Squaring the genetically modified crop circle

If researchers want to make progress with genetically modified crops, they must join their opponents in examining regulation

CONTROVERSY over genetically modified wheat is building to what seems likely to be confrontation in the UK on 27 May.

On that day, the anti-GM group Take Back the Flour has called for protesters to gather 30 minutes from London at the site of field trials, and to "decontaminate" the area by destroying the crop. Researchers involved with the trials have responded with an open letter and video appeal to the protesters, urging restraint.

But as this case and emerging food-biotech conflicts in the US show, an easy, communication-based fix is elusive. If scientists want to ensure they can do such research, they need to join activists in critically examining the system which governs this technology and its commercial use.

By offering clear societal benefits, the wheat being tested was expected to be a game-changer. It produces a pheromone that should protect the crop from aphids, reducing reliance on insecticide in the UK and helping farmers in developing countries who may not have insecticide.

Rothamsted Research, the publicly funded institute conducting the trial, says it won't patent the technology and plans to make it available to farmers at minimum cost. To guard against contaminating conventional wheat in the area, buffers surround the trial zone.

In their letter and video, the scientists emphasise potential environmental benefits, invite protesters to meet them to talk about the science, and emphasise the need for freedom of enquiry. "We do not see how preventing the acquisition of knowledge is a defensible position in an age of reason," argues lead researcher John Pickett.

Yet the roots of opposition are far too complex to be addressed through appeals to scientific evidence alone; such arguments resonate with researchers but do little to engage protesters. Indeed, a short TV exchange between the two sides was largely a stalemate.

For a start, the complaints of the activists exhibit a strong ideology that emphasises the "natural" and the "pure", and that intuitively fears "contamination". This amplifies perceived uncertainty, fears over environmental and health risks, and motivates exaggerated - if not outright false - claims. For example, in its own YouTube video intended to garner support for its protest, Take Back the Flour claims that the wheat contains a cow gene, something the scientists refute. The allusion is a clear effort to connect GM wheat to long-standing fears that food biotech is a "Frankenstein" technology that violates nature.

Yet activists do have legitimate concerns anchored in what they view as the inadequacy of regulation to ensure choice for farmers and consumers and to be responsive to citizens, packaging their arguments in value-laden language emphasising fairness, equity and accountability.

These appeals are not only likely to mobilise those already opposed to GM crops, but also to persuade a substantial proportion of the UK public who remain ambivalent in their views. With activists able to call attention to legitimate flaws in the regulatory and commercialisation process, scientists have few effective communication options available.

Activists argue that government researchers and regulators are working in the interest of biotech companies rather than the public. They cite polls and consultations to argue that many people have strong reservations about GM research. Yet they say that the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consistently approves GM trials.

They also argue that DEFRA has not properly considered the economic risks faced by conventional wheat farmers, who may lose export markets if their crop is contaminated by cross-pollination. Likewise for the risks to organic food producers such as bakers, who may lose customers if they cannot assure them that their bread is GM-free. Activists also correctly allege that the biotech industry and scientists have a record of hyping the potential benefits of such crops.

Take Back the Flour and allies such as GM Freeze bolster their efforts by relying on an international network of social media, YouTube videos and other web-based resources. In doing so, they frame their opposition as part of a global social movement against work on biotech crops.

As well as the UK row, there are signs that opposition to GM agriculture is gaining political traction in the US. Recent bestselling books and the popular documentary Food, Inc. portray it together with obesity, animal welfare and food safety as evidence of a regulatory system beholden to industry rather than the public.

Advocates in California have secured a referendum of voters, to be held in November, that would require the labelling of GM food products sold there. Organic producers have launched a similar campaign to exert pressure on Congress. In sum, the public voice that is loudest and increasingly heard by US elected officials is demanding major regulatory change.

The controversy over GM wheat and the US lobbying underscore the need for scientists to join activists in discussing weaknesses in our regulatory process and commercialisation regimes. Until these are addressed, no amount of smart communication is going to shift the conversation.

Rather than blaming public opposition for limiting scientific enquiry and assuming that communication can fix the problem, scientists should join activists in considering whether the policy arrangements that have long benefited their research are adequate for managing complex questions that transcend environmental and health risks.

In doing so, scientists and food activists are likely to gain a better understanding of each other, and to recognise common ground and points of compromise.

Matthew C. Nisbet is a professor in the School of Communication at American University, Washington DC, where his research focuses on the communication dynamics of science policy debates

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.

Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article

Subscribe now to comment.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

michael brockers lisa marie presley florida panthers tannehill joel ward mock draft dr oz