Campaigns/GM

Become a Golden Supporter

'GM Nation?' Debate or debacle?

On June 3rd 2003 the Government launched 'GM Nation?', a series of public debates on the future of genetically modified crops and their derivatives ahead of the decision on whether to commercialise GM crops in the UK.

The results of the public consultation were published at 11am, Wednesday 24 September 2003, at the Institute of Civil Engineers, London.

The verdict: the public doesn't want GM food and doesn't want the Government to allow GM crops to be commercially grown in the UK.

The report's seven 'key messages' are brief and to the point:

1. People are generally uneasy about GM;
   
2. The more people engage in GM issues, the harder their attitudes and more intense their concerns;
   
3. There is little support for early commercialisation;
   
4. There is widespread mistrust of government and multi-national companies;
   
5. There is broad desire to know more and for more research to be done;
   
6. Developing countries have special interests;
   
7. The debate was welcomed and valued.
   

'GM Nation?' encouraged people to fill in a questionnaire, and 36,557 forms were returned.

• More than half (54%) said they never want to see GM crops grown in the UK.
• A further 18%would find GM crops acceptable only if there was no risk of cross-contamination, and 13 per cent wanted more research before any decision was made.
• A mere 2% said that GM crops were acceptable "in any circumstances" and only 8% were happy to eat GM food (86% were not).

The debate organisers also conducted a series of separate interviews with groups of people, representative of the general population - who didn't take part in GM Nation? to see if there was a "silent majority" with different views. The results of this "Narrow But Deep" research "suggested that when people in the general population become more engaged in GM issues, and choose to discover more about them, they harden their attitudes to GM". This included "more concern/ greater unease about all the risks most frequently associated with GM. In particular, the more they choose to discover about GM, the more convinced they are that no one knows enough about the long-term effects of GM on human health."

The controversial debate, which ran from 3rd June to 18th July 2003, consisted of three elements: a science review, economic assessment and the public debate itself (see www.gmpublicdebate.org/).

• Economics: A report by the Government's Strategy Unit on 11th July, concluded that public refusal to eat GM food means that there is little economic value in the current generation of GM crops, and that continuing public opposition would also affect their long-term future. See www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page3673.asp
• Science: The science review, led by Professor Sir David King (the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser), and published on 21st July, highlighted significant gaps and uncertainties in our scientific knowledge on the potential impacts of GM food and crops on our health and the environment. See www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/

What was the Birmingham Debate like?
The opening debate at Birmingham's NEC was a little disappointing to those of us from Birmingham Friends of the Earth who attended. The format of the two-hour event was not revealed to us until the last minute so we were unsure of how just to prepare. Rather than the "Question Time"-style debate that many expected, we all sat around tables in groups of approx. 8 and were told by the facilitator to discuss amongst ourselves three main questions on the advantages/disadvantages, safety and ethics of GM, before reporting back to the assembly.

While we did this, members of the steering committee mingled and listened in on our discussions, hardly ever offering opinions of their own. Although a fairly interesting video featuring interviews with scientists, NGO reps and farmers was screened prior to the start of the debate, it would have been better to have had a panel of experts who we could have addressed questions to. The feedback forms were probably the most useful part of the exercise (although all comments made during the session will feed into the eventual report to the Secretary of State). They were considerably clearer than other Government consultation questionnaires I've seen (see Aviation).

A number of factors worked against "ordinary" people getting involved. For one. the NEC isn't exactly the handiest venue, nor is 3pm-5pm the best time for most people. What's more, June 3rd was the day Birmingham City Council held their Full Council Meeting, so no councillors could be there. The turnout was around 200.

The whole thing smacks of serious underfunding, but or all the drawbacks, the event was definately worth participating in if only for the chance to meet other local and national campaigners. We received excellent local press coverage of our presence there - another good reason to attend.

The official website of GM Nation? is www.gmnation.org.uk/. Some of us have detected a slight bias in favour of GM food production in the simplistic (and unattributed) "for and against" arguments . Comments by disclosed and respected authoritative sources from both sides would have been more helpful.

James Botham, Sept 03