Seeking balance in the GM crop debate

There’s a continuing gap between attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) crops in Europe and elsewhere. While the US, Canada, China, India and many other countries are adopting them with gusto, most European countries remain at best cautious and at worst completely hostile to their introduction. The reasons for Europe’s apparent Luddism are many and complex. In some countries there is a general abhorrence of any genetic manipulation. There is also a distrust of the food industry and official regulators, following numerous scares from salmonella, through Escherichia coli, to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease). Opponents argue that, although consumers may be taking risks by eating genetically modified food, all of the benefits go into the pockets of biotech companies. And there are genuine differences between farming practices in the US and Europe, where many farms are still relatively small and wildlife is dependent on particular farming techniques that critics fear will be changed by the new crops. Britain’s science academy, the Royal Society, held an open meeting last month to try to tackle these issues and present the scientific assessment of GM crops. To open, the meeting highlighted just how much change had resulted from increasingly intensive but conventional agriculture in Europe. For example, changes from spring to autumn-sown cereals has had a major impact on many species, especially birds. Eschewing ideological and theoretical arguments, the meeting focused on the practical issues surrounding the potential benefits and risks of GM crops. The vehemence of opposition to GM crops is surprising in the view of Europe’s willingness to embrace biotechnology for medical and other uses. There has, for example, been little ethical concern about the introduction of News focus