ANYONE who thought the inexorable rise of genetically modified crops had been
body-checked by consumer pressure and green opposition is wrong. According to
figures out last month, 5.5 million farmers worldwide—mainly in the US,
Argentina, Canada and China—now grow GM crops covering more than 50
million hectares. That’s an area the size of Spain. And with vast countries like
Indonesia about to join the GM club, next year’s leap could be bigger still.
Yet in Britain, where there is still no commercial growing, the GM industry’s
prospects have taken another dive. A report on the potential health impacts of
GM foods slams the current system of safety screening—developed in the
US—as flawed and subjective, and calls for better tests
(see “Good enough to eat?”). The
fact that existing GM crops haven’t harmed anyone is no reason for complacency,
the report warns. The next generation will be more complex, and even subtle
changes in foods could have an impact on people dependent on single food
sources—such as babies fed formula milk.
Just another gloomy warning from green consumer activists? Far from it. The
report comes from a panel of scientists set up by the Royal Society in London,
and is an astonishing sign of how far Britain’s scientific establishment has
moved on this issue. A few years ago, senior scientists were wont to dismiss
public concerns about GM crops as hysteria. Now they are telling regulators to
get tougher.
Advertisement
The report rightly has no truck with the more lurid fears about GM
technology—such as the idea that the DNA that is added to food crops could
create dangerous viruses. But as it points out, inserting genes into plants is
not yet an exact science, so unforeseen side effects on a plant’s biochemistry
are a real possibility. Toxins normally present in a plant at harmless levels
might increase. Nutrients important to a balanced diet might decline.
Yet all companies have been required to do so far is show that their GM food
crops are “substantially equivalent” to non-GM breeds. And that phrase has never
been properly defined. Must the plants look and smell about the same? Must they
contain the same levels of starch, protein and fibre? Must they be equally well
liked and tolerated by rats? Or pigs? There’s no consensus among companies and
regulators, and the panel is right to say that must be fixed.
It would be naive, though, to see this as the key to hearts and minds. In
Britain, neither big business nor its regulators is trusted on GM foods and
consumers cannot yet see this technology giving them anything they want.
Reforming the idea of substantial equivalence will not change this.
Nor will it make the environmental concerns go away. A couple of months ago,
we reported on a worrying phenomenon in Canada: GM crops cross-pollinating with
each other to produce “bastardised” strains. Resistant to more than one
herbicide, such crops could in time behave like super-weeds.
The GM industry may be making a killing in certain parts of the world. But in
sceptical countries it has a mountain to climb—and in Britain the mountain
just got bigger.
