"The underlying question, what are the potential benefits of GM crops and foods, and the possible risks to human health and to the environment, cannot yet be answered 'factually', because the necessary evidence simply does not exist."

Incidentally, you'll see from the article that Prof Tony Trewavas who recently garnered much publicity by claiming he had had to withdraw from the GM debate because of the intimidation he had been subjected to - he mentioned unkind letters he'd received suggesting he might emigrate - has relinquished his purdah in order to enlighten us further.

"If you ask anyone in the drug industry," TT tells us, "they will tell you that no matter how many tests you conduct you have to, at some point, throw it out into the population and see what happens."

TT forgets to mention that not only are prescription drugs extensively tested, including on human volunteers, before they are "thrown out" into the general population, but doctors also know who's chosen to take the drugs they prescribe and have a system for monitoring any adverse effects!

In this case, short of corpses piling up in the streets, we have no system that's likely to detect adverse effects in anything other than the long term.
---

Science 'does not know all GM crop facts yet'
JAMES REYNOLDS
ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=103712004

MORE pressure has been heaped on the government to reject genetically modified crops, after warnings that the scientific community is not in a position to answer all possible questions about the controversial technology.

Both the Westminster and Scottish parliaments are to make major policy announcements next month on whether to proceed with commercial growing of three GM crops tested in recent trials. But Dr Ruth Levitt, a senior visiting research fellow at the Economic and Social Research Council, at the University of London, the UK’s largest research-funding agency, says many questions are not about hard facts but about values and arguments that are construed very differently by the interested parties.

According to Dr Levitt, the implications of the decision go way beyond the particular fate of the crops in question - genetically-modified oilseed rape, sugar beet and maize.

She said: "The underlying question, what are the potential benefits of GM crops and foods, and the possible risks to human health and to the environment, cannot yet be answered 'factually', because the necessary evidence simply does not exist."

Dr Levitt said that even where policy and practice have been developed over many generations, such as for healthcare or education, there may still be little in the way of reliable facts.

Her paper says that the very act of gathering facts on which to base decisions is itself actively reshaping the whole process, as the various interested parties are presented with material with which to refresh their positions and reassess tactics.

The wider decision is whether the government can genuinely uphold different stakeholders' ranges of options in parallel; for example, so people can knowingly eat the safe food they want at the same time as scientists, industry and farmers can pursue the types of work and reward they want, says the paper.

It argues that, if the government genuinely relied on specially gathered scientific facts to make a decision, as knowledge stands at the moment it would not seem to have sufficient grounds for supporting immediate commercialisation of the three test crops.

The study says that to build consumer confidence for future approvals, the government must work to resolve various doubts and ensure that decisions on future GM crops and foods are assessed in an EU-wide case-by-case approach, along lines being developed now.

On resolving the wider question, Dr Levitt said: "Public debate may be a fashionable approach, but it does not guarantee that good policy-making will result."

She added that being clearer about the tasks that policies are required to perform could facilitate spotting the gaps in factual evidence much sooner; for instance, people’s relative ignorance of the true risks or benefits of conventional farming.

She continued: "The government says it wants to protect the environment and human health, uphold farmers' and consumers' choices, and play a full part in Europe's precautionary approach to regulation. It claims it can do all these things, particularly using evidence provided by sound science.

"(The government) now has a chance to offer a fresh approach to dealing with both the scientific and the political realities."

Mark Ruskell, the Green Party environment spokesman, said: "The very nature of GM makes it difficult to assess conclusively all of the hazards that the technology poses. The fundamental question is, what is the point? Should we not be focusing on other approaches to food and farming that can meet societies needs such as organics?"

But Professor Anthony Trewavas, of the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology at Edinburgh University and a leading exponent of the benefits of GM crops, said: "People can always say that there is not enough known to stop change, but that is the same with any technological advancement.

"We do know a lot about some of the (GM) crops on offer. If you ask anyone in the drug industry they will tell you that no matter how many tests you conduct you have to, at some point, throw it out into the population and see what happens.

"This indicates that you can never in fact find out all the likely difficulties. At the end of the day you have to try things out otherwise you don't get any progress at all."

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive