The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries
Foreword
In its 1999 Report Genetically modified crops: ethical and social issues the Council concluded that there is a moral imperative to make GM crops readily and economically available to people in developing countries who want them. The Council conducts regular follow-ups of all its publications.
There was a particular need to do so in the case of the Report on GM crops because of the many developments in science and policy which have taken place over the past four years. We undertook this task in time to contribute to the national debate on the use of GM crops which was sponsored by the UK Government in 2003. We published a draft Discussion Paper in June 2003 and invited comments from interested individuals, organisations and the wider public in developed and developing countries. Eighty-three responses were received. The valuable points they made are reflected in this final version of the Paper.
I have been struck by the extent to which the public debate on GM crops continues to be highly polarised in a partisan way. Instead of a sober estimate of the risks and benefits of GM crops on a case by case basis, there is a view that any attempt to even consider their potential is unconscionable. This cannot be right. All forms of agriculture affect human health and the environment, including organic agriculture. GM technology needs to be considered not in the abstract, but by means of comparing its short and long term impact with the impacts of alternative technologies. In this Discussion Paper we provide examples with current and potential benefits to resource-poor farmers and communities. There may well be situations in which such benefits are outweighed by associated risks of GM technology. Intelligent public policy will seek to discriminate between the cases and find ways of developing regulation so as to help those in most need.
This is particularly important in developing countries, where issues of food security and agricultural development press hard. All too often, the situation of agricultural communities threatens to become worse, not better. The status quo is not an option unless we are prepared to see increased suffering and destitution. A precautionary approach may mean going ahead with novel technologies rather than stalling, as is conventionally assumed when the approach is applied to agricultural practice in wealthy societies. It cannot be responsible to render a
technology unavailable to those whose needs are urgent. Nor can it be responsible to be partisan in a debate where empirical evidence should be decisive in settling the question.
I hope that the Paper will help to clarify these complex issues and encourage constructive discussion. I also hope that the conclusions and recommendations will provide guidance for policy makers and others who have to make difficult judgments about the use of GM crops.
Finally, on behalf of the Council I should like to express our appreciation to the members of the Working Group: Professor Derek Burke, Professor Mike Gale, Professor Michael Lipton and Professor Albert Weale, who devoted enormous amounts of their time to this review, to those listed in the Acknowledgments who assisted their work, and to the individuals and organisations who commented on the draft Discussion Paper. As always, we are much indebted to the Council’s Secretariat: Dr Sandy Thomas, Ms Tor Lezemore, Mr Harald Schmidt, Ms Julia Fox, Ms Elaine Talaat-Abdalla, Ms Nicola Perrin, Ms Natalie Bartle, Ms Caroline Rogers and Ms Maria Gonzalez- Nogal for their dedication and efficiency in producing this Paper.
Professor Bob Hepple QC FBA
Chairman