Science surrounded by social issues

The GM food debate presents the classic conundrum for science because it involves powerful social, economic, political and moral issues.

Here are a few of the fronts on which the GM war is being fought.

Ethics

Proponents of genetic technology say humans have been interfering with natural processes ever since selective breeding began. Genetic engineering is simply an extension of breeding which is quicker and more precise.

Some opponents say genetic engineering is "playing God" that inserting genes from, say, a fish into wheat cells pushes "breeding" far beyond the limits of natural reproduction. Some argue that vegetarians should know if animal genes have been introduced into vegetables.

Others argue the creation of new strains is permanent and, once released, may alter gene pools and ecosystems.

The environment

Proponents of GM crops say food can be produced in adverse conditions, will store better and need less chemicals and fertiliser. Opponents worry about the possible reduction in the biodiversity of agriculture to a few super-breeds; the unkown effects of intermingling of engineered breeds with natural species; and reports that insect-killing crops have affected endangered insect species.

Health and labelling

There is concern that allergens have been found in GM foods. However, GM proponents say the risk is low and that regulatory tests have picked them up.

Proponents say that the normal procedures for ensuring safety in food are adequate for GM food it should be treated like additives are treated. The issue of labelling and how much information should be on the label is a concern for manufacturers of foodstuffs who fear consumers will avoid GM food, even though it may be safe.

Multinational companies

Opponents say the GM crop business is an extension of the huge agricultural chemical industry, which is dominated by a handful of multinationals. The companies have gained patents for their GM strains of crops and can determine how farmers use the seeds. They have even produced "terminator" seeds that cannot be reaped and resown by the farmer causing the farmer to return to get new seeds from the supplier every year.

GM proponents argue that the introduction of new GM products has not changed the behaviour of the big companies (they are a fact of life in international agriculture) and it's a matter for corporate regulators to deal with. In any case, farmers are not bound to buy GM crop seed, nor from the big companies, they say.

Economics

Some GM food proponents say GM crops have the potential to alleviate starvation in areas that have poor agricultural conditions. Opponents say the political forces of debt and dependency that cause Third World poverty would need to be addressed if there were to be real relief GM crops won't do that. Poor countries can't afford the food that the world produces now.

Some proponents, especially in the US, say the European backlash against GM foods is a result of some European countries' poor food regulatory record (e.g. the UK's mad cow crisis) and the influence of powerful farmers' lobbies trying to defend their traditional practices.

The Public View

In a novel approach to dealing with a complex scientific, economic and consumer issue, a panel of lay consumers was assembled earlier this year for a three-day conference in Canberra.

Fourteen people from around Australia and from different walks of life were chosen from 200 volunteers to attend the First Consensus Conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain.

Experts from science, agriculture, the seed companies, food industry, environment movement and the consumer movement made submissions to the panel.

The panel's recommendations included:

• labelling GM food in shops
• banning new GM foods until a statutory authority is established to monitor and approve foods
• making companies who produce GM products pay a levy to support the new regulatory authority
• getting the Australian government to push for international regulations on GM foods.

Governments want labels

The health ministers of Australia and New Zealand decided in August to introduce a limited system of mandatory labelling of GM foods.

Labelling will be required on all foods containing GM products, except where the GM content is minimal.

The decision has upset both sides of the debate - the consumer associations say some GM foods will get to shop shelves unidentified, while food producers say the labelling may be costly and misleading.

Related articles

Genetically modified foods: time for science to speak out
Cow vaccine study may help in AIDS fight
WA — centre of the lupin universe
Plants that make rabbits sterile
Public questions gene technology, says new study
WA firm creating virus-free wheat
International law to tackle gene giants