Thursday, March 11, 2004
You're a GM Nation Now

Whatever the original motives behind the UK government’s GM Nation? public debate, it has vividly demonstrated that consultation is not straightforward and can cause you problems when its results are contrary to want you wanted all along.

The aim of consultation is to listen, engage in dialogue and give competing interests room to mobilise opinion. It is not a public veto and the conclusions should not necessarily be indicative of any policy decision as they can easily be skewed by a small, but focused minority.

However, consultation should at the very least inform governments of the level public support on an issue.

Additionally, in a subject as complex as genetic modification consultation should also take on the role of educating the public, to attempt to remove irrational fears and allow more informed judgements. Importantly, the final decision made by government on GM was likely to be something of a watershed – once ‘frankenfoods’ are here, there’s no turning back.

So if the aim of the GM Nation? debate was to ‘educate’ the public, it may well have succeeded. People are generally more informed than before. If, as one suspects, it was to be an exercise in public relations - selling genetically modified crops to a benign public - it has failed in its entirety.

A key theme picked up from the focus group used in the campaign was a deep suspicion that the public debate was merely ‘window dressing’ to a secret agreement already reached between government and the biotech industry.

In light of the final report and the government’s recent announcements, this healthy scepticism seems right on the money. Contrary to the opinions of a large majority of British people, the UK government has given the green light to the commercialisation of GM cropping.

In the announcement, Trade and Industry Secretary Margaret Beckett claimed that the government had made taken a ‘precautionary’ and ‘evidence-based’ decision. She could rightly argue that the precautionary route has been taken (although some groups have disputed this, science thankfully, will always be contested) and there has been no evidence of any malign interference by GM crops with the local environment. Indeed the biotech companies have not had it all their own way: where the pesticides used on herbicide-resistant crops have proven to have a greater impact on biodiversity than control groups, licences have not been granted. More testing and monitoring are required.

But nowhere in her announcement did she say that the government had made a decision based on broad public opinion – on what people actually wanted!

The GM Nation? debate was perhaps the broadest and most interactive consultation exercise undertaken by any government. It cost A$1,500,000, lasted over 12 months, involved facilitated public workshops, invited and stimulated numerous open discussions around the country and, of course, had its own interactive web-site. All of this delivered a greater public understanding of the issues.

However, none of this greater understanding swung public opinion in behind the biotech companies. Often their most effective defence “if only people could understand the science” worked against them. Where there was little understanding there was wary concern, but where there was a greater awareness of the issues (although this may still not be based on true understanding) there was strong rejection.

This scepticism increased with awareness. During the consultation, the focus group was asked to go and research the issues independently. On questioning for the second time most attitudes had hardened even further against GM rollout.

This focus group was designed to represent the ‘silent majority’ – that mysterious constituency that sensible politicians could one day mobilise against such timid bias as political correctness and revisionist history - if only these people were not so busy earning an honest crust for their families. This time, the silent majority could not even be coaxed into indifference.

None of this must stop the UK government continuing on its course of accommodating business interests over the broader wishes of the population.

It is at this point that justice and democracy collide. One suspects that a plebiscite would clearly come down in favour of an outright ban on any GM foods. But to use John Stuart Mill’s critique, ‘the tyranny of the majority’ would prevail and the liberty of individuals to pursue their own ends, take risks and make profits would be curtailed – to the long run detriment of all. Invention and technological development need tolerance and classical liberalism as bedfellows.

But does this make it right to roll out GM crops? Should it be acceptable to see GM as just the inevitable by-product of the march of progress? To stand in the way risks being labelled as a Luddites, refusing to comprehend the benefits. Somehow, wishing to stop GM foods is likened to be anti-progress, a greenie, an extremist.

The biotech industry’s trump card is always consumer choice: ‘let the people decide through their shopping habits’. If the consumer is not ready for GM products, they will switch off; the invisible hand of the market will naturally direct investment away from a GM future.

That said, the consumer does not have an exemplary record as the ultimate arbiter of what is good for them and good for the environment. The consumer has chosen to become obese by eating at hamburger restaurants and has chosen to despoil Scottish coastal waters with effluent by buying cheap, farmed salmon, manipulated by advertisers and retailers into an early grave and towards ecosystem destruction. The consumer is too far removed from the impact of their buying trends to genuinely consider the consequences. GM gene sequences would have long cross-fertilised and entered the environment before the whole show could be closed down.

The British public continues to believe in the adage: necessity is the mother of invention. Where they see supermarket shelves well stocked with a broad range of produce (just what is a ‘Jack-Fruit’?), a growing organic sector now providing greater choice and all this at a less than inflationary price, they ask themselves why do we need GM crops? Demonstrating this, they are generally more understanding (though still not broadly supportive) of the special role that GM crops could play in developing nations.

But we live an age where invention is the mother of necessity, especially where biotech companies are involved. The GM industry is dominated by handful of mammoth firms. Where sterile GM seeds can become industry standard by offering even higher yields, shareholders become happy as farmers return year after year to the biotechs to purchase next season’s seed stocks. The billions of dollars spent on research is finally realised.

Popular will, democracy if you like – has been put in hock to business interests once again. You didn’t want it; the government gave it to you anyway. Even more education is not the panacea, the government gave that to you too and then still ignored you. Surely the time has come to resurrect the referendum.

---