The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd Edition

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

7.2 Genetically modified food crops and scientific uncertainty

A GMO is ‘any organism that has had its

genetic material modified in a way that could

not occur through natural processes’ (Food

Ethics Council 1999 : 6).

GM food crops have manypotentialbenefits,

notably:

1. Better for the environmentbecause their
   resistance to pesticides simplifies and
   reduces the spraying regime, i.e. there can
   be lower use of ecologically damaging
   pesticides (with a corresponding reduction
   in costs);


2. Increased crop productivitybecause their
   resistance to disease, pests and weeds, and
   to extreme weather conditions, increases
   crop yields;


3. Improved human healthfrom ‘functional
   foods’ that can lower cholesterol or provide
   vital vitamins to supplement the diets of
   poor people.

Thus advocates of GM food crops suggest they

may help combat world hunger and poverty.

However, if cross-pollination from GM plants

results in the spread of pesticide-resistant

genes in the wild population, then weeds and

pests could spread uncontrollably and the

species composition of wildlife communities

could be altered, with devastating

consequences for biodiversity.

We are notcertainwhether this

cross-pollination will happen, or what the exact

effects would be if it did. More broadly, there

are otherpoliticalsolutions to problems of

poverty and hunger, such as land redistribution

and debt relief.

Policy problem: How strictly should we regulate

the development and commercial release of

GM crops as a precaution against the

worst-case scenario? (See Box7.6.)

atheory which is contestable and evidence that can be interpreted in several

different ways, so scientific judgements will always be provisional and open

to revision (Yearley 1991 ). The fluidity that characterises science can make

it difficult for policymakers to make adequate responses to ‘new’ problems

such as climate change, ozone depletion and GMOs. These issues may be sub-

ject to resistance or even denial by affected interests, such as industrialists

or farmers, who may discourage or oppose fuller scientific inquiry into the

environmental impact of such issues. There is also considerable disagree-

ment within the scientific community concerning many long-established

problems. For example, there are sharply contrasting views about whether

bathing-water pollution should be prevented by building longer pipes to take

sewage further out to sea, or by stopping all marine sewage disposal. Nor

are scientists immune from twisting their findings to suit vested interests,

such as their corporate funders, or even to increase their own chances of

securing future research funding.

Uncertainty and complexity complicate policymaking. If policymakers

understand the causes of a problem then it is obviously easier to design

effective solutions, but frequently they have to act with incomplete infor-

mation. Faced with uncertainty, should they adopt a precautionary approach

to a problem, or continue depleting an environmental resource until scien-

tific evidence proves that action must be taken? How policymakers respond

will be shaped by their position on the ecocentric–technocentric divide