The Genetics Controversy - Agri-culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature - page 138

effects, such as the growing centralization of world agriculture, that
represent structural changes in agriculture in which genetically modified
organisms are a contributor to change, but not necessarily the driving
factor. These contested positions raise important questions. Will genet-
ically modified organisms contribute to the singular promotion of tech-
nological approaches to modern agriculture, or could such technologies
bring environmental benefits and promote sustainability? Are genetically
modified technologies essential for feeding a hungry world, or is hunger
more a result of poverty, with poor consumers and farmers unable to
afford modern, expensive technologies? In addition, does genetic modif-
ication across species represent a breakdown of natural species barriers,
or does the presence of common gene sequences in very different species
indicate that such transfers are part of evolutionary history, and therefore
of little novel concern? Are foods produced from genetically modified
organisms 'substantially equivalent' to other foods, and therefore do not
require labelling, or is labelling a right for consumers because it permits
them to make informed choices? Will genetically modified organisms
contribute to greater consolidation of corporate power in the food system;
and even if they do, are such globalized operations a necessary and
desirable part of economic growth?
There are no simple answers, and this has brought great confusion and
a tendency for the protagonists to dismiss the concerns of environmental
or consumer groups as misguided, but without realizing how complex are
the concerns of people when promises are made about new technologies.
Equally, those against genetically modified organisms too readily dismiss
the pro-lobby as unbalanced in presentation and unable properly to assess
the case-by-case risks. 23 A significant danger is that scientists, together with
farmers who produce the food, will further lose the trust of citizens. Mary
Shelley's Dr Frankenstein is condemned not so much for what he wanted
to achieve, even though it may have been flawed, but because he failed to
take responsibility for his actions. 24 The creature, popularly but incorrectly
called Frankenstein, does not engage in gratuitous violence. Rather,
because he is lonely, he takes revenge when the scientist, Frankenstein,
refuses to create another companion for him. Lack of responsibility and
trust could irreparably damage the science of genetic modification. Many
food manufacturers and retailers have banned genetically modified
products from their foods. Many farmers are uncertain. They would like
access to technologies that may give competitors an advantage; but, equally,
they would not like to lose the trust of consumers any further.
Yet, there is much that can be done to engage wider groups of stake-
holders in constructive debate and discussion, and to ensure the adoption
of a cautious and evidential-based stance towards new technologies. Tim