The Genetics Controversy - Agri-culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature - page 139

O'Riordan of the University of East Anglia has suggested some guidance
for such a stance. 25 Where unambiguous scientific proof of cause and
effect is not available, then people must act with a duty of care. Where
the benefits of early action are judged to be greater than the likely costs
of delay, it is appropriate to take a lead and thus inform why such action
is being taken. Where there is the possibility of irreversible damage to
natural life-support functions, precautionary action should be taken
irrespective of the forgone benefits. Individuals should always listen to
calls for a change of course, incorporate representatives of such calls into
deliberative forums, and maintain transparency throughout. Individuals,
organizations and governments should never shy away from publicity and
try to suppress information, however unpalatable - in the age of the
Internet, someone is bound to find out if information is being distorted
or hidden. Finally, where there is public unease, it is important to act
decisively in order to respond to that unease by introducing extensive
discussions and deliberative processes. This is so that benefits and costs
can be discussed together.
Not all agree, however, on the value of such deliberation. The US
Senate Committee on Science, for example, adopted a highly combative
tone when reporting on genetically modified organisms in the US. It was
dismissive of 'political activists', indicating that critics of genetic modif-
ication had 'mounted a well-funded campaign' , as if it was unfair that they should
also be well funded. It is unlikely that this continuing dismissal, on both
sides, will lead to constructive outcomes. 26
Genetic Modification: Another Technological Fix or
a Contributor to Sustainability?
Another area of disagreement concerns the potential for genetically
modified organisms to contribute to greater sustainability in agriculture.
The issue depends fundamentally upon the technologies and practices that
genetically modified technology would replace. For example, a technology
resulting in the reduced use of pesticides would be more sustainable than
a conventional system relying on pesticides; but this reduced-use system
would score less well if compared with an organic system that used no
pesticides.
Many commentators have argued that genetically modified technology
represents no more than a further technological fix on an intense agri-
cultural treadmill. Modern agriculture has been highly successful at
increasing food production; but it has also brought costly environmental