Some people do give a balanced picture of the pros and cons but they are unlikely to be neutral.
When people understand an issue well, they usually take one point of view or another. The whole area is a complicated one technically and more often than not opponents of the technology exploit this by the use of simplistic sound bites like 'Frankenfoods' and 'Superweeds'. A more detailed examination will show such concerns as massively remote, but the issue is whether we trust experts or are helped to understand such allegations in sufficient detail to satisfy ourselves.

It is up to individuals to decide for themselves whether a particular source is reasonable and balanced, and hence perhaps trustworthy; there is no foolproof way of deciding. One way of trying to sort things out is to ask each side for the sources of their statements and then to make at least some attempt to judge who is sticking to facts and evidence, and who is going for assertion and flights of fancy.

There are commercial and other financial interests behind some of opponents as well some of the proponents, but that does not make either camp necessarily dishonest. There certainly appear to be political motivations. Other proponents and opponents may have non-financial interests just as powerful as money.

- whom can you believe or trust?

People who talk sense, who listen and respond sensibly to criticism and who do not keep on saying the same thing for years in spite of new information; in other words, people who are not obviously banging some sort of drum.

Read the newspapers, but also read between the lines!

- can scientists be neutral?

That's the same as asking whether and where one can get unbiased information. Some people give a balanced picture of the pros and cons but if they know much about a subject they will probably have given some thought to where they stand on it.

- what is the involvement and attitude of farmers, producers, environmentalists, supermarkets, Government?

a) recent polls showed that about 70% of UK farmers would like to make up their own minds about whether or not to plant GM crops, not have someone else make up their minds for them.

b) food processors, manufacturers and retailers usually claim to be neutral: "If people will buy, we will sell". How they decide is not clear.

c) environmentalists fall into several categories depending on their motivations. Some are very anti-GM, some mildly so, some mildly-pro and yet others very pro.

d) supermarkets are like the rest of the trade: they will sell what they think their customers will buy

e) The Government is ultimately responsible for regulatory procedures and practices as well as for deciding whether or not commercial cultivation of GM crops should take place in the UK. Many factors are involved in Government decision making. In spite of attempts to discredit the Government for its handling of crises like BSE, its regulatory machinery for new drugs, crops and crop chemicals are amongst the best in the world. BSE was not a regulatory issue, but it has been used to undermine trust in the Government's regulatory machinery.

Novel foods enter the UK diet through supermarkets which are highly regulated, through health food shops, and in open markets which are least regulated. The regulatory process is governed by the Food Act, by a series of EU regulations and also depends on advice from independents, food inspectors and many other local authority checks. So there is an extensive network to protect the public, and the GM foods that were approved for sale in the UK went though all these with particular care.

The same is true of GM crops, which have a strict regulatory regime. So Government took all reasonable steps to protect the British public but we live in a free world, where people have a right to choose for themselves, so there was no reason to restrict. Indeed many argue that Government is already too intrusive into our lives.

The UK Government is responsible for the future well-being of the UK public, for maintaining employment and for assuring that new technology can be used properly for the benefit of the UK population, and that means encouraging safe new technologies. Since there was never any reason to treat GM foods and crops as either evil or unsafe or dangerous in themselves, the proper normal procedures were followed. Government must remain neutral and protect; that is what they have done even if some people think they have done so too cautiously while others think they have gone much too far.

<<<back