GM crops: part of the solution
On Wednesday, 11 March 2009, the University of Huddersfield hosted a lecture and open discussion that aimed to provide the audience with a detailed overview of genetically modified crops. The event was part of National Science Week and was co-hosted by SCI’s Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Group. The 105-strong audience included a diverse range of activists and scientists. Speaking at the event were Professor Howard Atkinson and Dr Peter Urwin, both of Leeds University’s Centre for Plant Sciences. The event title ‘GM crops: real benefits, real concerns?’ gave a concise picture of the lecture’s aims. These scientists were not aiming to disseminate pro-GM propaganda with unfounded facts, but instead aimed to offer the truth. It can be extremely difficult to combat public concerns fuelled by ill-informed activists and journalists. The lecture’s format allowed the speakers to give a clear presentation on GM issues and answer controversial questions in a composed atmosphere.
Dr Urwin spoke first, illuminating the science behind GM crops. He explained the technique for inserting a new gene into a specimen and put the manoeuvre into context: of the 30,000 genes in an organism, only one is changed. He pointed out that selective breeding is long established; most bananas we eat are more genetically identical to one another than twins. He highlighted the benefits of GM plants: namely, higher crop yields leading to less intensive use of land, solutions for future food shortages and of course, the reduced use of pesticides.
Dr Urwin’s second topic of discussion was environmental impact. He highlighted the importance of thinking ‘case by case’, which is exactly what these scientists do. They think carefully about the particular effects of each crop, proposing the use of only those with a neutral or positive environmental impact. He proposed that ‘the question is not, ‘GM vs non-GM’, but is, ‘which crop?’
Prof Atkinson took over to discuss the food safety aspect of genetic modification. After revealing that many conventional foods on the market were confirmed as harmful to consumers (dependent of course on level of consumption), he proposed the question of where to draw the line. Of course, we can’t yet see the long-term effects of GM food, but is this not the case with some conventional foods? He urged consideration of whether or not it is reasonable to treat all foods like pharmaceutical drugs and put them through rigorous trials before releasing them on the market.
He then discussed developing world needs, saying it should be the right of the country in question to decide. It is here that activists can cause real damage by proliferating a distorted truth. It is our place to simply inform developing world farmers of their options and as Prof Atkinson said, our ‘moral obligation’ to provide them with the means. Finally, he spoke about public concern towards GM intervention. He believes the public appreciates different needs of the developing world, but only by knowing the facts can they contribute productive opinions. Again, activists must choose their mode of action carefully. Society does need ‘whistleblowers’ – they keep our institutions honest – but activists must not ‘cry wolf’.
After the lecture, the audience was invited to question and challenge the speakers, which allowed these specialists to offer clear answers and give GM crops the defence they deserve. In these scientists’ opinions, the crux of this issue is that GM crops are not a panacea, but are part of the solution, and there is no sense in ignoring untapped resources. GM crops must be treated on a case-by-case basis. After all, in some circumstances they have already offered a positive solution.
The event was generally well received. Robert Smith, head of Applied Sciences at Huddersfield University and chairman of the SCI’s Yorkshire and the Humber Group, felt the lecture was a 'clear and balanced exposition’ of GM issues. The activists were less enthusiastic, saying, ‘we felt that there should have been a counterspeaker.' However, as Dr Urwin said, 'debates can often generate a lot of heat, but do not create much light on a matter’. He reiterated the aim of the lecture – to offer the hard facts of the GM question, because ‘the basic premise of a scientist, is honesty'.
Tracy Keys
Communications Coordinator,
Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Group