stop telling the truth about GM crop



nature editors want organic movement to stop telling the truth about GM crop


Nature 424, 473 (31 July 2003); doi:10.1038/424473a


Diversity in food technology



A scientific review, farm-scale trials and extensive public
consultations on genetically modified crops should pave the way for
greater benefits and choice for consumers — provided that the organic
movement abandons self-damaging dogmas.


Last week in England, the Lake District National Park Authority, like
other British regions before it, declared itself a GM-free zone. This
came close on the heels of a meeting between Margaret Beckett, the
British secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs,
and heads of major retail chains. She was left in little doubt of the
retailers' resistance to stocking genetically modified (GM) foods on
their shelves, given customers' antipathy.

Ironically, these events coincided with the publication of a rather more
positive scientific assessment of GM crops (see Nature 424, 358; 2003).
The review emphasized that, provided appropriate testing and regulation
are in place for consideration on a case-by-case basis, GM crops hold
out significant promise and leave little grounds for fear.

The next steps in the great British GM saga, which is being watched
closely by many other countries, will be the publication of results of
the farm-scale evaluation of oilseed rape, beet and maize, and the
publication of the results of a major public consultation, both due in
September. A final scientific review will then be produced for
ministers. As the recently published review emphasizes, information from
farm-scale evaluations is important in answering key questions about the
effects of agricultural processes on wildlife.

The public debate warrants close scrutiny. The processes of
consultations (some 40,000 responses) and public meetings (nearly 500,
in all) are complete. But only now has the scientific review addressed
an agenda of concerns set by initial public consultations. The succinct
information provided on the website of the public debate and at meetings
does not do justice to the messages now available from the science
review. Although much public concern is focused on issues of ownership
and equity, the late timing of the science review limits the value of
the public consultation on science-related issues.

More worryingly, open meetings in the public debate have been subjected
to campaigning tactics by anti-GM lobbyists, leading to complaints from
other members of the public that discussions have been compromised. So
particular attention should be given to the independent evaluation of
the consultation process.

The review left little doubt that the coexistence of GM and organic
farming (assuming that approval for GM use is granted) will prove
difficult to maintain. But the problem is an artificial one, based in
essence on an ultimately arbitrary and self-defeating definition of
'contamination' by the organic movement.

Consider, for example, late blight in potatoes, a major problem for both
conventional and organic farmers. Organic farmers contain the problem by
applying copper sulphate-based preparations, which can harm the soil.
Attempts to breed potatoes that are more resistant to the pathogen,
Phytophthora infestans, have consistently failed to yield a marketable
product. The best solution probably lies several years down the road in
the next generation of GM crops.

British organic farmers — or at least the Soil Association, their
campaigning organization — will resist seemingly to their dying breath
the idea that inserting genes using molecular biology could be as
ethical as the often less reliable but nevertheless technological
approaches of conventional organic plant breeding and management. One
can but hope that the messages from science will continue to be
reassuring about the impacts of GM crops, and that they will combine
with organic farmers' self-interest to demolish such phoney bastions,
and allow both approaches to agriculture to prosper, in the ultimate
interests of consumer benefits and choice.

********************************************************

To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html and unsubscribe by typing in your e-mail address or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.

Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html