Other issues and concerns

A wide range of ethical, legal, political, economic, and social implications of biotechnology are a source of great debate and discussion by scientists, the general public, clergy, politicians, lawyers, and many others around the world.195 _{This brief}

section only draws attention to some of the many issues to highlight the intensity and complexity of the debated.

People’s right to eat GM free food: Many NGOs took this argument forwards, particularly with the launch of the Biotech dispute. For example, Friends of the Earth strongly demanded that the WTO not deny people the right to know and choose what they eat and farm.196 _{It was also argued that it must not undermine the}

right of the European Union and others to take appropriate steps to protect their citizens and the environment from GMO food and farming.197 _{In this respect,}

labelling requirements for GM foods can be effective tools that allow consumers to make an informed choice about the food they eat. Additionally, GM crops and foods can be treated differently in terms of sales and imports.198

Ethical and cultural issues: Potential risks of GMOs raise ethical issues, such as the ethical acceptability of risk to the environment or the health of producers, or responsibilities to future generations. Assessing the ethical implications of GMOs is very difficult. It requires dwelling on the ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, and is beyond the scope of this thesis.199 _{Another specific ethical concern is that GM crops are}

‘unnatural’ food because they are the result of human manipulation of living

194 _{William J. Thieman & Michael A. Palladino, Introduction to Biotechnology, (n 35) p. 164.} 195 _{For more on the wider debate see, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethical and Social Issues}

(n 140).

196 _{Friends of the Earth International, ‘Moment Of Truth Over Gm As Us Files WTO Complaint’}

13th of May 2003, Press Release, http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2003/0513.html. Accessed 21 September 2006; Council for Responsible Genetics, ‘Coalition of the Willing’ (n 110).

197 _{See also, ‘WTO attacking people’s right to eat GM free’, Public Citizen,}

http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/agriculture/gmo/articles.cfm?ID=11052. Accessed 18 August 2009.

198 _{Maria Lee, EU Regulation of GMOs (n 132) Chapter 4. This chapter explores also the limitations}

of labelling.

121 matter.200 _{Moreover, ‘[d]epending on the region of the world, people often have}

strong and clear attitudes to food. In addition to nutritional value, food often has societal and historic connections, and in some instances may even have religious importance.’201 _{In line with this, vegetarians and persons of the Islamic and Jewish}

faiths may be averse to eating food containing pig genes.202

Coexistence between GMOs, and organic and conventional farming: Cross pollination presents risks, such as genetic contamination, which occurs if a GMO cross pollinates with neighbouring non-GM fields, or when they cross pollinate with wild relatives.203 _{GM crops make it difficult for organic and conventional}

farming to distinguish themselves on the market. This also relates to consumer choice, and the visibility of options for consumers wanting to avoid GM food. 204

GMOs may damage the environment and human health. Farmers whose crops are contaminated by GMOs may experience economic loss. Who should take responsibility for the harm? Should the industry be liable for damage caused to the environment?205

Other concerns regard the socio-economic impact of the new technology on the survival of traditional and biological agricultural models, as well as the impact on indigenous and local communities. However, the socio-economic impacts of GMOs are hard to predict.206

Issues relating to commercialisation of GMOs and corporate power:207 _Private

corporations claim IP rights for most GMOs. This ‘private ownership of seed patents raised ethical concerns about future fairness of availability of these crops to the world’s farmers.’208 _{The GM seed market is big, and expanding steadily. In}

200 _{Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethical and Social Issues (n 140).} 201 _{WHO, ’20 Questions on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods’ (n 7).}

202 _{The GMO Dispute: Bush Administration Attack on European Food Safety Policy Latest}

Challenge to WTO’s Legitimacy’, Public Citizen (n 174).

203 _{Gene Watch UK ‘GM Crops: Environmental Saviour or New Form of Pollution’ (n 185).}

204_{Maria Lee, EU Regulation of GMOs (n 132) p. 34.}

205 _{Maria Lee, EU Regulation of GMOs (n 132) Chapter 4. The author describes the extent to which}

coexistence of GM and traditional agriculture, liability and labelling are entangled.

206_{Maria Lee, EU Regulation of GMOs (n 132) p. 33.}

207_{For a discussion of issues relating patents and ownership of GMOs see Maria Lee, EU Regulation} of GMOs (n 132), Chapter 5, pp. 150-187.

208 _{Robert L Paarlberg and others ‘Regulation of GM Crops: Shaping an International Regime’ (n}

122 2009, it was worth US$10.5 billion, and yielded crops that were worth US$130 billion.209

There is distrust of the large multinational corporations that control both the GM seed and herbicide markets. This distrust contributes to suspicions of the entire technology. ‘Terminator’ seeds, for example, transfer power from farmers to companies. It prevents farmers from saving and reusing seeds, which is a widespread practice both in developing and developed countries.210 _{This type of}

application intensifies concerns about the increase of corporate power, the dependency of farmers on corporations for seeds, and the limitations imposed by the licence agreement.

The success of GMOs, arguably, will rely on public acceptance, particularly in Europe where it has proven to be a major stumbling block in the development of GM crops.211 _{The challenge for biotechnology industry is to convince the public}

that GMOs offer real advantages which cannot be achieved realistically any other way, and that the technology is safe. The industry will need to demonstrate that it is not only concerned with shareholders profit, but also willing to engage with farmers and consumer’s needs.212

People’s distrust of large companies stems from the fear of these corporations putting financial gain ahead of public welfare. Many commentators have argued that GM technology represents ‘no more than a further technological fix on the intense agriculture mill.’213 _{If research is conducted by public interest bodies, such}

as universities or non-governmental organizations, whose concern is to produce public goods, then biotechnology could result in the spread of technologies that have immense benefits.214

209 _{‘Genetically Modified Foods: Attack of the Really Quite Likeable Tomatoes’ The Economist,}

(25 Feb 2010) http://www.economist.com/node/15579956. Accessed 2 August 2011.

210 _{Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 250. He adds that But in defence of the}

terminator seed, the argument that it would prevent the spread from GMOs to wild relatives.

211 _{See Chapter 3 for public perception in the EU and the US.}

212 _{Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 248-262; Maria Lee, EU Regulation of GMOs}

(n 132) p. 31.

213 _{Jules Pretty ’contested risks and benefits’ (n 59) p. 256; TNS Opinion & Social, ‘Biotechnology’}

Special Eurobarometer 341 /Wave 73.1, Report for the European Commission (October 2010); see also Chapter 3, section 4.4 on EU public acceptance of GMOs

123 This distrust in corporations led some to believe in conspiracy theory that assumes some people have plans to control world population growth over the coming decades.215 _{For example, William Engdahl’s critique ‘seeds of destruction’ goes far}

beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. He describes a world driven by profit and government corruption, where GMOs are used to gain worldwide control over food production.

216 _{He believes that ‘genetic manipulation’ unleashes great potential, as ‘control of}

food supply of entire nations is too much power to give to any single corporation or government.’217

For many people, tabloid newspapers are the only source of information about GMOs. At the same time, there is plenty of conflicting information provided by governments, the big corporations that control agriculture, and interest groups with anti-biotechnology views. Yet, the GMO debate is most intense in Europe, where public concern about GM foods is higher than in other parts of the world such as the United States, where GM crops are more widely grown and the introduction of these products has been less controversial. EU citizens’ strong views on the matter have influenced the evolution of the regulatory system. See Chapter 3, sections 2.4 and 4.7 on public distrust of GMOs.