Reflections:
Like ‘an axe in the hands of a
pathological criminal’?
continued from previous page
Because of the complexity of food products, research on the safety of GM foods is more difficult than carrying out studies on components, such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals. Through the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other fora, countries are discussing standards for GMOs and ways to ensure their safety. The potential of GMOs to upset the balance of nature is another concern of the public. GMOs are “novel” products which, when released, may cause ecosystems to adjust, perhaps in unintended ways. There is also concern about the possibility that genetic “pollution” will result from out-crossing with wild populations.
Ideally, in forming their views about GMOs, consumers should weigh the perceived benefits of accepting a new technology against the perceived risks. Since only a few of the currently available plant or animal GMOs present obvious benefits to consumers, they question why they should assume possible risks. It is said that consumers take the risks while the producers (and/or the multinational supply companies) reap the benefits. Clearly, risk assessment and risk management methodologies are critical in this context. Science-based risk analysis seeks to enable experts to make decisions that minimize the probability of hazards in the food supply system and the environment. Consumers, however, may also wish for more transparency to protect their right to exercise informed consent on their own. Obviously, informed consent and labelling foods of GMO origin are the most important issues in this debate.
At present there are very few fora available to the public to discuss the wide range of issues relating to GMOs. The absence of such fora can lead to advocates concerned with one aspect of GMOs, such as environmental impact, pushing their concerns into a forum set up to deal with another aspect, such as labelling for example. A related issue is how to credibly bring the private sector transparently into public fora and, subsequently, how to hold public and private sector agencies accountable. Consumers’ choices in the market cannot be ignored: they do not have to buy. The market is not the only place where consumers can express their views or preferences. Consumers have different lobby/protest groups seeking a more direct “say” in how their food is produced. This must be understood in the context that consumers throughout the world now live and work far from the locations where their food is produced. This lack of direct involvement in the production process can result in consumers’ views on the agri-food system and its products being ill-informed, misled and often largely ignored. The media have a very important and responsible role to play in this context.
Clearly, there is much concern and confusion about the risks of GMOs in terms of food safety and the environment. Regulatory agencies base their standards on science-based assessments of risk. Scientists, economists and policy makers are now using risk analysis methodologies to structure their evaluation of the effects of genetically modified organisms. Risk analyses comprise three components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. Risk assessment and risk management are largely self-evident.
 | Aesculus Hippocastanum
18th century print from the collection of David Lubin
Lubin Memorial Library at FAO |
 | Pinus Laricio
18th century print from the collection of David Lubin
Lubin Memorial Library at FAO |
Risk communication deserves special mention, as it is the element least practised or highlighted in the GMO debate. It involves the interactive exchange of information and opinions among assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the scientific community and other interested parties throughout the risk analysis process. Regulatory issues, especially those relating to quarantine, invasive species and biosafety become very important when GM crops are traded internationally. International organizations supporting conventions, such as the International Plant Protection Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, are actively engaged in constructing workable regulatory frameworks. More specific regulatory mechanisms include a code of conduct on biotechnology as it affects the conservation and use of genetic resources for food and agriculture. This is currently under development by FAO member countries within the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. At the international level, particularly within FAO, there are mechanisms to establish standards for food products, plants, animal health and fisheries; in March 2000, FAO launched an Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture to assist developing countries in debating these issues.
Certainly, the use and implementation of traditionally improved organisms and technologies would be sufficient to permit developing countries to achieve the goals of the World Food Summit. But the evidence to date clearly shows that genetic engineering technologies and GMOs have the potential to raise levels of efficiency and productivity in plant and animal production significantly in a world where population will increase from the present level of six billion to nine billion and where the best agricultural land is diminishing through urbanization, industrialization and infrastructure for transport development, while deforestation and expansion of agriculture in marginal land constitute serious blows to fragile ecosystems. Potential benefits of biotechnology with the necessary safeguard measures for health and environment must be brought within the reach of everybody, including the poor and the most disadvantaged, ensuring food safety as an integral and critical part of this research and development process. Clearly, it is not possible to make sweeping generalizations about GMOs; each application must be fully analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Through complete and transparent assessments of GMO applications, and recognition of their short- and long-term implications, the debate can be less contentious and more constructive. There is still relatively little information available to enable the layperson to make decisions. Widely communicated, accurate and objective assessments of the benefits and risks associated with the use of genetic technologies must be made available to all stakeholders. This, all the more, highlights the ethical responsibilities of the scientist to be more proactive and to communicate their findings in terms of what can be understood by everyone. Professional scientific associations have a greater role to play in this regard.
The right to adequate food carries with it Governments’ obligations to protect individuals’ autonomy and their ability to participate in public decision-making fora, especially when issues relating to the most basic of all necessities - food - are being discussed. These obligations can include the provision of public resources to ensure that the fora are effective and are conducted in a spirit of fairness and justice.
Whereas GM technologies offer a great opportunity to develop a world that is truly food secure, we must not forget that we - the scientific community, the international community, the multinational life science companies and the donor community, together with national Governments - all bear a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the developing countries can equitably share in these exciting advances that science offers in a way that is safe for their population and environment. This calls for a more open, integrated and collaborative involvement of all the stakeholders engaged in developing country agriculture and food production.
Throughout history, man has continually sought advances in knowledge and enlightenment to meet his needs for food, shelter and safety. Over time, each era brought its own set of Promethean changes and associated risks. Following the industrial revolution, the science of change became more profound, more excitingly challenging and more potentially dangerous as technologies became increasingly potent and risky; in turn, each new perceived, risk-prone development invoked calls for the control of science and scientific paradigms in terms of assured safety in the management of scientific advance.
Paradigm shifts are interesting moments in science, because they force us to rethink the rationale of our actions as scientists. They are particularly interesting when we can perceive the outcomes, not of mutually exclusive approaches but of possibilities for acceptable broad-based developments for the common good. Today, the science of food and agriculture has reached another milestone in its history that heralds significant and exciting possibilities to build a new Green Revolution - a much needed set of changes to which hundreds of millions of food insecure people bear witness today, and on which sustainable development can and will build for this and for future generations to come.
To the scientist, to the development community and to all of us, this tremendous challenge requires a more comprehensive, transparent and inclusive research paradigm involving the sharing of decision-making and research outputs in ways not done before. The effective, transparent and equitable use of increasingly accessible Information technologies can help build the much needed inclusive framework of scientific investigation for the food needs of today’s poor and tomorrow’s world.
But as scientists, we should always keep in mind the warning of Einstein: “Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.”
Therein lies the challenge.
Based on FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf’s address
to the
Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry International Conference,
in Stockholm, Sweden in May 2001.
|
