Politicians are notoriously risk-averse, at least when their own electoral future is concerned and, unfortunately, few of them have a background in science. This makes them particularly susceptible to the messages of green lobby groups arguing for precautionary action on specific topics. The precautionary principle itself is central to much EU environmental policymaking and is enshrined in the Lisbon treaty. However, as is well known, it is not a decision-making tool, simply a way of blocking certain courses of action.
The official Europa website has this to say: The precautionary principle enables rapid response in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.
This approach lies behind the knee-jerk anti-GM policies of a number of Member States. More recently, it has led to more restrictive legislation on pesticides (and, in particular, the temporary banning of neonicotinoid insecticides because of their supposed impact on bee populations) and Parliamentary votes on tighter rules on endocrine disruptors. Fortunately, at least one MEP – UK Conservative Julie Girling – has spoken out against the lack of evidence to support such moves (MEP calls for parliamentary risk panel to tame green ‘scaremongering’).
Green campaigners of course refute the suggestion that they have more access and influence with policymakers and politicians than industry, but the legislative record tells a different story. There are a number of reasons for this, but first I should say that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with caution; it is the degree to which it is applied which is important. And the problem with the precautionary principle is that it is loosely worded and open to interpretations which have little grounding in the real likelihood of risk.
The precautionary principle is implicit in the response of a number of Member States (Austria and Italy, for example) to evidence provided via EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) in support of recommended approvals of GM crops. Rather than assess the evidence, they follow the line of green lobbyists that such crops may have unknown dangers both to the environment and to people’s health.
Their view is that absence of evidence (for it is certainly true that no credible evidence of harm has been put forward against any approved GM variety grown around the world) is not the same as evidence of absence. Logically, this is true, but it actually flies in the face both of scientific principles and commonsense. If years of detailed scientific experiments designed to highlight problems have failed to provide evidence of harm, if years of growing GM crops and feeding them to animals and humans has shown no difference from ‘conventional’ food, the logical conclusion is that this is as safe as it gets, in a world where absolutely nothing is totally risk-free (including eating).
Even politicians who understand these arguments well have often been reluctant to put their heads above the parapet in the face of highly effective campaigning by environmentalists. As they saw it, support for crop biotechnology was not a vote-winner. But fortunately Ms Girling is not the only one to fight back. In the UK, Owen Paterson, Secretary of State for the Environment, has long been known to be pro-GM and has now nailed his colours firmly to the mast with a speech this week at Rothamsted Research.
This is significant not just because a senior European cabinet minister has stood up in support of science and rationality, but also because of his political office. Paterson is the environment minister, a post more normally reserved for those sympathetic to fashionable environmental causes. That someone with his views has been appointed speaks of a government which is itself prepared to stand up for science and not take the easy route of going along with the green lobbyists. There is even talk of the UK government encouraging Germany to adopt a similar position to help break the logjam of EU approvals for GM crops; radical stuff indeed in Europe.
The speech has been quite widely reported in the UK media, for example GM even safer than conventional food, says environment secretary (BBC), More GM crops means more nature reserves, says Owen Paterson (Telegraph) and UK should provide GM crop technology to poor countries, says Owen Paterson (the Guardian). The very different headlines show the breadth of the arguments he used. Unfortunately, most stories also quoted the usual suspects – the Soil Association, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, GeneWatch – using the usual range of dubious arguments about greedy multinationals, hypothetical safety risks and the disruptive effect on traditional farming in developing countries.
Europe is one of the main battlegrounds between supporters of two worldviews, which are actually not necessarily incompatible. The first is a romanticised view of traditional extensive farming being in harmony with nature and the second is of continual innovation to maximise the productivity of land and minimise disruption of unspoilt wildlife habitats. The former, in its pure form, has clearly failed to provide food security, the latter can be taken to the extreme and lead to a landscape of relatively sterile monoculture.
In fact, a combination of the best modern technology – something which farmers have embraced over the millennia – and care for nature and the broader landscape has the potential to feed the world sustainably. This is the vision which Julie Girling and Owen Paterson seem to share. They deserve the full support of the science community and all citizens who care about the quality of life for the 9 billion mouths which will need feeding by mid-century.
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
________________________________________________