Has Legislation Concerning GMOs Been Driven By Science Or Public Perception?

Please find below a representative sampling of submissions since this discussion was launched in November 1999. 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.

As a member of the public I find it offensive that 'public perception' is regarded in this forum as the inane ramblings of a small child, while 'scientific fact' is held as the wise scholar.

You say there are no proven health risks. You have my email address, please send me a document that proves you have looked into every possible aspect of this including any health risks that might manifest themselves in 20 years time.

I don't know the ins and outs of the entire GM debate but it seems to me that if the public were told all (and I do mean ALL) the 'facts' about what exactly these foods will do to our bodies and our environment, now and in the future, there would not be so much of this heated debate.

Personally, having found out that there is already a good chance that I have consumed something with GM ingredients or derivatives, I don't have anything against this food being put on sale in the UK. However I would have liked to have been given the choice.

It is plain to see that whatever the public opinion GM crops will continue to be grown here and abroad and the technology will be enhanced over the years to come.

I do not agree with the tactics of some activist groups but I understand why they do it. All I and a lot of others ask is that we be kept fully informed. It is our world too so please don't keep us in the dark.

And give us the choice. You wouldn't put meat ingredients or derivatives into a product and try to pass it off to a group of vegetarians. What we eat is a personal choice. Let's keep it that way.

P.S. I am serious about wanting evidence of no proven health risks. If you are serious about having an open discussion please get back to me on that.

Lucy Haynes
London, England
lo2@hotmail.com

Well, I see a new name for Monsanto, another Monster in the making. Good idea to change the name. As you people are known for all the great stuff that is placed on our tables, and in our bodies. But this is business, and busines rules. Let's see Agent Orange, and I was a witness to that one. Now, 5 "FREAK" amino acids found in your rBGH and no response to this.

Funny, I was at the store today. Guy selling Organic Salsa. Brought over a carton of Organic Milk, said read. "Do you see the rBGH on this"? What is that he said to me. Would have thought he would have known. Great secret you guys have, but it is coming out. Little by little. How long do you think you can hold this up?? Name change, what was wrong with the old name, too many bad things going on.

This is America, built on the checks and balances. No balance between you and the FDA. Free to introduce into our market anything, as long as it makes a profit. Shame on all of you.

Bottom line, get the word out. Don't purchase anything with the milk associated with it.

I never thought I would get into something like this, as I loved milk and ice cream, but because of that love of the original product, I will continue to not use anything of MILK. But you are not the dairy farmer, just the drug pusher, looking for that profit.

Assume that there are some people in your team, that have some sense of responsibilty, to us, the consumer.

Yes, I know of one. Back in 1994, a employee of yours told his brother not to consume dairy products. A Monsanto scientist. Name withheld.

So keep going, into all you want, as I was not against progress, now I am, as I see that it is only for the profit end. Who cares if the people get sick. Timely entry, not enough Social Security to go around.

Welcome Pharmacia, and welcome FDA Pharmacia EAST. I will never believe anything that the FDA has to say about anything. Time to uproot the FDA, make it an election seat, not appointed.

Nan Taska
Plymouth, MA
gracie8@prodigy.net

Many of your contributors allude to the 'fact' that we do not understand the science behind GM crops. Unfortunatley we do understand it. It involves the use of viral 'promoters' called 'vectors' in genetic science that are used as carriers for the DNA sequence that is being transferred into a crop. Some of the vectors have been proved to cause leukamia in mice form Moloney murine leukaemic virus, malignant tumours in chickens from Rous Sarcoma , and mouth sores in pigs and humans from vesicular stomatitis virus. It is not the science of genetics that causes the problem, it is the methods that it uses and the risks of tumour, leukaemia or other disease that arises as a result. Do not let ANYONE pretend that these risks are minimal - the risks were certainly not minimal for the 54 people dead so far in the UK from CJD. I suggest that anyone seriously interested in this subject rather than the hype put out by both Monsanto and its opponents should take a look at the Viva web page as a starting point.

Having said that, and despite being against the use of GM foods, I strongly beleive that controlled testing of GM crops is an absolute necessity. These tests need to be carried out in conditions of absolute control, with zero possibility of affecting any other 'organic' crops. As we have seen from the BSC fiasco, the time scale for the tests needs to be rather more than a couple of years - more like 25 years. Then a proper and considered decision can be made.

Of course, this approach affects the profits of companies like Monsanto, and it affects the political profile of politicians currently rushing headlong into the GM debate without thinking it through. The present undue haste that Tony Blair seems to be encouraging may turn out to backfire. Saint Tony may, in the end, turn out to be the devil in disguise. Monsanto may turn out to be the company that does more damage to the genetic make up of the human race than anyone could possibly imagine.

By the way I am not - as one message by Dennis Parkes on this page says - a layabout who would run a mile if given a job. I am a normal middle aged, middle class worker who puts in 60 to 70 hours every week. I am neither an 'activist' from the 'looney left' nor am I a barking mad scientist. Please Denis, and all of you others, do not let your individual prejudices about others get in the way of clear, unbiased and above all sensible thinking on a subject that will likely be the most important topic of the next 25 years.

A. Green
UK
AWGreen99@hotmail.com

A belated response to Craig Bennett's message early last year:

"Does Monsanto believe that their seed technology will help to cultivate new food for the third world? If this is true, then maybe they were unaware to the fact that there is already enough food for every single human being in the world. Thus, the advertising 'hook' of a wonder food-source is a little naive.

Why bother to contribute to this farcical website? Monsanto will not directly, and intelligently answer these messages. Haven't you folks heard of the term "keep your friends near, but keep your enemies closer"? Basically, this whole page is just a doodle pad, designed to appear that Monsanto are 'listening', while you put your energy against them into a pointless message to them."

So Craig, why did you bother to send a message? Have you been silenced by Monsanto goons yet? Monsanto is doing a good thing by providing a public forum for stimulated discussion on this important issue. The issue is not whether they are listening, but whether you are thinking. Do Friends of the Earth have a similar well-organised forum, or are they too busy planning their next terrorist activities?

It's a pity that uninformed ignorants like yourself have nothing useful to contribute.

With regard to the current topic of science versus public perception: It is the responsibility of the scientific community at large to contribute to discussions and inform the "public" which they are members of anyway. A balance must be struck between the emotive issues and scientific fact, and we cannot let the environmental "conscience" groups totally dominate the discussion.

I believe strongly in GM foods but feel that better research and public perception must be achieved before progress may be made.

Matthew Tilbrook
Perth, Western Australia
trilobite@hotmail.com

It seems that public perception is dominating the legislations of GM food. Governments and supermarkets are jumping over one another to introduce the next anti GM Food policy, legislative 'stunts' are being used to gain acceptance from the media-led public. Scientific assurance and possible consumer (medical and environmental) benefits fall on deaf ears. The public has become calloused to the idea of GM foods by food scares and media hype.

Bill
England
Will340@Hotmail.com

You draw a distinction between science and public perception. I find this interesting. It is almost as if you yourselves represented some link to the universal truth of science whilst the rest of us wallow in the depths of the 'public'.

There is plenty I would like to say about the fact that we should not even be discussing this in terms of science. Science is the gloss over, Monsanto having simply developed a product aimed at profit making. By couching the debate in terms of science you shift the emphasis away from moral discussions (because scientific 'fact' has a peculiarly non-moralistic tone) and detract attention from the fact that Monsanto only exists to make a profit for its shareholders. No profit. No Monsanto. No GM foods.

However I do not want to get into a discussion of global economics for now and would rather explore one of the myths of science.

'Science' is often portrayed as an inexorable path towards knowledge. What is scientific, is fact and therefore immutable and something we must live by. With such a presentation it is easy to be awed by 'discovery' - the inalienable facts of human 'progress' and learning. Science contributes to the 'facts of life' and occupies thus a status beyond people, beyond morality. Facts simply are.

In reality science is very much dependent on people. In the current era of global hegemony by multinational companies - most scientific 'discoveries' are made by people who obtain funds and grants from these companies. This is irrefutably the case with genetic modification of foods. But it matters what questions we ask. For the questions determine the answers. Monsanto will ask: 'How do we create food that yields greater, higher quality crops?' - but this question comes from the motive of money making (they must, don't forget, answer to shareholders for all the money they invest). Thus the 'scientfic'/factual answer will be a crop which is resistant to pests, produces higher yields etc. In other words the 'facts' depend upon the question.

What Monsanto will never invest in is getting scientific answers to the question, 'How do we use the surplus food in the West to feed those starving in the third world?' or 'Can we reduce HIV+ rates in Africa by developing food which promotes resistance to the virus in Africa?'.

These questions will never be asked or researched let alone answered. Monsanto are not in the business of benefiting anyone, they are in the business of business.

Robin Pharoah
London
R.J.Pharoah@lse.ac.uk

Current legislation on GM foods is driven by public opinion rather than scientific evidence. Unfortunately, public opinion is informed by the media. Newspaper articles (sometimes full of errors in basic biology, let alone genetics) play down, totally ignore or attempt to discredit research showing the benefits of GM foods. Pusztai on the other hand, was treated like a national hero. His work is now discredited, but no attempt has been made to remedy the damage done by the papers, or HRH, who gave it so much prominence.

Recent research shows the Monarch butterfly is not at risk from GM pollen. How many UK newspapers had that on their front page?

The BBC web-site still says that american research shows there are no environmental benefits from GM crops. The original reports of this research, if you take the trouble to read them, show GM crops have resulted in significant reductions in agrochemical use and significant yield increases. Maintaining or increasing crop yields with lower ag-chem inputs is a major benefit in itself, better still it offers the prospect of returning agricultural land to wild habitats. How can this be anything but beneficial to the environment and bio-diversity? Organic farming? Fine on a small scale. It yields half as much food per area of land than high yield cultivation, scaling it up to meet current world food demand (6 bn people) would cause more starvation, and more wild habitats to be grabbed for agricultural use. What's going to happen in 20-50 years when there's 8 bn mouths to feed?

The public are not stupid, but neither are they all experts in genetic manipulation, agriculture, plant breeding, toxicology and environnmental conservation. They have been badly mislead by those who seek to push a fundamentalist agenda, or are too concerned about saving face to admit the enormous benefits of GM technology.

Dr. G. A. Rodgers
Cambridge
geraldine.rodgers@dial.pipex.com

What I think is that you cannot use the argument, "there is no evidence that GM foods are a health risk". The argument is that there is no evidence that they are not a health risk and that is more important. Your literature produces a very biased discussion (obviously, seeing as you're in this for the money, not for the well-being of people) and is very unfair. There is a big difference between targeting one country's trade and giving people the right to choose whether or not they want their food tampered with. You have no right to keep this information from people. Are you afraid that you'll lose too much business? Your behaviour world-wide is despicable.

Heather O'Connor
New Zealand
earth_witch9@yahoo.com

I object to the banning of importing GM food but I do not think that the EU should have to accept soya when genetically and non genetically modified soya may have been mixed together. People should be allowed to choose whether for perceived health, or for moral reasons they do not want to eat genetically modified foods.

Stuart Chadwick
Wakefield
stuartch@dwick.freeserve.co.uk

I am currently writing my dissertation on the implications of genetically modified foods on UK consumers. Whilst researching this topic the distinct impression is that a vast number of consumers do not understand biotechnology and readily beleive the hype generated by the media and pressure groups. The actual risks are infinitesimal in comparison to e.g. the incidence of Campylobacter - which can actually kill.

A UK report on the public and biotechnology revealed that when the public was asked various questions to demonstrate knowledge, such as "ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes whilst GM tomatoes do" etc. The calculated results showed the "mean score for threatening images of food biotechnology in the US was 0.24, significantly lower than the European mean score of 0.88. The lowest score for threatening images was twice as great as the US score". The study showed that more Europeans think that GM foods are the only foods that contain genes and that eating them may result in a genetic infection then it is "hardly surprising" that they approach modern food biotechnology with greater suspicion.

Maybe if the public was informed of biotechnological processes in the pipeline and told the actual risks and that there is no such thing as 100% safe food there would be greater understanding. It does not help when an an important topic such as cloning is thrust in the public limelight with Dolly the sheep.

Public perceptions I feel need to be changed before a beneficial technology is destroyed.

H. Hussain
UK
afu97hh@reading.ac.uk

Legislation is almost invariably driven by 'public opinion' as represented by the media. This fact of life must be recognised by commercial organisations trying to bring to the market products derived from new technology. Companies must educate the media well in advance of marketing. Never forget that M.Ps rely on their seats, never mind scientific facts.

David M. Evans
West Sussex
david.evans20@which.net

I have felt for years that scientists themselves must get involved in the public debates. Look at the difference on just BBC radio alone. It seems anti-science groups such as Greenpeace are much more effective at garnering public media space to their own advantage and are quite effective at moving public perception in the UK against GM foods.

It seems imperative there be counterpoints presented by the scientific community (academic) and by industry itself. It has been my observation the people in the UK are receptive and educated to form their own opinion, but they are just not informed enough.

Thanks for letting me comment.

Richard Wilkinson, Ph.D.
HyClone/PerBio Sciences
richard.wilkinson@perbio.com

The recent spate of problems from the French government is certainly just following public opinion. However, the new sudden hysteria over genetic foods also shows the EU to be hypocritical and biased. I believe biotechnology is a great leap forward for science and sensible research will lead to great advancement. Have people forgotten about previous microbiology, insulin, etc...?

Becky Higgs
England
gill69_1999@yahoo.com

São Paulo, November 1999 - We should welcome the decision of the Parliament of Rio Grande do Sul (Southern Brazil) to reject an urgent request from opposition parties to vote on a proposal to allow GM crops. The proposal was rejected by a 26 to 22 vote, meaning that representatives of opposition parties also have voted against it. The project would have forced the State to strictly follow any federal legislation on GM crops, impeding the Government of Rio Grande do Sul in its drive to promote the State as a GM-free zone. The legislation regarding food imports should be driven by anti-megacorporation evidence.

Luigi Ceccaroni
UK
technopapa@hotbot.com

I think that the French are justified in banning British beef. I am just surprised they have not banned their own yet. GM technology is not proven yet to be entirely beneficial yet, and probably never will be, due to the intrinsic complexities of Mother Nature.

Biotech companies are simply taking the long-term risk to make some short-term profit for shareholders. Hopefully not all shareholders are blinkered enough to not see this rather blatant point. We don't need more food, we just need fair distribution, and we need to stop ripping off the third world, which is the most direct cause of suffering and starvation.

Tom Tibbits
Imperial College
thomas.tibbits@ic.ac.uk

Nobody has the right to destroy someone's property and in the destruction of GM crops the activists are not only destroying someone's property, but years of research and part of a farmer's income.

They must remember that at the present time the plants are not used for food produce and it is made sure that they don't reach humans directly.

Therefore what they do is not only illegal but morally wrong.

Stuart Clark
Dundee, Scotland
l97sjc@tay.ac.uk