|
SRT Home Page What is the SRT Project? Site Map & Subject Index What's New? Highlights Current Talking Point SRT Publications SRT Newsletter SRT Information Sheets SRT Topical Papers Press Room Contact SRT Send a comment Guest Book SRT Trust & Associates Links European Christian Environmental Network Eco-Congregation |
|
Do genetically modified crops pose unacceptable risks to the environment ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? <<<<<<<<<<<<
... or have we got it all out of proportion?
What Sort of Risks are we Talking About?
The uncertain and unforeseen effects of genetic modification are major factors in the public reaction to GM foods. Some fear risks to health, but many people feel that environmental impacts are of more concern. If we add a gene which makes a crop resistant to a herbicide, and the added genes migrate to the wild population of the plant or a wild relative, will it create a resistant weed with a selection advantage? If we make a crop genetically resistant to an insect pest, what effect will it have on other species other species along the food chain of the local ecology? Does GM mean a further loss of biodiversity, or could the right applications improve it, as English Nature have suggested? Once this genie is out of the bottle it can't be put back. Do we have the skills, insight and foresight needed to manipulate matters as deep as the genetic structure of creation? Yet do GM crops pose greater risks than conventional breeding or organic agriculture? There is also human justice. The accreditation of an organic farmer could be jeopardised by unintended gene flow from a GM crop trial. But the ability of another farmer to grow a GM crop could be prevented by the presence of an organic farm nearby.
What about the Science?
There is much research on the impact of GM crops, like the Scottish Crop Research Institute's (SCRI) lacewing and pollen transfer studies. Yet we know rather little about the complex web of ecological relationships above and below ground into which all agricultural intervention is made, whether GM or not. This means there are many inherent uncertainties over the environmental effects of GM crops. Laboratory scientists typically point out that the gene constructs they use are most unlikely to have the ability to survive well in the wild. Ecological scientists take their precedence from unintended effects when foreign species have been introduced, accidentally or deliberately, into native habitats. Yet most of the vegetables and cereals we eat are not indigenous UK species. Crops such as wheat and barley have been highly bred using a wide variety of methods, some far from "natural".
What about Field Trials?
The more different genes and products we release the more complex will be the relationships. There is no way to estimate the risk without some form of field trials. This poses a problem. The very effect which the trial is monitoring may happen during the trial. For some environmental groups, this means no trials and therefore no GM crops outside contained laboratories, if even then. For them, even a remote risk is too great. Government environmental agencies in England and Scotland disagree.
Looking at an Example - Mixing GM and Non-GM Oil Seed
Oil seed rape would be one of the leading contenders for growing GM products in the UK, but it is also more likely to spread genes than many species. SCRI studies suggest that it is almost inevitable that there would be some transfer of genetic material to wild populations or wild relatives. There is much talk of "contamination" and "genetic pollution", as though the genes were a deadly toxin that had escaped. Is this valid or is it hype? The key issue is not whether gene flow occurs, but what impact it has. In the case of mixing GM and non-GM oil seed varieties, English Nature pointed out that any hybrid would have no genetic advantage and if normal crop rotation is practised they would not persist when different crops were planted in subsequent years. This is just one example, however. No one can rule out the possibility that eventually some GM crop or combination of crops may produce an unintended variety that does persist to a significant degree in the environment. Whether you see this as an overriding problem against the development of GM crops is not a question of science but of perception and evaluation. This in turn raises some important questions about values.
Risk Aversion and Technology
Since the BSE crisis people have become a lot more wary of food risks and are distrustful of the assurances of Government and the scientific community. This is part of a wider trend in UK society. Events like thalidomide, DDT, Chernobyl and global warming have eroded confidence in technology. Instead of optimism about progress through science in the decades following the second world war, new developments are increasingly seen in terms of risk. This is deeply ironic. The very success of technology in combating many of the hazards of life means we are less aware that life is inherently risky. We don't appreciate how unusual and privileged it is to experience such a low level of natural threats to life. To most earlier generations, crop failure, child mortality and epidemic were facts of life. Today when something goes wrong, it comes as a disruption and we look indignantly for a scapegoat, forgetting that risk is part of normal life on the planet. Part of coping with the shock has been a nostalgic illusion that natural is always better than human intervention, and the past safer than the future. What is natural is no guarantee of safety. There never was a golden risk free age.
What Role for Precaution?
So when people talk about precaution over GM crops or any other issue, what do we mean? It doesn't mean, "If there's even the slightest doubt, don't!". Most risk is calculated from past disasters. There hasn't been one for GM crops, so risk assessment has to consider speculative "what if?" scenarios, notoriously hard to calculate reliably. The precautionary principle means if this gives good reason to forsee a large enough risk, we shouldn't wait till all the data have come in to confirm it, before taking measures to address it. Global warming is the classic example. The question for GM is : "Is it such a big risk to say no, absolutely, on precautionary grounds, or at least to slow down till we have more data?" But the call for a GM moratorium was too vague. No one said exactly what environmental information would make the crucial difference, to determine if GM crops could go ahead or not. And even if we had years of field trials, we would probably not have removed all the uncertainties. At some point we would have to make a judgement on incomplete data. That means a judgement about precaution, which depends on your values. Those who see an urgent need to abandon intensive agriculture for more "sustainable" approaches have a clear risk valuation. Those dubious that organic agriculture can feed 8.5 billion people next century have another. The Church of Scotland argues for selective precaution, not a blanket "no". Some GM applications might be too risky, but others have a very low risk and could be acceptable. This view comes from a Christian understanding of risk.
God, Risk and Human Nature
We think some gene technology can be part of God's calling to humanity, not intrinsically opposed to God's wisdom. We are deeply sceptical of scientific and commercial-based claims of human mastery or laser precision modification, which focus on the desired product, oblivious to wider effects. But human nature works both ways. We can ignore risks that we do not want to see, but we can also wildly exaggerate what we are fearful of. "Natural" ways are not necessarily safer. God created a risky universe both in inherent hazards in creation and in the risk of human creativity, artistic and scientific, which will always have uncertain results. Because nature is not divine but God's creation, human intervention is not infallibly bad. God calls humans to intervene within limits. Life as God intended it is not about operating only in some safe cocoon of our own making - that is too vulnerable to sustain. It is by the risk of faith in God, who alone gives security. Absolute safety is an illusion.
From 1993 to 1998 we ran a multi-disciplinary expert working group study, leading to the book Engineering Genesis, acclaimed as one of the most balanced studies available on these issues.
Return to Top of Page
Go to SRT GM Foods Pages
Return to SRT Home Page
Go to SRT Contents Page
SRT Website Map
Ref.no. GMFERSK2 21/6/00.
