Can An Independent Scientific Body Successfully Address The Public's Concerns About GM Food?

Please find below a representative sampling of submissions since this discussion was launched in May 2000. Some submissions have been edited for length. Submissions which were not accompanied by a name, location, and valid e-mail address and those that did not pertain to the topic or used profanity were omitted.

Thanks for the info. I am an energy economist, and the only modest contribution I can give you is an analisys that I carried out on the study "Social cost of private traffic" issued by "The friends of the earth" in Italy.

I can affirm and demonstrate that it is a complete false, totally based on logic and even arithmetic errors, and nevertheless it is one of the pillars of the traffic strategy in Italy, referred to in most govt parties websites. Just to show the trust they deserve.

Franco Maria Nardelli
Rome, Italy
fmnardelli@hotmail.com

I am in favour of biotechnology generally and I think that the reason that the majority of people are scared of it is simply misunderstanding.

However, a body which is funded by the biotech companies themselves is hardly going to have the confidence of an already suspicious public!

Open and unprejudiced scientific debate is needed as well as an end to scare stories by politicians and the media.

Nick Franklin
Cambridge University
nof20@cam.ac.uk

Enclosed a short note sent as a letter to the editor of Nature Biotechnology. I hope that your company and readers will find it informative. There is ample evidence that there is less danger in consuming any GM food then most of the recommended health foods and it will be a great mistake to search for the coming problems near the food bags containing GM foods. What needs to be watched and researched carefully is the considerably more complicated issues that are associated with any large-scale changes in man's surroundings.

The present day agriculture communities of most developed countries of the world are in continuous decline, although food supplies are better then ever. What we rarely consider is that about 80% of the world's carbohydrates are derived from four species of a single family Graminae that could easily be stricken by just a single plant pathogen which may already be present somewhere in one of the worlds plants or tests tubes. There are several other similar large-scale issues that should be addressed along the path of the biological evolution that we are living through.

Prof. Moshe bar-Joseph
The S. Tolkowsky laboratory, Volcani Center Bet Dagan, Israel
vpmbj@netvision.net.il

There is no such thing as an "An Independent Scientific Body" or indeed an independant opinion. We are all selling something. But that is not important.

CropGen is to my mind a legitmate soft sell by Monsanto. But I am not sure how effective it will be on food retailers and the press and media who have created the concerns and have a vested interest in keeping them alive.

What is needed is a diversion, something that will be portrayed as a worse bogey man. The most likely candidate, in my opinion, is a tight global food situation and the potential for mass starvation in the third world.

David Walker
Broadland Norfolk, England
davidw@openi.co.uk

What about the soy gene fragments that have been found in the latest tests of GM Soy beans? Are they a different protein or are they a new composite material that is unknown as to what the health effects are? How did GM crop yields compare to normal crop yields this year? I heard that certain climatic conditions were not good for the crops, is this true? Please could you explain the very low lineoleic acid versus the very high oleic acid content in the G94-1, G94-19, G168 soy beans and also the very low calcium, magnesium and potassium content. What does that mean for human health and consumption?

Claire Bleakley
New Zealand
f.bleakley@xtra.co.nz

From the informaton I already know I think people are naturally wary and the majority of people will never be satisfied with any testing or results!

Kirsty Jones
England
kirsty_jones@yahoo.com

I would like to mention the work of Edgar Cayce. Hardly an academically acceptable subject, but those who know his work know its value. He made a reference to entities incarnating into various hybrids at the end of the atlantean age. The more things change...

Jeremy Lynes
Atlanta
linelites@mindspring.com

Surely if GM foods are to become a part of every day life, people must be aware and see both sides of the arguement. What is Monsanto going to do to make consumers aware of GM foods?

Jo Brock
Farlingaye High School
joeybrock@yahoo.com

Anybody out there who would like to have a cyber interview with me on the topic of GMO's, and the effectiveness of public opinion?

Diana, researcher for public opinion
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam
gerbec@hotmail.com

In my view, GMO's are not automatically negative - some, perhaps, many - are beneficial.

However, I have been attempting to determine the type of testing new GMO's undergo before being released into the Market. Although my "research" is as yet rudimentary, some trends are very apparent.

Some of the large Corporations that produce Genetically modified organisms, must spend huge amounts of money "educating" the consumer on the "benefits" of "biotechnology, and write of the "rigorous testing" new GMO's undergo before getting the nod to be released into the open market. Yet, when I try to learn of the types of testing - for what, protocols, etc., is being practiced, I am unable to obtain any information.

Moreover, the American FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which is invariably listed as being one of the organisations overseeing the release of GMO's - and, which - I believe, has the mandate of overseeing those GMO's that are used in and as food, appears to have a policy of not requiring any tests. Of tests that have been done voluntarily by the producer of a new GMO, the FDA is reported to request only summaries the entire report will not be read.

The concept of "substantial equivalence" without a stringent definition (i.e. significant at the 95 per cent level)means nothing, at least in conclusions of biological experiments. It simply becomes a sliding scale which means what the user of the term wants it to mean. Yet it is used to determine the safety of new GMO's to be used in human food. Moreover, as I understand, it is used as a major category in determining food safety, apparently by WTO, etc., as well.

In my view, an organisation that - while it may be declared to be "independent" of biotec Corporations, but depends on them for funding, can never be truly independent. The chance of subtle or even direct pressure by the "funder", who stands to lose much money if a report goes against its new product, is very high such pressures have been documented for the pharmaceutical and other industries. I would be suspicious of the authenticity of the results obtained and the derived reports and pronouncements from such a corporation.

Ulf Soehngen, Ph.D.
Victoria, BC, Canada
Ulf@netcom.ca

The need for the "unbiased" inquiries stems from the Greenpeace type actions. The general public (at least the majority of the down under public) seem relatively unconcerned. So the need for the inquiry seems to be driven by the desire of the "Green" lobby to have evidence of danger from GE technology. The "anti GM food" lobby start from the position that GE is dangerous. So, nothing that leans towards the contrary view will be acceptable. They will not accept any evidence that GE is not dangerous. In other words, GE companies are the Bad Guys whatever is shown to the contrary. It's a pity.

Roly Page
New Zealand
pagerb@ihug.co.nz

An Independent Scientific Body funded by the biotech industry cannot address the public's concerns about GM Food.

Luigi Ceccaroni
Spain
technopapa@hotbot.com

The motion is designed to create confusion. It can be answered 'yes' or 'no' with equal sincerity. Like most human propositions it can only be accurately answered conditionally, which makes a definitive conclusion extremely difficult.

Our present society can be regarded as consisting of two groups, variously defined as rational or irrational, disinterested or interested, scientific or non-scientific. For historical reasons those who hold power in society are those who are drawn from the so-called upper classes, having generations of privelege before them to mould their attitudes. They are naturally inclined to defend their view with great dogmatism, and resent challenges to their status.

The rest have many generations of no privelege, but are inclined to protect their own class loyalties and dogmas as strongly as their more priveleged counterparts.

In the GM debate, I suggest that the priveleged are those hostile to the changes that GM technology is like to bring, unwilling to accept changes to their status and the rest are those who stand to gain from these changes, but are least able to make a judgement or resist the blandishments of the emotional PR arguments forces marshalled against GM technology. The concept of the 'mad scientist' has been established for many generations.

But to acknowledge the strength of these people is not to suggest that they are invincible, otherwise we would not be living in an industrial society today. The rational and scientific case must be presented with great clarity, but it is insufficient in its own right and needs to be accompanied by the language that these people use and understand. With the support of a soundly based case presented in a populist manner, the basis of the anti-GM argument should be attacked by arguments based on the same 'philosophy'. If the standard of argument which is controlling public opinion is to call GM foods 'frankenfoods', it should be answered in terms which will have the same emotional impact. The terms 'Franken-editors' or 'self-interested antihumans' are not attractive or even practical, but the spirit of them is likely to change public opinion to a greater extent than a calm statement of advantages to be gained. But the clear practical advantages must be emphasised in clear rational terms.

So my response to the motion is that the public's concerns about GM foods can be successfully addressed by an independent scientific body provided that it can destroy the irrational arguments and tactics brought against them.

Denis Bennion
Wrexham, UK
denis@dbennion.freeserve.co.uk

All research into this issue is of course valuable. But I cannot trust findings from a body funded by companies whose profitability is directly affected by such findings. I trust this setup less than I trust GM food, and considering I buy and eat organic food, I think that says it all. The rush to flood the market with these products is fuelled by capital gain, and in such situations, public health gets trampled upon. I would love my fears over GM food to be ungrounded, but there must be detailed and long term testing. And I demand the right to know, by detailed package labelling, if the food is GM or not. And if that affects some bodies profitability, quite frankly, that is tough.

Michael Murphy
London
MMurphy@westminster.gov.uk

Unless Crop Gen is truly independent, i.e. no oversight or editorial review by any employee or shareholder in the biotech industry, it is doomed to fail. Indeed it's formation as an initiative "to make the case for crop biotechnology" raises questions as to its basic assumptions and biases. Scientists assuming, a priori, benefits of biotech applications certainly appear, at least to the casual observer, to have a pre-set agenda leading them to defend new biotech applications rather than investigate possible concerns and complaints.

Patrick Carnahan
Anchorage, AK
pcarnahan@dmgz.com

"CropGen is funded by, but operates independently, of the biotech industry."

I don't see how CropGen can operate in a truly unbiased fashion if it is funded by the biotech industry. If the biotech industry goes under, they go under so there is a conflict of interest there!

Karen De Veaux
Oklaoma
karennd@hotmail.com

Study of genetically modified foods should be completed and carefully reviewed before they are put on the market for the general public.

Susan Parker Leigh
Beaumont, Texas, USA
Edu4Eating@aol.com

"Do you think that this type of initiative can succeed in addressing the public's concerns about GM Food?"

Well, it depends on what you mean by "addressing the public's concerns". We all know too well that what this translates to is "feeding the public misinformation" and making them feel that there are no dangers posed by GM foods, to human health nor the environment.

This type of activity by the biotech industry and government bodies who stand to profit, is well known as "public education" and is nothing less than a concentrated effort to coerce the public into abandoning any resistance to biotechnology.

Is it not terms such as 'Frankenfood' alone that cause distrust. There is no fairness in this issue and none is to be expected. Potential labelling laws are constantly being knocked down and the market place is being flooded by GM foods that the public never consented to in the first place. This is what causes distrust and rightfully so. What is the biotech industry afraid of?

To say such articles about 'Frankenfood' are causing 'irrational fears' amongst consumers is obviously a biased assertion. Several GM foods have been created with 'freak' amino acid sequences, and many GM animals such as pigs and salmon have been created which are disfigured and in ill health. As well, some GM crops are causing problems including pesticide resistance in many states and provinces in North America.

Irrational fears? I think not. The potential damage to humans, animals and the global eco-system is increasingly evident. The so-called benefits claimed by the biotech industry, eliminating those which are outright false, still do not outweigh the damage that we are even beginning to witness today in the early stages of the technology. In the final analysis, no concerns can be 'successfully' addressed because unless biotechnology as we are seeing it today comes to a complete stop, we will ALL lose in the end.

Marcus Farhood
Canada
foxworth@generation.net

Your "representative sampling of views from all sides" hardly seems fair. Perhaps an ongoing open buletin board would produce a more genuine discussion of the issues.

Paul Cooke
Oregon, USA
nancooke@peak.org

If the distrust of genetically engineered foods is as you say 'irrational' then why are you trying so hard to block my right to know what I am eating? If I should trust you, then why don't you trust me to make an intellegent choice? Give me the facts and let me decide whether Frankenfood is something to fear or not. STOP trying to slip this stuff to me without my knowledge or consent!

Donald Hanes
Reykjavik
donald@prim.is

I am not in your market, I work for HV, a company trading on fibers, but what I am sure of is that the GM food products are very important for the humanity. You know better than me that the world population is growing very fast and areas to be used for agriculture are getting smaller, so what we need is to find products such as GM. I do not know about Portugal, but I think here too is important to start.

Max Tancorre
portugal
tancorre@clix.pt

I am somewhat distanced from the European debate, but the topic has received a significant amount of media attention in Australia, much of it openly critical of GMOs. My personal opinion is in favour of gentically modified foods, as I have seen little scientific evidence to suggest that they are in any way unsafe. However, in my decision to support GMOs I have also had to consider the ethical considerations, which I think have been largely ignored by companies such as Monsanto in the struggle to convey scientific information to the public. No matter how many new companies are set up to change the public's opinion, as long as there are recognisable links to companies with a vested interest - in this case financial backing - they are too easily dismissed out of hand by the public. There are plenty of scientific authorities who believe that genetically modified foods are safe - why not merely poit the public in their direction and save yourselves the trouble of expensive and often largely futile publicity campaigns? Just a suggestion...

Patrick Delaney
Canberra, Australia
ppatrixd@usa.net

I've looked at the Crop Gen web site, and I'm also a member of the AgBioView mailing list (currently generating around 20 to 30 email messages per day!). My answer to the question posed is: almost certainly not.

It's good that CropGen are transparent about the source of their funding. But I doubt whether any member of the public will take seriously their claim to be independent, and certainly it will be trivial for any anti-GM group to ridicule such a claim. Most people will assume it is either (a) simply untrue, or, more charitably, that the biotech industry are hardly likely to fund a site where people with views contrary to the industry are going to be given a voice. Public opinion polls demonstrate repeatedly that people do trust scientists, but that they do not trust "multinational corporations", to give them accurate information. It follows that almost any web site or body funded (no matter how few strings are attached) by such corporations is seen as coming from a tainted source. It is paradoxical that the same thing is not true to anything like the same extent for information coming from NGOs and environmental groups, but that's the way that it is!

If information can be shown to be genuinely independent, then that may be a different matter. But this begs the question, what is meant by "independent"? There are precious few scientists around who don't get some funding in part either from industry or from bodies like BBSRC which activist groups are quite capable of demonising (by showing, for example, how disproportionate the funding is for research on safety aspects of GM as opposed to developing new applications).

I'd add that one of the problems with the CropGen web site is its very professional appearance. Plenty of anti-GM web sites are well done but don't have the complex graphics of the CropGen site, and often make a point that this is so they can be accessed by people with limited IT resources. The CropGen site generates a sense of elitism, and anyone would assume that such a slick site will have big money behind it - one assumes that the scientists are not responsible for the appearance and maintenance of the site! I think the question goes further than this. Too many pro-biotech web sites read more like adverts for GM than genuine attempts to inform people. I think this probably again reinforces the sense that they are funded by organisations whose only interest is in maximising their profits.

I've given quite a few talks around the country on GM food issues and my aim has always been to present information in as unbiased a way as possible. In my experience, people are often so surprised to hear someone who is both able to talk up the benefits while admitting the downsides of GM crops that they become much more willing to make reasoned judgements on the issues. In other words - and sorry for the jargon - people are much more likely to be reasonable about the pros and cons about GM and other forms of agriculture if they don't feel disempowered by jargon that they don't understand and by the sense that they are up against all- powerful financial interests. But this takes time and resources, and of course there's scarcely any kudos or other benefit associated with doing this! I've tried to make the process self-funding (you can check the web site for details - www.bioethica.co.uk) by charging a fee for events that I run, but ultimately this is done because of my strong belief that the public deserves to be genuinely independently informed.

Peter Lund
Birmingham, UK
p.a.lund@bham.ac.uk

I am interested in the Cropgen initiative, it's mission statement is that it is out to clear up the name of GMO's once and for all, yet will not be biased as it is a independent organisation from Crop Biotechnology industries - but who funds it?

"CropGen is funded by, but operates independently of, the crop biotechnology industry".

I wonder if biotechnology companies attempting to assure consumers in Europe would be better forming alliances with supplychain links closer to the consumer, not trying to fight a media war where sensationalism and biased reporting have made the consumer wary of any information that doesn't come from a trusted source.

There has been little research (I found relatively little in a search done by a truely independent organisation i.e. universities, independent research companies, etc) which should be carried out and reported upon by these instuitions only, without interference from the funder.

In my opinion, as soon as you affiliate a Green Organisation or a Biotechnology Company with any stage of research and reporting, then I immediately have to be cautious with information due to the possible predetermined perspectives of the authors.

The use of private unbiased organisation (i.e. no assoication with a company wanting research done, but a organisation that has some history of being reputuable) and IDENTIFYING what the consumer is actually concerned about would be a better match of problem solving in relation to building consumer confidence.

I didn't intend this to be a negative commentory on the Cropgen initiative, but more as to question what Cropgen will do in order to fulfill it mission. Does anyone have any comments for further disscussion, as I am interested as to other peoples thoughts as to how to effectively address the issue of consumer sensitivity to food issues.

John Shearer
New Zealand
Shearerjm@xtra.co.nz

Why if genetic modifications can harm natural untouched plants do genetic manufacturers want to put them out into the environment? I think this is wrong due to the fact that there is too much that can go wrong and we will be left with a mess that we can't sort. What do you think?

Paul Phillips
Aberlour
paul.phillips@moeay-edunet.gov.uk

Surely if GM foods are to become a part of every day life, people must be aware and see both sides of the argument. What is Monsanto going to do to make consumers aware of GM foods?

Jo Brock
Farlingaye
joeybrock@yahoo.com

From the informaton I already know I think people are naturally wary and the majority of people will never be satisfied with any testing or results!

Kirsty Jones
England
kirsty_jones@yahoo.com