GM WATCH list subscription and website info at end.

EXTRACTS: We've had 10 years and, I suspect, tens of millions of pounds, promoting transgenic crops as a solution for world hunger and sustainable agriculture - in the face of the balance of scientific evidence.

I wonder how many hunger-related deaths in developing countries could have been avoided if science policy-makers had applied this philosophy to GM crops 10 years ago?
---
---
The public is proved right: GM crops are no panacea
Tom Wakeford
The Guardian, April 30 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/30/gmcrops.food
The IAASTD last week concluded that "data on some GM crops indicate highly variable yield gains in some places and declines in others". The door was left open, on the basis that it would be unwise to rule out GM crops for the future, but as the charity Practical Action commented, "the report rightly concludes that small-scale farmers and ecological methods provide the way forward to avert the current food crisis".

It's time many science policy-makers started eating GM humble pie, and urgent questions must now be raised about the lessons they have drawn from the GMO debate. With the exception of John Battle, every UK science minister and chief scientist since Labour came to power, together with media-friendly scientists and policy wonks, have assumed that the public "misunderstood the facts" in rejecting the current generation of GM crops. But in virtually every deliberative process undertaken the jury said no to GM crops.

Together with Andy Stirling, from the science policy research unit at the University of Sussex, I was involved in the first citizens' jury to discuss GM crops exactly 10 years ago. Its 1998 report concurs with the 2008 IAASTD findings. We've had 10 years and, I suspect, tens of millions of pounds, promoting transgenic crops as a solution for world hunger and sustainable agriculture - in the face of the balance of scientific evidence.

Some within government, though not the research councils, are still using the GMO debate, alongside the MMR controversy, in support of attempts to send us back to the dark age of the deficit model. The irrationality of this model, contrasting officially approved experts with mere lay people, is now beyond argument.

Completely preposterous arguments, such as those used to defend deficit thinking or that GM crops will feed the world, require unflinching faith. The previous chief scientist, Sir David King, seemed to think that most problems related to public trust in science could be solved by the application of the deficit model and his ethical code.

The funding councils are not without their deficit fans. They've even been known to support deficit fringe groups such as Sense About Science. Thankfully, wiser heads at the councils decided to set up the six Beacons for Public Engagement. Together, we have four years to show that researchers at universities can welcome those whose expertise comes from experience as co-producers of useful knowledge.

I wonder how many hunger-related deaths in developing countries could have been avoided if science policy-makers had applied this philosophy to GM crops 10 years ago?

*Tom Wakeford is director of the Durham-Newcastle Beacon for Public Engagement.
publicengagement.ac.uk
---
---
---
---
SUBSCRIBE TO GM WATCH

To subscribe (or unsubscribe) e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to say which list you want to be subscribed to:
gmwatch-daily (the busy one!)
gmwatch-weekly
gmwatch-monthly
gmwatch-de (for German speakers)

We are still recovering the GM WATCH website following the recent attack. For the moment, LobbyWatch is still up so you can access any gmwatch.org page (apart from those deleted in the attack) by substituting 'lobby' for 'gm', eg you can find:
*the total gmwatch archive at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive.asp
*the biotech brigade profiles at
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile.asp?page=
*even the gmwatch home page
http://www.lobbywatch.org/default.html

Deleted pages, such as the deleted interview about Monsanto's dirty tricks campaigns, can sometimes be found via the internet archive:
http://www.archive.org/index.php

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUING SUPPORT