Genetically Modified crops
Appendix 4
Method of working and consultation
1 The Working Party met nine times between January 1998 and March 1999. The inquiry was announced in the press in January 1998 and interested organisations and individuals were invited to obtain a consultation pack (also placed on the Web) and comment on the issues raised by the introduction of GM crops. One hundred and eighteen responses were received from a variety of organisations and individuals including 55 sixth-form pupils from one school, 59 individuals, 15 academics, 18 agricultural and industrial organisations, 12 environmental organisations, ten organisations concerned with food and consumers, seven religious groups, five health organisations, four governmental or regulatory bodies and three non-governmental organisations with a broad remit. Those who responded are listed in Appendix 5 and the Working Party is grateful to them all. Some of the main themes to emerge from the consultation responses are set out below.
Ethical questions about the acceptability of genetic modification of nature
2 Respondents varied widely in their views about whether or not GM crops and food posed ethical questions about what was acceptable with regard to the manipulation of nature. Less than one-tenth of respondents believed that no new ethical issues were involved. A similar number pointed to the centuries of selective plant breeding that have already been carried out in agricultural systems and the fact that genes are exchanged between different species and genera in nature. ???? of respondents noted the extent to which plants were currently altered by means other than genetic modification. Some respondents questioned whether moral reactions to genetic modification were affected by an individual's knowledge about the science of genetic modification.
3 Almost one-third of respondents believed that new issues were being raised and suggested that genetic modification was fundamentally different to selective breeding because it involved breaching the natural integrity of an organism by introducing ‘foreign’ genes, thus transgressing species barriers. More than half the respondents raised consequentialist concerns about harm to ecosystems and the plant and animal kingdoms. Over one-tenth of respondents asked in addition what right we had to manipulate creation in this way and whether or not the process of GM itself was impermissible and tantamount to ‘playing God’.
4 Some respondents expressed the concern that limitations in our current scientific levels of understanding meant that genetic modification amounted to attacking a complex natural organism with a 'blunt instrument' and that it would be impossible to predict the consequences of such manipulations. Such changes might have unacceptable consequences because they are carried out on a large scale as opposed to the case-by-case spontaneous changes which occur in nature. Most respondents expressed concern about the harm we may do to ourselves and our environment and expressed a wide range of views about the extent and degree of damage which may result from GM crops. Questions were raised about the permissibility of causing such harm to ourselves and our environment for improvements in crops that many perceived to be ‘unnecessary’. One-fifth of respondents suggested that it would be unacceptable to grow GM crops because cross-pollination would remove the choice of adjoining farmers about whether or not to grow such crops.
5 Some respondents questioned the assumption that mankind has the right to manipulate creation for its own benefit. Concerns about ‘playing God’ were most often raised in individual rather than in institutional responses. Some religious organisations suggested that there may be a moral obligation to modify crops genetically, if this will alleviate suffering, while others perceived genetic modification to be impermissible.
6 Utilitarian arguments advanced by some respondents in favour of GM crops suggested that they would increase consumer choice, lower the costs of food, protect the environment by lowering the amounts of insecticide or herbicide used, lessen the amount of land required for agricultural purposes and supply the increasing amount of food needed to support an increasing world population. Such respondents often concluded that it would be unethical not to use GM crops to promote human well-being.
Ethical obligations to distinguish between GM and non-GM foods
7 Approximately five percent of respondents thought that there was no ethical obligation to ensure that non-GM foods would continue to be available and distinguishable from GM foods, asking upon whom such an obligation could be placed. It was suggested that market forces need be the only determinant of whether non-GM food remains available, as consumers would ‘vote with their pockets’. Half the respondents, some of whom considered that only a minority of society would want non-GM foods, suggested that there should be an ethical obligation to cater for such preferences, in a similar manner to the way in which the dietary requirements of minority religious groups are catered for. Some of these respondents suggested that there should be an obligation on companies and governments to ensure such food remains available so as to preserve choice, maintain biodiversity and provide employment for those wishing to cultivate conventional crops.
Principles which should govern the regulation of GM crops
8 Approximately one fifth of respondents explicitly suggested that a risk/benefit approach should control the development and application of GM crops. A few respondents suggested specific additional considerations including: the availability of alternatives, economic consequences, necessity, safety, utility, sustainability and issues of justice and freedom. The Working Party noted that many of the above considerations were outside the remit of current regulatory authorities.
9 Fears were expressed consistently about the safety of GM crops and a number of respondents suggested that the ‘precautionary principle’ (paragraphs 1.12-13) should be applied by regulatory authorities. In particular, concerns were expressed about: the time-scale needed to assess the safety or otherwise of GM crops; dangers to human health though GM contamination of the food chain, and allergenic risks or unexpected side-effects of introduced genes. Some proposed that minimal risks from GM crops should be tolerated because the benefits were currently minimal.
10 Approximately one quarter of respondents proposed that there should be a moratorium on planting and importation of GM crops, at least until further research is carried out into their long-term effects on the environment and human health. Opinions differed about whether the moratorium should be restricted to commercial crops or should extend to research plots. Others considered that, until more was known about the results of growing GM crops, such crops should be carefully monitored and a moratorium only imposed if the risks were unacceptable. Over two-fifths of respondents suggested that GM crops should only be permitted where it could be shown that there was a need for them.
11 A number of respondents suggested that additional measures for regulatory purposes should include a study of the way farmers will routinely use GM crops rather than the effects produced under controlled conditions. They also pointed to the need for a wide range of experts to be consulted about the identification and investigation of potential risks of GM crops. Several felt that a wide-range of possible consequences of GM crops should be considered including impact on the environment, agricultural practices, the food supply chain and the need to label food. It was suggested that these issues could not be covered by approval of GM crops on a case-by-case basis. A few respondents proposed that the remit of ACRE be widened to include these broader considerations.
Managing uncertainty about the impact of GM crops
12 Most respondents considered that uncertainty about the long-term environmental impact of GM crops should be handled by extensive monitoring. It was suggested that monitoring should be mandatory, independent, long-term and assess environmental and well as socio-economic effects. A few emphasised that the cumulative effects of GM crops must be monitored. Some respondents also noted the need for research to be carried out to reduce the risks associated with GM crops.
Safeguarding consumer choice
13 Respondents noted that to safeguard consumer choice it would be necessary to ensure that there was always an alternative to GM products in the food chain. In particular, respondents expressed concern about the example of the non-segregation of US GM soya. One-quarter of respondents suggested that accurate and comprehensible labelling of GM food would be sufficient to safeguard consumer choice. Those most strongly in favour of consumer choice suggested that labelling should be mandatory and that resources should be made available to enforce the system. Concerns were expressed that current EU provisions for labelling were insufficient, confusing and allowed too many GM products to be excluded. A small number of respondents mentioned the expense and difficulty of ensuring the separation of GM and non-GM food throughout the production process.
14 More than one-fifth of respondents expressed concerns that labelling would not be sufficient to safeguard consumer choice. It was proposed that if widespread planting of GM food were permitted then cross-fertilisation and natural hybridisation would result in all foods containing genetic modifications within a short space of time. The need for buffer zones and the perceived inadequacy on current such zones were discussed extensively. It was noted that the large-scale planting of GM crops near borders could remove the choice to remain free of GM-crops from individual landholders, counties, regions or even countries. Some suggested that if GM crops were to become substantially cheaper for the consumer, then a subsidy should be provided for those who continue to grow conventional crops, so that consumer choice is safeguarded. Additional measures proposed to ensure consumer choice suggested that consumer education would be as important as labelling.
Current regulatory structures
15 Respondents’ views about the current regulation of GM crops varied widely between the opinion that it was already too restrictive and the view that regulatory structures were insufficiently rigorous, impartial or opaque. Some considered that the current regulatory structures were suitable but suggested areas for improvement. It was also noted that recent transgressions of regulations demonstrated the need for monitoring of compliance and adequate penalties to be imposed.
16 Approximately three-fifths of respondents expressed concerns about the current regulatory system which covered a wide range of issues. There was a view that it was difficult to get information from regulatory bodies which had insufficient lay representation. Some thought that the BSE crisis had demonstrated that the food regulatory authorities could be unreliable. Criticism was made of the application of the precautionary principle by current regulatory systems, with many respondents concerned that such application was insufficiently rigorous. Two-fifths expressed fears that the commercial interests of large companies was driving the development of GM crops and that that this may result in a less rigorous analysis that most people would consider desirable. It was proposed that in addition to the disclosure of documents, currently regulatory systems should also disclose the assumptions that underlie their decisions.
Public involvement in the decision-making process
17 On the question of whether people wish to be more involved in decision making about GM technology, the views of respondents were again widely divergent. Eight percent of respondents asserted that the public did not have the capacity to be involved in such decision making or that the public (including themselves) wished someone that they trusted to make the decision for them. Nearly two-fifths of respondents thought that the public wished to and should be involved in the decision-making process.
18 It was suggested that if the public wished to become more involved in the regulation of GM technology, then a large-scale and comprehensive publicity campaign would have to take place to inform them of the issues. A few respondents noted that the educational exercise itself may allay a lot of public concern, reducing the desire of people to become involved in the decision-making process. A variety of means of taking public opinion into account were proposed including: opinion polls, small-scale fora, a referendum and people’s parliaments. It was suggested that regulatory bodies for GM crops should have lay members, representation from lay interest groups or extensive public consultation before decisions were made. It was also proposed that non-governmental organisations with high public credibility ratings be included in the decision-making process. A small number of respondents preferred that open-minded members of the public be involved rather than particular lobby groups. A few respondents also took the view that the public be involved in regional plans to plant GM crops, as well as national and policy decisions. A minority felt that if a crop had passed all other regulatory tests it should not be submitted to an additional test via public consultation, as such a hurdle was not imposed elsewhere.
19 It was observed that there was no clear route for feeding the results of public consultation exercises into policy making. It was suggested that it would be useful to assess the effectiveness of different forms of consultation and the structure of advisory committees in meeting the public demand for greater involvement in decision making. Proposed means of encouraging public participation included publishing consultation reports in a similar manner to the way in which they are for planning and environmental pollution systems.
Responsibilities of companies developing GM crops
20 Approximately one-tenth of respondents noted that the primary responsibility of companies was to make profits for its shareholders and to comply with relevant regulation and legislation. A few respondents contrasted this with the question, ‘What ought society to require of companies?’ It was suggested that independent monitoring of GM crop research, development and wide-scale planting should be undertaken, as the companies who developed these crops had a vested interest in making a profit and were not necessarily the best parties to monitor the consequences of their crops impartially. Nearly one-quarter of respondents stated that companies had an ethical obligation to ensure that their crops are safe for the environment and food chain. It was proposed that companies had a responsibility to clearly communicate to the public and regulatory bodies any risks associated with their GM crops, so that it could be determined if such risks were acceptable. A few respondents suggested that companies already had these responsibilities in relation to other foodstuffs that they produced. Some respondents suggested that companies had a duty to segregate GM and non-GM foodstuffs to facilitate consumer choice.
21 Nearly one-quarter of respondents suggested that companies had a duty to repair any damage caused by their crops, including compensating organic farmers who lost income as a result of cross-pollination of their organic crops with nearby GM crops. It was suggested that compulsory insurance or payment into a liability fund would be an appropriate means of providing the funds to repair any damage. A few respondents suggested that companies who produced GM seeds should maintain banks of non-GM seeds or take other steps to preserve biodiversity.
Patents and GM crops
22 A wide variety of views were expressed regarding the ethical acceptability of patents associated with novel GM crops. Approximately one-fifth of respondents suggested that the patenting of any DNA sequences is unacceptable while a similar number accepted that patents should be granted over genuinely novel crops. Some respondents who were not in favour of patents believed that patenting amounted to an unacceptable ownership of a life form. A few believed that the patenting of GM crops permitted the patenting of a discovery, rather than an invention, and that the creators of GM crops had not therefore been involved in an inventive step which deserved intellectual property protection. In addition, such patents deprived all of those who had done earlier research in a relevant area from the right to share any resulting profits, or would restrict access to a ‘common inheritance’. Some respondents were concerned that if GM crops reduced biodiversity, the holders of patents on GM crops could have an unfair monopoly over food production. As a result, a few respondents suggested that owners should make patented developments available to developing countries on non-exploitative terms. In addition, to preserve choice, it was proposed that patent holders should have a duty to continue to provide non-GM seed.
23 Arguments in favour of patents were largely utilitarian, noting that the patenting system was not necessarily ideal, or even the most effective way of allocating intellectual property rights, but that it should be upheld until a more acceptable means was found. Some took the view that without such a system there would be no reason for companies to develop beneficial new technologies. Of those respondents, many also drew attention to the difference between the idea of patents conferring ownership of all the plants grown of a particular GM crop (which is how some respondents perceived such patents) and the exclusive right to the commercial application of the GM invention (which is what a patent actually confers).
Consequences of GM crops for developing countries
24 Respondents had very differing views about the benefits GM technology could offer the developing world. Three-tenths of respondents cited factors in favour of GM crops, which included allowing crops to be grown in inhospitable areas, which would assist in alleviating food shortages. In addition, it was proposed that GM crops would require less use of developed world technology in the form of pesticides and herbicides, thus lessening costs for the developing world farmer. A few suggested that GM crops would be vital to feed the world’s rapidly growing population and to provide edible plant-based vaccines.
25 In contrast, approximately one-third of respondents suggested that GM crops would increase costs for developing world farmers as they would be forced to buy new seeds each season because GM crops would be designed to produce sterile seeds or no seeds at all. In addition, if crops were designed to be used with particular herbicides or insecticides, farmers would be forced to buy these. Doubt was expressed by some about whether developing specialised GM crops for use in poorer parts of the world was financially attractive to companies. Some suggested that food shortages were largely a political, rather than an environmental issue, so that increasing the capacity to grow crops would not solve problems of under-nutrition. A few respondents expressed concerns that if GM crops grown in the developed world proved to be substantially cheaper than developing world crops then the lack of an export market would increase poverty in the developing world, especially as more land became devoted to growing cash crops.
26 Many respondents, whether or not they agreed that GM crops would be beneficial to the developing world, were concerned that any profits made from intellectual property rights over gene sequences from the developing world be shared with the traditional users of the plants from which the DNA was taken. Concerns were also raised that regulations regarding the introduction and cultivation of GM crops would be more lax in the developing world which could result in avoidable environmental and public health disasters, or in the developing world being used as a ‘testing ground’ for GM crops. In particular, a few thought that the benefits of GM crops could accrue to the developed world while the developing world bore most of the attendant risks. Some noted that vital natural habitats and centres of biodiversity might be destroyed as GM crops were grown in areas that were previously unsuitable for them. A few respondents suggested that instead of asking what benefits GM crops could have for developing countries, attention would be better focused on what developing countries thought that they needed.