Annex 1:
THE SCIENCE
AND "THE
DEBATE"
The Select Committee Inquiry is into the conduct
of the GM Nation? debate, not the scientific arguments for or
against GM crop technology. It is relatively simple, however,
to set out the areas of scientific dispute or concern that the
COI, the government and/or the Steering Board should have ensured
were acknowledged and addressed. At a time when there is so much
(understandable) public doubt about scientific assurances, the
organisers of the debate had a duty to make these issues both
understandable and accessible to the public.
The major areas of scientific controversy were
known to government before "the Debate" was launched,
but no adequate attempt was made to enable the public to understand
the limits of what science can and cannot tell us about GM technology.
This is particularly important in respect of the following:
1. Is GM technology just another form of
plant breeding or not?
Proponents say "yes", opponents say
"no". The technology clearly has the ability to cross
breeding frontiers that nature has hitherto prevented. The disputed
aspects of this are about the genetic stability of plants created,
their reliability/predictability and their interaction with other
parts of the human, animal and plant environment.
2. What are the risks of horizontal gene
transfer?
There is a serious scientific debate about whether
genetically modified DNA can be taken up and integrated within
the cell structure of other (non-related) species. It is not clear
how much we know about this and the risks it carries in relation
to cross-species illness/infection. An honest appraisal of what
science can currently tell us about such risks is an essential
part of any informed decision making.
3. Is there a difference between GM DNA
and non-GM/natural DNA?
There is the same yes/no disagreement on this.
It is clear however, that GM DNA is manufactured to be strong
enough to inplant itself within another genome and not be rejected
by it. The most immediate questions are whether this carries with
it an increased risk of spreading antibiotic and drug resistance,
or creating new disease agents. The routine use of antibiotic
marker genes in GM crops makes this an important risk area that
the public has yet to understand or believe has been properly
clinically trialled.
4. Do GM DNA's have "recombination
hotspots" that carry attendant risks?
GM technology is not just about being able to
insert a gene into a completely different gene sequence. It is
about ensuring that the gene then has the ability to assert itself.
This is done by way of a `promoter'. The most widely used is from
the cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV 35s. Concerns have already
been raised about whether this viral promoter can recombine with
other genes to make them over-express with harmful consequences
including cancer. The public have a right to know what independent
research is being done that assesses the health implications for
this.
5. Can GM crops affect those who consume
them?
The huge controversy over the Pusztai experiments
resolved nothing. If the research was defective it needs to be
repeated properly. The issue it raised was about the effect of
the transgenic process or the transgenic DNA on the stomach and
intestinal lining. Public concern about the implications of this
in direct human consumption (and in the indirect consumption of
livestock fed on GM crops) needed to be addressed. They need to
know why no repeat experiments have been or are being undertaken
to address this.
6. Is there a link between GM products and
increased allergenicity?
Repeated claims are made about the safety of
GM products, though there is serious scientific challenge about
whether any of the products have been clinically trialled. Their
widespread use in food products in the USA gets cited as "evidence"
of no harm. Counter claims that this has gone hand in hand with
a huge increase in food-borne diseases within the USA, simply
beg the questions about what independent research has been conducted
on the issue.
As far as I could see neither the COI, the Steering
Board, nor any other official body involved in the organising
of the national Debate made serious efforts to make these areas
of scientific doubt/dispute an accessible part of the information
base offered to the public. Without such a base, how can an adult
and informed assessment of risk be undertaken? How could "the
debate" be more than a sales pitch? If the government wanted
a meaningful public debate then these areas of scientific dispute
had to be part of the scrutiny process.
September 2003
| 
