Red queen running on gene technologies

Bush has not hidden his fury at Europe’s refusal to import American GM food. He expects Mr Blair’s unthinking support...Top officials privately admit the overriding considerations in reaching the decision were to avoid handing a victory to environmentalists and critical newspapers such as the Daily Mail, to avoid displeasing President Bush — and to save Mr Blair from embarrassment.” There was space too (in a total of four whole pages headed “Frankenstein Foods the Great Betrayal”) for political commentator Simon Heffer to attack “totalitarian Tony”. The Prime Minister had shown “blistering contempt” for “ordinary men and women [who] are deeply uneasy about the effect of GM crops on their health and the environment”. Likewise, the Daily Mirror accused the government of deciding to sow “Frankenstein” crops despite public alarm. Campaigners had branded the decision “a great tragedy for consumers and the environment, and a victory for profiteering by biotech giants,” said deputy political editor Oonagh Blackman. According to the Daily Express, the move was likely to trigger mass civil disobedience, with at least one environmental group already vowing to uproot GM crops. Under a headline about Blair “treating the public with contempt”, environment editor John Ingham reported accusations of the government “bowing to big business” and “planning a propaganda offensive by getting pro-GM members of parliament to persuade people of the benefits of GM technology.” Several newspapers referred to a Cabinet Office report last year which said that GM crops were unlikely to bring any economic benefits for the UK at the moment. However, journalists failed to remind readers that this conclusion was not based on any inherent problem or deficiency of GM plants. It simply reflected the reality that farmers and food suppliers would be unable to sell them to consumers who rejected GM products, for whatever reason. Risible in their confusion were the efforts of several newspapers to help readers understand the complexities of the subject. “What is a GM crop?” asked the London Evening Standard. “Answer: GM crops have had genes added in the laboratory, giving them resistance to certain types of pesticide.” This was not a simple slip — the substitution of “pesticide” when “herbicide” was intended. For the answer went on: “Farmers can spray pesticide on fields planted with GM crops to kill weeds and other pests.” “Why do we need them?” the guide continued. “Answer: GM crops would make farming easier, as pesticides could be used more widely.” Is it really too much to ask the Evening Standard to understand that the whole point of putting insecticidal toxin genes into crops is to reduce pesticide use? It was left to The Daily Telegraph to enter a note of caution over the leak that triggered this torrent of anger and misinformation. “Tony Blair is still not convinced that GM crops should be commercialised, despite leaked Cabinet minutes suggesting imminent approval for GM maize,” wrote farming correspondent Robert Uhlig. “Senior figures in the biotechnology industry and groups opposing GM crops... suspected that the minutes were leaked to The Guardian to further the cause of an ‘old guard’ in Whitehall in favour of promoting biotechnology.” Uhlig reported that, at a recent meeting of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, Blair had insisted he had not yet made up his mind whether to approve GM crops. “Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, said yesterday: ‘The Prime Minister was at great pains to stress that he has an open mind about it. He is very concerned about taking on public opinion, particularly after Iraq.’” Watch this space. Current Biology Vol 14 No 6 R214