J. Environ. Monit. 1999 1 97N Focus Sound science or sound bytes? Europe�s struggle with genetically modified crops To restore its authority in the GM debate science has to face up to uncertainty public mistrust and fierce commercial pressures Ask people in the street if they would welcome reduced use of pesticides in agriculture increased crop yields in developing countries or natural ways to remove metals from soil and most would say an emphatic yes on all three counts. So how is it that a technology that oVers real prospects of achieving all this and much more� genetic modification (GM) � is caught in a mire of political controversy and public vilification? Pandora�s box Genetic modification involves the insertion of genetic material from one organism into another so as to introduce specific novel characteristics or �traits�.1 At present only a relatively limited number of traits are being introduced into commercial crops primarily to improve tolerance to herbicides and resistance to pests or diseases.In addition many other avenues of research are also being pursued which hold the prospect of modifying plant properties to achieve productivity or functional benefits (Box 1). Evidence on the environmental benefits of GM herbicide-tolerant crops (GMHTs) is still unclear. In the UK early trials on sugar beet have shown complex spraying regimes can be replaced by just two applications of a single herbicide at considerable financial saving to the farmer.2 But a study of commercial GM crops in the US found pesticide use identical to conventional crops at almost half of the study sites and no gains in crop yield in two-thirds of the regions studied.3 As in any new development there are risks.A whole variety of potential adverse eVects have been suggested through release of GM crops into the environment (Box 2). Opponents claim GM technology could be a Pandora�s box which once released could never be reversed. While recognising a need for scientific assessment supporters argue that GM crops introduce no new properties that could not be introduced through conventional breeding techniques.2 Since the environmental impacts of organic and other farming systems are also not fully understood GM they say is subjected to �double standards�.4 Sustainability or techno-fix? To fully understand this debate GM technology has to be seen in the wider context of global food security and sustainability.Contrary to predictions of Malthusian crisis over the last fifty years food production has outpaced population growth.5 Driven primarily by substantially higher yields and increased irrigation this so-called �Green Revolution� in agriculture has delivered greater food security and falling prices. The key question is whether existing systems can continue to achieve yield increases and be environmentally sustainable. According to some estimates to meet future demands cereal yield must increase by 80% over the 1990 average by 2025. Furthermore to ensure poverty reduction and environmental conservation this increase will have to come largely through agricultural intensification on existing land � essentially within the complex smallholder farming systems of developing countries.Some see harnessing �the genetic revolution� as essential to the problems of long-term food supply.5 Genetic engineering alongside integrated management practices could help address the dual challenge of sustainable agriculture and higher yields. Others claim genetic engineering is just another �techno-fix� being pushed by the Box 1 Research Trajectories In addition to herbicide-tolerant crops with their proposed advantages in pesticide reduction research into GM crops also takes many other avenues including $ Increasing plant yields In developing countries especially there are opportunities to increase plant yield through tailoring crops to cope better with specific environmental conditions such as salt tolerance or resistance to drought or disease.In sub-Saharan Africa blight-resistant rice varieties produced through GM techniques are already widely used. $ Enhancing nutrition Enhancing the nutritional quality of crops holds the prospect of healthier foods. Over 800 million people worldwide eat food lacking suYcient macronutrients and deficiencies of micronutrients are even more widespread. Work at the interface of plant biochemistry genomics and human nutrition is investigating the synthesis of micronutrients as a means of producing healthier foods. $ Industrial use of crops Many crops are already grown for non-agricultural purposes. There are opportunities to enhance the properties of crops as industrial feedstocks for products such as polymers plastics and lubricants and for energy production. $ Environmental tolerance and treatment Research here focuses on genes and enzymes that could enable crops to flourish on metal-rich soils and even to clean-up heavy metal contamination.Adapted from Plant Biotechnology Food and Feed Science vol 285 16th July 1999 98N J. Environ. Monit. 1999 1 Focus biotechnology companies to increase their stranglehold on the ThirdWorld.6 One aspect of sustainability particularly relevant in Europe is biodiversity. Changes in farming practices over the last fifity years have impacted on natural habitats leading to significant reductions in the abundance and diversity of farmland wildlife.1 In the UK and other European countries a much greater proportion of the land surface is farmed than in the US or Canada where farming and nature conservation are largely segregated.In Europe farmers themselves are viewed partly as custodians of the countryside as reflected in policies for nature conservation and environmental management. This fundamental diVerence suggests we should approach comparisons of potential biodiversity eVects between North America and Europe with caution. The introduction of GM crops must be shown to enhance biodiversity rather than exacerbate current declines. A question of trust If potential impacts are diVerent in Europe and North America so too are public attitudes. In the wake of previous food safety crises the European public treats safety claims for GM foods with scepticism and even contempt. Until very recently at least Americans and Canadians have been much more accepting of GM technology. Recent research has attempted to quantify and explain these diVerences by comparing public perceptions in the US and Europe of five applications of modern biotechnology including GM crops and food.7 It found little evidence that public perceptions reflect the content of press coverage.Negative public perceptions in Europe appeared to be linked more to the volume of press coverage than the actual tone. Examining the public�s understanding of key ideas in biology and genetics the average European was found to be rather better informed than his American counterpart. Thus scientific literacy too fails to explain the more positive attitudes in the US. Trust rather than knowledge seems to be the dominant factor. The public�s trust in regulatory authorities is significantly higher in the United States than in Europe a factor which is at least partly explained by diVerent histories and regulatory structures.7 In the United States the key regulatory issues were settled by the late 1980s after a relatively short public debate.Biotechnology was not seen as posing special risks and regulation was contained within existing legislation. In Europe by contrast biotechnology has been treated as a novel process requiring novel regulatory provisions. National and European institutions have become bogged down in protracted deliberations that have yet to achieve a transnational consensus. Science in the spotlight Mindful of a growing disquiet amongst the public European governments and industry have attempted to marshal science as an arbiter in the GM debate. �Sound science� in the form of risk assessments and farm-scale trials is being stressed as critical in determining the safety of GM crops for commercial exploitation.In the UK a series of high profile experiments are designed to consider how the use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops maint out that although the trials will last four years the GM crop will only be grown for one season in any one field so small incremental impacts of repeated growing will not be detected. Furthermore many aspects of the experimental conditions are unrepresentative of practical farming situations. Thus the trials fail to replicate true commercial practice. Opponents also point to the lack of a serious study of gene flow and the omission of organic or low input systems from the comparison. Sue Mayer Director of GeneWatch UK a pressure group concludes that �the atmosphere surrounding the trials is that they are politically�not scientifically�driven.Taking one small aspect of the safety debate and elevating it above all others neglects the real breadth of the debate and shields politicians from addressing the complex questions involved�. But the charge of �unsound science� is also made by GM�s proponents. The claims earlier this year by Dr Arpad Pusztai that GM potatoes were harmful to rats received massive media attention and marked a turning point in public awareness of the GM issue in the UK. Yet Dr Pusztai�s research was soon shown to be inconclusive.9 Rats do not like potatoes whether modified or not and so both the control and GM-fed groups became malnourished. The results showed no apparent association with genetic modification any changes observed were most likely due to starvation or known toxins in potato.Such experiments serve to highlight the limitations of standard toxicology tests in relation to foods.9 Often laboratory animals cannot be fed enough GM material for any undesirable eVects to be detected. Even where animals do eat enough test food the profound change of diet may make it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. In essence animal models are not sensitive enough to reveal small Box 2 GM Risks Potential adverse eVects of GM crops include $ Toxicity and allergenicity of products made from GM crops as a result of the genetic modification. $ EVects on population dynamics in the receiving environment through direct or indirect eVects on non-target species.$ EVects on biogeochemistry for example changes in nitrogen and carbon recycling from micro-organisms. $ Dispersal of the GM crop in the environment through increased persistence invasiveness and competitiveness with native species. $ Transfer of genetic material to other crops or native plants through pollination. $ Instability of the genetic modification resulting in the loss of the novel characteristic or trait. $ Unintended changes in the GM crop arising from the introduction of novel traits. Adapted from T he Commercial Use of Genetically Modified Crops in the United Kingdom the Potential Wider Impact on Farmland Wildlife Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment UK 1999 J. Environ. Monit. 1999 1 99N Focus diVerences between modified and unmodified foods.Thus demands that genetically modified foods be �proved safe� ignore the fact that we still lack reliable systems for testing conventional foods. Such tests will become more important as crops are engineered to produce desired nutrients or �nutraceuticals� which could result in much more complex changes in the plant�s gene structure. Work in The Netherlands suggests nuclear magnetic resonance techniques could be used to identify substances that diVer in transgenic foods which could then be tested in cell cultures.9 A new colonialism? As well as the nature of scientific change many see the ownership of that change as central to the GM debate.10 Biotechnology�s reliance on patents means commercial interests can bar public exploitation. Whereas in the past public research centres could access the knowledge generated by basic research today this route is blocked by the widespread patenting of processes and products.5 As a result research priorities are focused in areas with the greatest commercial but not necessarily social advantage.Developing countries suVer most the long-life tomato becomes a higher priority than drought-resistance salt tolerance or disease resistance for staple crops. In areas where the public sector is championing research it is hampered by access to basic but proprietary knowledge. The race for patents can also be damaging to the research community. Patents control the route to future research. Mindful of the huge sums at stake from royalties and license fees scientists are becoming reluctant to collaborate for fear of losing patent rights for themselves or their employers.This assumed right to patent nature has been characterised by some as �biopiracy� and as heralding a �new era of colonialism�.10 The answer they say lies in removing commercial interests from basic knowledge and treating research on fundamental aspects of nature as part of the global commons. Under a concept known as �public patents� such goods would be held permanently in public ownership with guaranteed common access rights. Others have argued for new and more comprehensive collaboration with the private sector which while respecting (individual patient rights) (IPR) protection provides access to specific �public goods� research for developing countries through legally binding agreements.5 Facing up to ignorance These then are the key landmarks in the GM landscape scientific uncertainty conflicts in ownership and a deep-seated public mistrust of all things �GM�.One important step forward must be to put science�s role in the debate into proper perspective; in particular the politician�s emphasis on �sound science�. Scientific authority does not rely on risk assessment alone. As a recent study for the UK�s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) points out �the concept of ��ignorance�� is just as well-founded in the science of probability as the concept of ��risk�� �.11,12 Current approaches fail to recognise that in risk assessment the underlying assumptions used at the start of the process can significantly aVect the outcome. Where we lack information either on the likelihoods of diVerent outcomes or on the nature of the outcomes themselves then risk assessment procedures break down.In GM foods as with other new technologies uncertainty and ignorance are the norm.Whereas the regulatory system focuses on a narrow range of scientific problems public concerns cover a much broader range of issues. Since science cannot provide definitive answers on all these questions a reliance on �sound science� may itself be unsound. Political and ethical issues are central. Precaution rather than narrowly defined monitoring and risk assessment oVers the most �sound scientific� response. �The public are ahead of many scientists and policy advisors in their instinctive feeling for the need to act in a precautionary way� according to Alister Scott a lead researcher in the ESRC team. After BSE salmonella in eggs and the Belgian dioxin scare the European public are no longer willing to accept familiar-sounding reassurances on safety.As Robin-Grove White another participant in the ESRC study notes �More scientific research and monitoring of the eVects of GM crops and foods are needed but research may never resolve the uncertainties so decisions on how much uncertainty to accept is an essentially political judgement�. Better science then is a necessary but not suYcient condition to overcome public mistrust. Government needs improved ways of making decisions about such new technologies where their long-term eVects are unknown. This requires more inclusive decision-making that addresses the broad range of issues raised by these technologies. This in turn should involve more explicit assumptions regarding risk assessment and the choice of policy options.Bring on the analysts So given that GM is and will remain a political issue what are the implications for science itself from the current situation? Firstly it suggests that science�s own engagement in the debate needs to be more inclusive and interdisciplinary. At present scientists� involvement is primarily through geneticists and biotechnologists at �the resource end� and food scientisand tools on environmental interactions (i.e. on �process�) are conspicuous by their absence. Yet many of the central questions in GM development are monitoring issues measurement regimes environmental flows and pathways toxicity eVects long-term monitoring and evaluation.These are all questions which could benefit from the perspectives of environmental analysis. Secondly scientists have an important role in setting the strategic framework. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the UK trials as presently constructed will be inconclusive in meeting the public�s concerns over the commercialisation of GM crops. They are too limited and too short-term to provide the answers needed. GM needs to be seen as part of a much wider picture one option for agriculture to be evaluated alongside alternatives such as organics and lowinputs systems that are also achieving success. Yet these alternatives too are under-regulated and in many cases not fully understood. Thus inputs from the analytical sciences will be crucial in informing future visions for agriculture.Thirdly scientists need to regain public trust. As Gaskell et al. remark �In an increasingly complex world trust functions as a substitute for knowledge�.7 Europeans especially are more likely to trust environmental consumer and farming organisations than scientists or industry. As the ESRC report points out with risk the public fully understands that �absence of evidence� is not the same as �evidence of absence�.11 Scientists need to be more willing to engage in the 100N J. Environ. Monit. 1999 1 debate�but also to be frank about the limits to their knowledge. They should also do more to spell out GM�s benefits. �Genetic modification� is now an emotionally loaded term in the public�s mind. Most people cannot see through to the potential benefits which rarely feature in the media debate.Yet if they did so as noted in the introduction they would support many of the potential outcomes. Only if we have a balanced view of risk and benefit will we as a society be able to decide whether the risks are worth taking. Finally scientists can also seek to ensure an equitable use of IPR. Though we may never achieve a system of public patents or free basic research from commercial interests scientists are well placed to influence how GM IPR is used. Aid programmes in particular are channels for developing pro-poor GM technologies. 7 Worlds Apart? T he Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the US George Gaskell Martin W. Bauer John Durrant Nicholas C. Allum in Science 1999 285 16th July pp. 384�387. 8 Is this a harvest fir for the world? Sue Mayer GeneWatch UK in The Guardian 18th August 1999.9 Unpalatable truths Debora MacKenzie New Scientist 17th April 1999. 10 Can democracy cope with biotechnology? in The Splice of Life vol. 5 Issue 1 Dec98/Jan99 The Genetics Forum. Available at www.geneticsforum.org.uk 11 T he Politics of GM Food Risk Science & Public T rust ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme Special Briefing No 5. University of Sussex October 1999. 12 Assessing the risk of GMOs Topsy Jewell Andy Stirling in Pesticides News 43 March 1999 The Pesticides Trust. Mike Sharpe Notes 1 T he Commercial Use of Genetically Modified Crops in the United Kingdom the Potential Wider Impact on Farmland Wildlife Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions February 1999. 2 A case for GM crop trials David Carmichael in Science and Public AVairs British Association for the Advancement of Science October 1999. 3 GM crops in a field near you in Pesticides News 45 September 1999. 4 A question of breeding David Concar and Andy Coghlan New Scientist 27th February 1999. 5 Biotechnology and Food Security in the 21st Century Ismail Serageldin in Science 1999 285 16th July pp. 387�390. 6 Feeding the World ? In The Splice of Life Vol.4 Issue 6 Aug/Sept 1998 The Genetics Forum. Available a