A wave of protest in recent weeks against genetically modified crops in Britain seems to have taken scientists, industrial managers and politicians alike by surprise. After all, Britain already has one of the most highly developed regulatory systems in Europe to assess the potential threat to the environment of experimental tests of such crops. This includes formal mechanisms both for obtaining scientific advice about the likelihood and potential size of such threats, and for ensuring consultation with local communities before the tests are carried out. Despite this, newspaper reports last week suggested that almost 150 groups have formed throughout the country pledged to ‘non-violent’ action against such experiments. What has gone wrong? And what can be done to remedy the situation?

It is tempting — but ultimately misleading — to put the problem down to a lack of understanding, either of the scientific processes of gene transfer, or of its potential value to agriculture. The first explanation appeals to the widely discredited ‘deficit model’ of the public understanding of science. This suggests that distrust of the products of modern technology is based primarily on a lack of sufficient information on its scientific basis. In practice, additional information is as likely to fan distrust — for example, by helping to focus on the scientific uncertainties involved in making calculations of risk — as to dispel it.

The second explanation ignores the extent to which concern about modern agricultural production — as the rising popularity of organic food demonstrates — is as much about the quality of produce as about its quantity or price.

Protests

Admittedly, there has been a strong unscientific current in much of the recent debate. The protesters who last week destroyed a trial of genetically modified forage maize at a farm near Dartington in Devon (see page 608) justified their actions by the claim that the crop could pollinate a crop of organic sweetcorn almost two kilometres away. But the chances of contamination at this distance had already been assessed, and dismissed, by the government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, in a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The past few years have seen a growing wealth of scientific knowledge — much of it reassuring — about the likelihood of implanted genes being transferred between novel crops and their surrounding environment. This in itself is sufficient reason for rejecting the widely heard demand for a blanket moratorium on the commercial planting of genetically modified crops; such moves can only be justified by novel and unexpected scientific developments — such as last year's news on the possibility of cloning adult humans — or by clear evidence of a potential danger. Banning the cultivation of certain crops at the same time as permitting their import would be hypocritical.

Conversely, however, proponents of genetically modified crops need to acknowledge the existence of significant scientific uncertainties about their potential ecological impact. Last week, for example, studies described at the Ecological Society of America were reported to have shown that weeds growing close to herbicide-tolerant crops, which had themselves developed herbicide resistance as a result, remained as healthy as in their uncontaminated state. Similarly, earlier this week, the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen announced preliminary findings suggesting that genetically modified, insect-resistant potatoes can damage the immune system in rats. It is clear that much remains to be understood about the precise interaction between genetically modified crops and their immediate environment.

Concerns

It is also clear that the recent protests, far from being based on a simple or deliberate lack of understanding, have a more complex relationship to a broad set of concerns about modern food production, including the degree of trust placed in regulatory authorities.

One possible explanation for the relative lack of public opposition to genetically engineered crops in the United States is the high level of public confidence in which the Food and Drug Administration is held. In contrast, the failures of Britain's regulatory authorities over bovine spongiform encephalopathy — widely blamed on the fact that regulatory responsibility was in the hands of a government ministry whose first priority is to promote agricultural production — appear to be coming home to roost.

Three specific proposals can be made to meet this distrust. The first is to ensure that, when a proposed new crop is assessed for its potential negative impacts, the scope of any such assessment is cast sufficiently broadly to ensure that an adequate range of public concern is taken into account. Assessments limited to narrow scientific or technical questions, essential as these are, will not necessarily answer broader questions, such as the implications of changing farming practices for local wildlife or for eating habits.

The second proposal is that a new, over-arching body, independent of both government and the food industry, be set up to monitor the development of genetically modified foodstuffs and their social and environmental impacts. Adding a new layer of bureaucracy is always a step to be taken with caution. But such a body, to which the current plethora of scientific advisory committees with an interest in the field would report regularly, and which in turn would ensure that key strategic objectives do not become lost in a fragmentation of regulatory responsibilities, could perform an invaluable exercise in restoring public trust. The Human Genetics Advisory Commission already provides a successful and appropriate model.

Finally, it is important that, if trust in the regulatory process is to be built and maintained, those responsible for the current wave of protests must feel that their poin of view are not only heard but also listened to. This does not mean that they have to be accepted, or the protesters' current tactics endorsed. But where consumer representatives are placed either on scientific advisory boards, or on a higher monitoring body, these should not be token appointments, but able to represent the expressed point of view of consumers. At the same time, the deliberations of such panels must be transparent if public confidence in their integrity and independence is to be assured.