How Risky are GM Crops?	Prince Charles, Science and SRT
GM is in the news again and risk is the issue. A spot check on batches of oil seed imported from Canada found that they had accidentally been cross-pollinated from herbicide-resistant GM crops growing in the same locality. A major seed supplier then said that some of their maize seeds had been mixed with a Bt insecticide-GM variety, either by pollination or in the machinery which processes the seeds. SRT tells Assembly "Don't over-react" What are we to make of this? At the General Assembly the SRT Director warned against over-reaction regarding risk aspects. There is no reason to suppose that this mixing poses any significant health risk. Dr Bruce was a delegate at the recent OECD conference on GM food safety in Edinburgh. The chairman of the UK Foods Standards Agency challenged the international experts. None could cite a case where genetically modifying food had posed a substantiated health risk that wasn't already there in non-GM food. Several also pointed out that GM foods were widely eaten in North America without apparent ill effects. GM products are carefully screened against known allergenic proteins. No one can claim "zero risk" with any food, GM or otherwise, but GM health risk is not the major concern. What about the Environment? Environmental risks are more significant, but how big are they? When people describe seed mixing with words like "contamination" and "tainted crops", they evoke connotations of serious danger. It's easy to imagine the worst. But the key question is not just if genes "escape" but their consequences. The Government wildlife advisers English Nature have raised GM ecological concerns since 1998. In a BBC interview, their spokesman said in this case the chance of a viable hybrid developing is very low, that the herbicide tolerant gene gives no advantage to any hybrid and it would die out quickly. Under normal crop rotation any "volunteer" GM rapeseed plants which appeared would be tackled by spraying with another herbicide next spring. The scale of mixing is very small, and it is unlikely that it would have a serious effect on wider biodiversity. The main ecological problem is that organic farmers and bee keepers probably cannot avoid GM material getting into their produce, but that is not a new question. Even with the best of practice and intention, traces of pollutants are impossible to avoid in any food, be it organic, conventional or GM. Have we lost control of GM? The major question is not so much risk as control, regulation and information. The fact that mixing has occurred is no surprise. For some it's symptomatic of what is likely to occur if GM crops grow outside enclosed environments. In 1999 General Assembly report on GM Food SRT has criticised the use of crops whose genes are relatively mobile like oil seed, or that are widely used commodities like maize, where segregation is bound to be hard. Far better to focus on applications better targeted at ecological benefits, or which could help meet a human need, like GM vitamin-A rice. In the present case the regulatory system failed in Canada, but the fact that the Scottish Executive was not informed until too late implies changes in UK accountability too. The risks themselves may be small, but public trust and values are the vital issues. The Government promises improvements, but these remain to be seen. SRT will be monitoring the situation very carefully. Back to Contents	Prince Charles Lord High Commissioner to this year's Assembly, spoke in a BBC Reith Lecture of his concern for the spiritual dimension in the direction of science and technology. This was the very purpose for which the SRT Project was set up in 1970, in response to industrialist Willie Robertson's question, "Who is saying 'Let us act in God's name to avoid this in the future or to achieve that'?" Over 30 years, SRT has tried to put substance to the spiritual, to distinguish the benefits and the limits of human technical creativity in real cases. In theology and practice it has pioneered questions of a right relationship to God's creation. This has sometimes meant opposing developments, as when the "dash for gas" dashed many renewable energy possibilities. But over GM, in our book Engineering Genesis we criticised not the technology but the power structures and the presumption of scientific rationality over public values. SRT has proved the value of Christian principles as rich resources to challenge a purely material view of technology. See more about SRT's Origins and Aims in our other pages. Back to Contents General Assembly 2000 Mobile Phone Masts Responding to concerns about using mobile phone masts on church premises, SRT Director Donald Bruce urged the Church of Scotland General Assembly against premature judgement. Scientific studies are underway on the possible radiation risks. Since it is very unlikely that the small devices installed in some church steeples will be shown to cause significant harm, we should not rule ahead of evidence. Whether it's a wrong use of a church is open to debate. A mast could send a criminal message or a life saving phone call. But technology is like that. For more information, contact the General Trustees Office at the Church of Scotland, 121 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 4YN, 0131-225 5722, who are keeping a watching brief on these questions, and can offer advice. See also the recent (May 11) Report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones under the former Government Chief Scientist Sir Bill Stewart. Back to Contents Green Your Church Four Scottish churches took part in a pilot scheme for environmental auditing of church life and premises. The Assembly passed a motion urging congregations to join in the full Eco-Congregation scheme when it begins operation this autumn. Plans are underway for an ecumenical launch event for Scotland, probably at Dunblane, with materials available for all churches. Full details will be given in the next SRT Bulletin. The pilot churches were in the Stirling-Killearn area, mostly thanks to the initiative of Margaret Warnock from Callander church, who works at the Kippen Environmental Centre. We would now like to find people in different parts of Scotland like Margaret, who are willing to promote ecological work in their local church, presbytery or diocese. Do you know of a keen green person in your church? If you do, contact SRT. For more information, see our pages about the Eco-Congregation scheme in Scotland Back to Contents
Risk in Debate Risk is in the air. Spring saw two major international conferences in Edinburgh on risk, where SRT played a significant role, and SRT's debate at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, entitled "What do we mean by Precaution?" Three leading risk experts discussed the notorious precautionary principle. For many sceptical of science or fearful of innovation, it's come to mean "if there's the slightest doubt, don't". Precaution is linked to Evidence This didn't fit, as it would rule out most of the technology we rely on every day like electricity and most forms of energy, cars, trains, ships, aeroplanes & bridges. Instead, precaution means if there's a likelihood of a large hazard but we don't have full scientific evidence, we shouldn't wait before taking counter measures. Global warming is a good case. But there's a key question to ask. Risk as a Social Contract Against whose criteria do we decide what's represents enough precaution in a case like GM: scientists? green groups? At the Society for Risk Analysis meeting in May, Dr Bruce put forward the idea of a social contract - certain conditions under which society is prepared to take technological risks, or not. Engagement between risk regulators and the public is crucial, to take account of ethical values Linking Science and Values On this latter point Dr Bruce publicly challenged the chairman of the OECD GM food safety conference, for making an artificial separation between scientific regulation and public values. Several others speakers agreed. A recent House of Lords report on the relation of the public with science supports SRT's long held view that the ethical dimension underlies many of our concerns about risk and safety. We will be exploring this question further in the coming months. Back to Contents