London (13 February 2006) – In a thoughtful review of the WTO decision on the US, Canada Argentina complaint against the European Union. the Wall Street Journal praises the emphasis on science (1).

“Frankenstein is finally dead” the article hopefully announces. Would that he were. But opponents of agricultural biotechnology, bereft of decent arguments to support their attacks, rely on all the tricks of the propagandist’s trade: incessant reiteration of the same objections, unsupported as ever by decent evidence, picking up and magnifying every scrap of information which can be turned to their ends and, of course the use of derogatory terms.

Associating Frankenstein with a particular style of plant breeding may have been seen as clever publicity but, as so often with slick campaigning, it makes little sense. The cry is that because transgenic crops are prepared “in the laboratory”, they are not only “unnatural” (as if any of our food or other crops has not been endlessly genetically manipulated for hundreds or thousands of years) but that they are or may be “unsafe”, or that something may happen as a result of their use which we have not yet thought about.

Safety can never be vouchsafed absolutely. To proclaim something, anything, as “safe” means that it cannot result in harm or damage. To state that is to pretend to know the future. Is any food “safe”: butter (too much and you will get heart disease), peanuts (just a whiff if you are unfortunate enough to suffer an acute allergy and you might go into anaphylactic shock – and die) or kiwi fruits (thirty years after their introduction into the UK, and their use in baby foods because they were considered so “safe”, some people began to show allergic responses)?

Or is might be “destruction of the planet’: any change must of necessity be bad unless, of course, it is one that “we” advocate”. Destroying the planet sounds as if we are in imminent danger of falling into the sun; do what the would-be saviours demand, the earth will change course and all will be well for ever and a day.

And if we never did anything until we knew the future we would not be doing a lot.

The Wall Street Journal article welcomes particularly the emphasis on using good science. “GMOs are typically vilified with disinformation campaigns, nowhere more so than on the Continent. Agriterrorists such as France's José Bové destroy fields of GM crops ("Frankenfood" to the looters) to the cheers of radicals and much of the media. The propaganda has had its intended effect. Opinion polls show a majority of Europeans look askance at biotech products.”

“In reality, farmers have been genetically modifying crops for millennia through hybridization. Early cultivators favoured the seeds of plants that were sturdiest and produced the largest yields. Gene splicing is no different, except that it is quicker and more versatile and offers permanent, reproducible crop varieties. Humans have consumed "new" GM foods for a decade now with no discernible ill effects.”

A professor of international development at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government summed up the recent events well (2): “Like in earlier cases, the WTO ruling has far-reaching implications for governments, business and the international community. First, promoting wider access to new technologies builds trust in the global trading system. Technological monopoly by a handful of nations can only breed disenchantment with globalisation. It is also for this reason that many developing countries remain wary of biotechnology. They are more concerned about exclusion than they are about safety. In other words, they perceive exclusion as a more serious risk than the adoption of the biotechnology. When given a chance, these countries have shown enthusiasm for adoption as in Argentina, Brazil and China.”

Sources:

(1) Review & Outlook: Frankensense. Wall Street Journal (Europe) (10.2.06)

(2) Calestous Juma. 'Satan's drink' and a sorry history of global food fights. Financial Times (9.2.06) (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/10b5a072-9911-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html)

<<<back