Vox Polis

With the imminent WTO decision, the EU’s recent announcement over organic food and Monsanto’s renewed attempt to grow Genetically Engineered (GE) seeds in Europe (see 14 January blog) it seems as if the GE food debate is going to be reinvigorated in 2006. Vox Polis readers need to know the truth about GE; why is there so much opposition? Why should we be worried?

These are some of the questions that will be answered on Vox Polis’ GM Truths page!

Lesson 1- The PR of Genetics
Using the right terminology is imperative if you are to win over hearts and minds in the Public Relations battle. The companies that have developed genetically enhanced seeds have chosen to label them as “Genetically Modified” (GM). This is no accident. GM refers to the use of hybridisation and selective breeding techniques that have dominated human intervention in agriculture for over 10,000 years. By labeling them as GM food, the companies associate them with a natural tradition that farmers have been using for centuries. But the processes used by these companies are something new, something that has not been possible before now.

Technically we should refer to them as “Genetically Engineered” food (a term used by Greenpeace, and others). GE is the application of new technologies to manipulate and add genes to create resistance to environmental pests, quite different to GM.

Unfortunately for the biotech industry this PR exercise has resulted in failure. The public see GM as a derogative term, inspiring thoughts of “Frankenstein foods” rather than fresh green food.

Lesson 2- Better Safe Than Sorry
GE foods were first introduced to the British palate in 1995 (the first product being tomato paste from Zeneca tomatoes). Huge opposition led to a voluntary moratorium throughout Europe that lasted until 2004, when new crop approval procedures were introduced. This opposition was viewed with puzzlement by our North American friends where GE foods were accepted as an equivalent alternative to traditional brands and have been a regular feature in supermarkets for a number of years.

One of the key reasons for this is the different attitudes taken by policy makers in Europe and North America. In America, the government adopts “substantial equivalence.” This is where a new product would be compared to an equivalent. For example, GE baked beans would be compared to non-GE baked beans. On first sight this may seem a sensible approach, however the test usually only compares selective characteristics, such as taste and nutrition. So if the GE baked bean is found to have similar taste and nutritional value it is deemed no more dangerous than the existing baked beans on the market and will not have to undergo any further tests.

In comparison, Europe adheres to the Precautionary Principle; “when an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” This is the generally accepted Wingspread definition (agreed at the Wingspread Conference in 1998). Although there are a number of interpretations of the principle such as the Cartagena Protocol (which argues that the environmental impact must be weighed against the proposed benefits) and Rio declaration (that precautionary measures should be cost-effective), the Wingspread is usually accepted as a good working definition. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those who oppose the measure to those who propose it.

When we are dealing with a new product, such as GE, that once it is released into the environment or consumed by people, it can not be recalled, then we must be certain of its potential effects. The Precautionary Principle allows us to be safe rather than sorry.

Lesson 3- EU control of Genetics
Growing public concern over GE crops led the EU to impose a moratorium on their sale in June 1999. This was to give the EU time to consult and formulate a new regulatory framework. During that time we saw the farm scale evaluations in the UK. By 2004 the EU decided on new rules ending the ban.

The legislation covers both the growth of new GE crops and the regulation of food containing GE material. The EU judges every crop on a case by case basis, an approach which is line with International standards, such as the Catagena Protocol and Codex Alimentarus Commission. The European Food Authority carries out a risk assessment covering both the potential environmental impact and on human/animal health. The European Commission then reviews the evidence and decides, giving the crop a licence for 10 years. The EU also introduced strict labeling and traceability rules which means GE crops can be tracked from farm gate to fork and if necessary recalled.

Although this system is in operation, the EU has been unable to convince some member states to adopt GE crops that they have determined safe. Notable rebel states include Greece, France, Austria, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg.

The recent WTO ruling on GE was over this moratorium, which of course the EU lifted in 2004. Although at first glance this would seem to make the ruling redundant, it will have further implications in the future. More on that next time.