Firstly I should say that I'm not a 'green freak' or a food activist of any kind. I'm just a normal 'Mr. Average' who's concerned about things that I'm unhappy about being done to food crops.
GM (genetically modified) foods have been a subject of great debate for some time now. I only know about these very clever scientific tricks from what has been presented on TV, but the technology is not the subject here, it's the long term safety of using it. At first I was just amazed at what can be achieved and the potential benefits, but as the public argument has developed I find myself becoming more concerned about the risks. Also, I feel cheated that I have difficulty avoiding GM products because product labelling is totally inadequate.
As usual in these circumstances, the publicity is very confusing with pro- and anti-GM arguments presented in a totally biased way. The tabloid papers are trying to scare us to death with sensational talk of Frankenstein Foods. The Broadcasters try to demonstrate their concern for Public Interest, but they never allow enough time for the subject, and they talk down to us as if we were all idiots. The big biotech organisations keep telling us that everything is completely tested, totally safe, and there's absolutely no risk, but we've already had more than one scandal when safety measures for crop testing were ignored. And most recently we have the 'accidental' sowing of GM rape seed all over the country.
Both sides of the case are so completely overstated, how are we poor ordinary folk supposed to make up our minds, and who has asked our opinion anyway? The Government is no help because they seem to be scared to take a stand against big business, and only keep repeating that 'the Experts say it's safe'. Unfortunately that only reminds me of the BSE fiasco.
I'm not against scientific advance, in fact biological technology has produced some excellent things like cheaper and better-controlled Insulin for Diabetics, hormones for HRT and so on. However, those two examples are from GM animals and animal products. The breeding of animals can be effectively controlled, but I wonder how it's possible control the spread of GM plants, or their pollen that could cause undesirable hybridisation. In summer there is always the problem of Hay Fever, and it has been said that the wind can carry the pollen that causes this allergy for miles. If that is so, how can the current 200 meter safety barrier for GM crops be at all effective? Just think of the Sahara sand that we occasionally get in rain - that has travelled thousands of miles and the particles are much heavier than pollen grains! It has been claimed by the pro-GM side of the argument that most pollens from GM plants turn out to be sterile, but what about those that don't?
Recently, I heard a professor of biology on the Radio who said that problems might only emerge long after 'safe' strains have been released and become widely used. He claimed that the long term stability of modified genes could never be predicted, and that it was theoretically possible that a hidden characteristic could just 'switch itself on' at a later date. What if a plant, originally designed to be resistant to specific weed killers, spontaneously became completely resistant to all herbicides? How would we control a plague like that? What if a crop, selected to be resistant or unpalatable to certain pests, suddenly became deadly to all insects? What if an otherwise beneficial modification unexpectedly gave rise to as yet unknown or not-tested-for toxins?
How long should these new strains be tested, before it's certain that they are safe? Could we ever be sure? It's an absolute fact that, once these crops are released, we would never be able to call them back - plants don't behave like that! Even if they do turn out to be safe for the environment, we won't know, possibly for many years, whether they are totally safe to eat. One claim is that Nature has been involved in it's own version of genetic modification for all time, so it can't be dangerous. My response is that we have been evolving at the same time, and our systems must have adapted to the slow natural variations. What about sudden artificial changes? Can anyone know how these are likely to affect us?
The idea of plants being resistant to specific chemicals or pesticides sounds good, doesn't it? Less weeds, bigger crops, better quality. Suppose they succeed and we actually see a benefit, get cheaper food in the shops, feed the world's starving, and there are no ill effects? That still doesn't address the problem of the effect on humankind and the environment from all the extra chemicals that will be used. It seems a bit of a no-win situation to me. Am I wrong?
That brings me to the matter of choice. We can't choose unless we have the right information, and up to now the Government have done almost nothing about this. I think it's perfectly simple. Legislate for clear and unambiguous labelling, and do it now. We need an easily recognisable logo to be placed prominently on all foods and food products that contain GM ingredients, including menus in restaurants and fast food establishments. The logo should be in Braille too so that everyone can read it easily. I suggest that the compulsory logo should not be for GM free products because that would only play into the hands of the marketing men. To ensure that this requirement is met there must be real penalties for misuse or none-use of the logo. Penalties that would really be a painful deterrent to offenders, not just a slap on the wrist.
The basis of my worries (and it's possibly the same for many other people) is that all this seems to be happening almost by itself, without anyone really being in control. Furthermore, the people responsible for our safety seem to be making all their old mistakes again. Recent enquiries into the BSE and Salmonella problems show that many safety assurances have been wrong in the past, so how can we possibly trust the Experts or the Authorities now? What's wrong with holding back the release of these products, when Public health and safety could be at risk? Is profit so important? What about future generations, will they thank us?
(Derivation of 'expert': An ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure.)
If you came across this page by accident, click here to go to my Home Page