GM in the media

During the past few months, three activities in particular have attracted our attention.

The first has been the antics of the French government with respect to GM. We must remember that agriculture is hugely politically important in France; in that country it remains economically more significant than in most of her Western Europe neighbors at 15% of the economy, some say, compared with about 2% for the UK. Nevertheless, French agriculture is a problem—in the first instance for France and more latterly for the rest of us in the EU—because it is relatively expensive compared with other global sources. The French have therefore been very keen to provide a sufficient subsidy to keep their farmers in business, preferably paid for by others. Thus, as became very clear in the earliest days of discussions about setting up a European cooperation, France has insisted on preferential agricultural treatment. Hence the negotiation of EU Common Agricultural Policy was a feature of the EEC and later the EU from the beginning, and one which later so annoyed Margaret Thatcher that she “demanded our money back” as she failed to see why British taxpayers should cough up to keep what she regarded as inefficient French farmers in business.

The advent of GM was received with some suspicion in France. About ten years ago, French farmers in the southwest, afflicted by the same European corn borers as parts of Spain, went across the border to buy Spanish MON810 Bt-maize seeds, brought them back to grow in France where its cultivation may or may not at that time have been legal, and then took the products back to Spain for sale. By about 2005 this had become sufficiently important for the French government actually to give it their blessing and in its heyday GM-maize in France was grown on some 50 000 ha.

And then, in 2007, came Le Président de la République Nicolas Sarközy facing acute questions on the future of energy provision in France which relies for about 75% of her electricity on nuclear power, the highest percentage in the world. But problems were on the horizon from the anti-nuclear stance promulgated by some of the so-called “environmentalists.” It was rumored, and since more or less confirmed via Wikileaks,¹ that the French government agreed to an arrangement in which nuclear power would not be contested if the government were to clamp down on GM. The fact of the deal was actually confirmed last year.² So the cultivation of GM crops in France was banned.

It was said at first to be a “temporary measure” but it was there long enough to be declared illegal by the European Court of justice,³ a ruling confirmed by the highest French court.⁴ That court ruled that the Government had not produced enough evidence to back its claims that the GM crop posed a significant risk to health or the environment. Elections were held in France in 2012; a little earlier the EU Commission looked as though it might take action but no dice: it decided not to do so.⁵ So by 2012, France had a new president and a new government: things might perhaps have then been different. But they were not: the new president has decided to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and maintain the ban in spite of two court rulings on its illegality⁶. “To understand the implication of these events it is important to keep in mind, said the court, that in Europe, ‘genetically modified’ organisms (GMOs) are regulated by EU law and that a moratorium on GMO cultivation must have justifiable reasons with a scientific basis.” Indeed we must keep that in mind, if nothing else. “However, the bans on the commercial cultivation of EFSA-approved MON810 maize (now implemented by 8 Member States: Austria, Hungary, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Germany Bulgaria, and Ireland) had actually only political or economical motives.”

An article⁷ published at around that time commented: “This EM (emergency measures) document purportedly contains new and vital information regarding environmental risks, not previously considered by the EFSA. The reiteration of such environmental claims has profound implications. Either they are true and it means the European risk evaluation system is faulty (for not having identified them). Or they are false and this means that certain EU governments wanting to ban GMO cultivation are deliberately re-constructing false allegations when the previous ones have been rebutted.” The authors therefore conducted a full-length analysis which showed that the EM document not only contained no new scientific evidence, but authentic scientific reports, including those of the EFSA GMO Panel, were distorted and falsely attributed. The authors concluded: “Other scientific articles (at least eight since 2008), relevant to the subject and which provide a different picture, are ignored. Additional arguments (for example the possibility of appearance of resistance amongst pests targeted by MON810) are relevant to risk management and cannot be used to justify a ban (which needs to be based on an immediate and serious risk to the environment).”

Later in 2012 the European Court of Justice clarified the legal requirements for the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) crops in the Member States of the European Union. The Court confirmed that additional national authorization procedures, introduced on top of the existing approval process conducted by the European authorities (European Food Safety Authority) were unlawful. It also declared that coexistence measures are not mandatory to grow GM plants.⁸ Read the court’s decision in full⁹ or get a snappy view of what it means.¹⁰

Things kept going on: On August 1st, 2013, France's top administrative court (the Council of State) threw out a government ban on the cultivation of Bt-maize MON810 which is legally authorized in the European Union¹¹. “Not so,” said the President; “we are going on and the ban will be upheld”¹².

And so to 2014 (nearly there now). A new ban on MON 810 was promulgated¹³ to which French scientists objected.¹⁴ French maize growers appealed against the ban¹⁵ while Le Monde (no less) announced that we are all GM.¹⁶ Then the ban became “legal.” France’s left-wing majority senate approved a standing ban on MON810 even though it had been cleared as safe at European Union level: “it poses a risk to the environment” (undefined), you know.^17,18 France’s General Association of Corn Producers had asked the Council of State to weigh in on the parliament’s restrictions on GM corn but to no avail; their plea was rejected.

France is also attempting to modify EU legislation on the authorization of GM-cultivation and is reported to be willing to do anything it can to counter the impending approval of genetically modified maize in the European Union, with the French government supporting the re-nationalization of authorization procedures (i.e., transferring the approvals decisions from Brussels to the individual Member States).¹⁹

In this sort of political and legal environment it may not be too surprising that vandals who destroyed 70 experimental GM-vines in eastern France in 2010 have been acquitted at their trial.²⁰ The court described the greenhouse field trials as illegal because INRA had not proved that the vines would cause no health or environmental damage. The court apparently did not understand that negative concepts like “safe” and “safety” cannot formally be proven.

Across the border, Germans, according to Reinhard Mohr in Die Welt,²¹ are afraid: of war, of Russia, of hospital germs, of gentrification, of climate change, and, of course, of nuclear power and GMOs; others have also made similar comments.²² It is all very odd, Mohr observes, because actually Germany is doing rather well at present yet there is always something of doomsday hanging over the national mood. Repeatedly we find fear of GMOs reflected in an insistence that there will be none in whatever local district is represented by the latest publication.²³ Interestingly, although the German media continue to report public decisions and opinions against GM-crops and foods, there is an increasing number of favorable articles. Whether and when this might be reflected in a change in public mood or official attitudes is impossible to predict. But something rather similar did happen in the UK: taking into consideration all 9003 recorded GM-related media items between July 2006 and December 2013 (i.e., news reports, letters, and opinion pieces) and classifying them as generally supportive, antagonistic, or neutral/balanced, it turned out that about 45% of all items were neutral or balanced, a proportion which fell thereafter to less than a quarter. Until mid-2006, some two-thirds of the remainder were anti-GM and one-third in favor. And then, for reasons which remain unclear, the mood in the media changed so that since early in 2007 two-thirds of the non-neutral and/or balanced items were favorable with one-third against. However, this public mood took a long time to be reflected in a marked change in UK government attitudes: it was not until the summer of 2012 that government ministers adopted a clear pro-GM public position. It may take as long—or longer—in Germany, if indeed the changeover ever comes.

Second among the events of early 2014 which captured our attention were developments in Britain. Just 20 miles or so away from the troubles of the continent—across the Strait of Dover (or 32 km across the Pas de Calais, you might say)—things are rather different, looking up even. In March, the UK Council for Science and Technology published their GM Science Update.²⁴ The authors, five of the UK’s well-known plant scientists, concluded:

• GM crops have the potential to contribute substantially to advances in agriculture that are necessary to achieve sustainable and sufficient global food production in the face of challenges from population, climate change, and environmental degeneration. Conventional plant breeding is not likely to meet this challenge and cannot take advantage of innovation in synthetic biology.

• To realize the potential of GM crops, the R and D pipeline needs to be strengthened and the European regulatory process improved.

• The R and D pipeline would benefit from a program that promotes preliminary evaluation in the field of the practical potential of genes defined in academic laboratories that could be useful in crops. This program referred to as PubGM would enable and facilitate field testing of new GM crops either in partnership with companies or so that the public sector could validate traits before commencing partnerships with companies.

• Many new plant breeding techniques developed since the EU GMO definitions were adopted in 1990, were not foreseen, and some plants with a particular novel trait will be captured by the legislation, while others will not. Given that there is no evidence for intrinsic risks associated with GM, it is not useful to have a regulatory framework that is based on the premise that GM crops are more hazardous than those produced by conventionally bred plants. As proposed by EASAC (the European Academies Science Advisory Council), a future regulatory framework should be product rather than process based so that it is consistent and applies to the novelty of the characteristics of new plant varieties.

• Approval for commercial cultivation should be made on a national level as happens at present with pharmaceuticals. This would safeguard against potential losses and damage to European agriculture that follow from the failure to adopt GM crops, and enable appropriate regulation of new technologies such as genome editing and synthetic biology for crops.

These points were reiterated in a covering letter to the Prime Minister.

The response from the opponents of GM technology was, as might be expected, strident:

1. the GM science update was “unadulterated propaganda”;²⁵

2. several raw nerves had been touched;²⁶

3. “Scientists' hidden links to the GM food giants: Disturbing truth behind official report”;²⁷

4. “Secret emails reveal how ministers plotted with the GM lobbyists”; secrets and plots always make for interesting reading;²⁸

   1. to be followed soon after by a revelation that (GM) crops might soon be grown in disused mines.²⁹ That would prevent GM-pollen from escaping but sunlight would surely be a bit limiting.

      • On the other hand, several correspondents were more buoyant:

   2. “GM technology will help us to meet the global food challenge. But Britain is in danger of being left behind”;³⁰

   3. “Green light for GM? First official report into genetically modified crops in five years recommends 'safe and sustainable' roll-out in Britain”;³¹

   4. “Speed up GM crops in UK, say scientists: They dismiss opponents’ arguments as a ‘neurosis;’”³²

   5. “It's time for GM crops, adviser tells David Cameron”;³³

   6. “GM rules are out of date, say advisers”;³⁴

   7. a letter to the Prime Minister from Sir Mark Walport (government Chief Scientist) and Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell (professor of physiology and President and Vice-Chancellor at The University of Manchester), Co-Chairs of the Council for Science and Technology,³⁵

and there were yet more in support. However, The Guardian seemed to be undecided, asking (after more than two decades of experience with them): “Reality check. GM crops: are they safe to grow and eat?”³⁶

Senior cabinet ministers continue to speak out for GM.^37-40 Arguably the UK is now the lead country promoting GM among the EU Member States.

Lastly among our early 2014 impressions, there began perhaps a new phase in what have become, alas, the GM wars. For many years demonstrations against agricultural technology have been the hallmark of anti-GM campaigners but the worm has now begun to turn. Patrick Moore (one of the co-founders of Greenpeace and an activist in saving the whales in the 1960s) has for some time acknowledged that his early position on GM was misguided and that he is now very much in favor;⁴¹ he is, in particular, incensed at the attitude of Greenpeace and other so-called “environmental” groups toward Golden Rice as a way of relieving vitamin A-deficiency blindness, especially among children in certain rice-consuming populations too poor to be able to provide themselves with a balanced diet containing plenty of vegetables. Dr Moore, together with his brother Michael, have turned the tables on Greenpeace and others by mounting their own demonstrations outside Greenpeace offices in support of Golden Rice and have, indeed, set up their own organization and website Allow Golden Rice NOW.⁴²

Their first European tour in January 2014 encompassed visits, demonstrations, and/or other happenings in Berlin, Frankfurt, Gatersleben, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Brussels, Rome, Bern, Norwich, and London. Wherever they went, the local media responded: in Germany^43-56—together with an offering from Friends of the Earth,⁵⁷ in France,⁵⁸ Italy,^59,60 Switzerland,^61,62 and the UK.^63-65 There were a number of appearances on television programs about the protests, including a rather entertaining one from The Netherlands.⁶⁶ Among all these media items there are some articles rather sympathetic to the campaign in favor of Golden Rice while others are less so or simply report the demonstration and that it was countered by a rebuttal from Greenpeace. This is particularly noticeable among the German media, almost all of which seem to have based their stories on the same (agency?) report. The support for Dr. Moore and his colleagues in France, Italy, the Netherlands, and in the UK was much more overt.

The Moores’ second tour was shorter, with media conferences and fundraising dinners in major German cities as well as a strategy meeting in Paris; once more, the media reported along lines similar to their earlier articles. A third European tour is being planned for June of this year. More details of all these activities are to be found on the Allow Golden Rice NOW website⁴² and especially on their media page.⁶⁷

The initiative of Patrick and Michael Moore in targeting Greenpeace for their opposition to Golden Rice may well have a significant effect on public and other opinion with the realization that it is not only anti-technology campaigners who feel passionate about their causes; the scientists and their coworkers who actually understand both the technologies and their implications for human well-being have for too long been hesitant about shouting from the rooftops. Perhaps the Moores will have shown the way. It is to be hoped that a recent report from the International Rice Research Institute suggesting the need for further improvement of Golden Rice⁶⁸ will not seriously delay its introduction. Had there not been so much campaigner opposition, the additional field trials now being undertaken would have been completed years ago and the problem then resolved instead of possibly having to do so now.

As we were about to finish this paper and press “Save,” we noticed that The Economist had published a piece about the future of rice in which, without actually mentioning “GM” overtly, they discussed what they called a second green revolution made possible by the sequencing of the rice genome which “would enable breeders to discover the genes for flood resistance in one obscure variety from eastern India and transfer them to varieties all round the world. Breeders will soon do the same for genes that provide other valuable traits.”⁶⁹

That sounds very much like transgenesis. They go on to note that if these improvements were combined with another program to boost the nutritional quality of rice—the so-called Golden Rice project which genetically modifies rice to include additional vitamin A—then the benefits to some of the poorest people in the world would be vast. Governments, however, are nervous. “Some politicians worry about publicly backing genetic research, despite all the lives it could save…”; the new prospects for rice were contrasted with “New Luddism in Vermont,”⁷⁰ referring to the recent vote in that state to require labeling of GM foods: when the government requires labels, consumers may assume that this is an official health warning, even when it isn’t. “The outlook is unappetizing,” writes The Economist. “Food scares are easy to start but hard to stop. GM opponents, like climate-change deniers, are deaf to evidence. And the world’s hungry people can’t vote in Vermont.” Nor are they the only ones to think like this.⁷¹

Still, after nearly 20 y of widespread GM crop cultivation and GM food consumption….

Once again, with finger poised, another interesting item appeared in our e-mail inbox, this one reporting potential consumer reactions to a GM-tomato in which total flavonol content had been significantly increased in both the peel and flesh using the onion chalcone isomerase (CHI) gene. The Delila (Del) and Rosea1 (Ros) genes from the snapdragon Antirrhinum majus were concomitantly expressed to produce an anthocyanin-rich tomato which was purple in color⁷² (the full paper is available behind a pay wall). The interest in such constructs resides in the ameliorative effects of tomatoes on cardiovascular disease and cancer. In this study, metabolic engineering of flavonoids was utilized to improve the nutritional value of tomatoes by increasing flavonol and anthocyanin content. Sensory evaluation by a panel of 81 untrained consumers revealed no significant difference in their liking of color or texture between two GM- and the wild-type tomatoes: the consumers reported marginal but significantly higher preference for the flavor and overall liking of CHI tomatoes over Del/Ros1 and wild-type tomatoes. This study is the first to report the results of sensory tests of transgenic tomatoes by a consumer panel representing the general consuming public; in this case, at any rate, there was no consumer preference for the wild-type fruits.

Oh, and one very last thing. Starting in 2012, UK supermarkets, which hitherto had insisted that they would sell only those poultry and poultry products derived from chickens fed non-GM feed abruptly changed their views. First ASDA, then Morrisons and finally all the remaining supermarket chains except Waitrose said they would begin allowing their suppliers to use GM feed for poultry.⁷³ Now German farmers are doing the same.^74,75 Politics may generate the noise but in commerce seems to be where many important decisions are made.

10.4161/gmcr.32207