SRT Logo srtlog30.jpg

   Church of Scotland


SRT Home Page
What is the SRT Project?
Site Map & Subject Index
What's New?
Highlights
Current Talking Point


The Big Issues


SRT Publications
SRT Newsletter
SRT Information Sheets
SRT Topical Papers
Press Room

Contact SRT
Send a comment
Guest Book
SRT Trust
SRT Associates
Links

European Christian
    Environmental Network
Eco-Congregation

Reflections on the GM Nation Debate

Dr Donald Bruce

Society, Religion and Technology Project, Church of Scotland

  1. Background

    The SRT Project began its involvement on GM issues in 1993, with the expert working group that produced the book Engineering Genesis in 1998 (second edition in preparation). One our main conclusions was a democratic deficit in decision making about GM. We called for proper engagement with the public on the ethical issues of GM crops and animals. I put this point in person to the then Minister for Science John Battle in 1998, warning of dire consequences of ignoring what we saw as emerging public concerns about GM food. Although he saw the point, others in the Government did not until it was too late. The Engineering Genesis study pointed to the urgent need to create a body oversight of the issues surrounding non-human biotechnology. AEBC did eventually get set up, but the public consultation we called for did not happen until this summer, 5 years late. It was requested by AEBC in its seminal 2001 report Crops on Trial, and run by a steering group of various AEBC members and others. It took place from 3 June to 19 July 2003, after a lengthy and sometimes very controversial preparation process. For more about SRT's GM study and reports, see SRT's GM Food pages

  2. Process

    Some of this controversy arose because the basic governmental tensions still exist. The good intention of the consultation was spoiled at the outset by a). being insufficiently funded by the Office of Science and Technology (DTI) and b). being compressed into far too short a timescale to achieve the kind of genuine public consultation which was originally promised and for which AEBC had clearly called. We have much sympathy with AEBC and the Steering Committee in the considerable frustration they clearly experienced during the planning phase.

    There was also a problem first in having to avoid the election period ("purdah") for the devolved administrations, and then in being held in high summer. In Scotland half of the six weeks fell during the prime school holiday period, reducing the opportunities for participation of many in Scotland. We argued it was unwise of Government to hurry to get the results by September; even two months longer would have done no harm politically. There was widespread criticism by participants that the debate was being held in advance of the results of the parallel scientific and economic studies and of the farm scale GM crop trials. Some have observed that the GM Nation debate revealed nothing new, because no new information had been given. Whilst I would not agree that nothing new came out of the debate, it seems bizarre of the Government to hold a public consultation - whose major conclusion was to the effect that we are not ready to commercialise GM crops because we have not got enough reliable information - just before the release of the three substantial pieces of evaluation it had been gathering.

    Return to Top of the Page

  3. Material

    In my view the main official material - the GM Nation book and CD - were flawed in presenting GM essentially as though it was a simple for and against case. Some saw the material as skewed pro-, and some as skewed anti-. Effectively, it presented the issues in the terms of the way the major campaign groups (on both sides) saw it, in a way that was out of touch with the general public. It has been long noted that the public is much more subtle and less polarised in how it sees GM issues (see for example the EC PABE study and also our own experience), and this is confirmed in the results of the debate. At times the text seemed to be used as bullets to fire at each other instead of helping the public get to grips with the issues. I think the public intelligence was undersold in this adversarial presentation of the material.

    The ethics section was virtually non-existent, and it considered ethics as limited to a single question of tampering with nature. This seems ridiculous because the entire debate is about ethics. The religious dimension was very badly handled. It was confined to a mention "for" GM that neither the Church of Scotland nor the Church of England Commissioners or the Pope considered GM as unacceptable in principle. No mention was made of the objections or concerns also raised by these same churches, or made by other Christian groups. See the Church of Scotland 1999 General Assembly Report on GM Food. There was no mention of several signficant Christian resources in the resources list, nor those of other faith communities. The GM Nation pack represents an abuse of religious viewpoints rather than a constructive engagement which we would have expected.

  4. Consultation Methods

    It was good that various methods of consultation were attempted in parallel with the open debate. It was also important that (eventually) unlimited local initiatives were encouraged, beyond the original intention of simply having a handful of official Tier1 regional events. The official focus group study was vital as a cross-check. The comparison between it and the open debate is one of the most important aspects of the final report, and reveals some very significant differences.

    Late in the day the official Steering Group allowed the New Economics Foundation (NEF) and the SRT Project to produce a DEMOCS card game on GM, which we produced on a very hurried timescale. This was used in 18 events across the UK with a total of 220 people. It was launched at the main Edinburgh GM Nation Tier 2 meeting which we organised with the Centre for Human Ecology, where 80 people took part in 11 simultaneous games. The aim of DEMOCS is to engage the unengaged in small informal groups. NEF had originally developed the game, with SRT as one of the consultants, based around the stem cells debate, with Wellcome Trust funding. It then piloted its public use on genetic testing at the request of the Human Genetics Commission. The GM version of Democs which we developed for GM Nation was quite well received by those not closely involved with the debate. It was criticised for having too much information to digest, which reflects somewhat the short timescale in which we had to prepare it. It had two outputs. Everyone was encouraged as an individual to fill in his or her views on the official questionnaire and send it directly to the Government as part of the official GM Nation input. In addition, participants wrote card(s) giving summary statements of whatever conclusions they drew within each group. Our analysis of these group summary statements are broadly in line with the views concluded from the official focus group study.

    In March 2003 I also took part in the Scottish part of a consultation on GM food acceptability or otherwise the by Food Standards Agency. I provided the "independent expert" initial input to a series of focus groups conducted with low income families and students by the Scottish Civic Forum (a much respected, broadly-based coalition of civil society groups attempting to improve democratic participation across Scotland). The FSA briefing material was rightly criticised for a degree of bias in how it set out the case, but the focus group process was well done and very fair in its execution by Civic Forum. The low income groups gave insights into groups whose voice is often not readily heard in public consultations. Again these were more akin to the focus group part than the open part of GM Nation debate, but with some local emphases.

    Return to Top of the Page

  5. Flawed Sampling Process - Whose Views are These?

    No one had ever done the GM Nation scale of consultation before but it was obvious to us and others that to get wide participation by the general public would have needed more like 6 months than 6 weeks. As a result there is a serious question about the "sampling" that is represented by the open debate. In the time given, relatively few people seemed to have heard about the debate events. The only people who took part were those who happened to hear about an event being held near to them, or took the initiative and did one themselves. It attracted primarily those with an existing interest in the issues. The GM Nation final report comments (para 140) that broadly speaking the open debate "reflects the views of people who are regularly engaged in politics and current affairs. Such people are far more likely to be uncertain, suspicious or hostile towards GM and to have made up their minds about it." This concurs with our experience of the official opening meeting in Birmingham and our Edinburgh event, and reports of the Scottish "Tier 1" official event in Glasgow. The Harrogate "Tier 1" official event was, however, said to be more typical of a broader public. Had we had 6 months, I think a much more representative sample of the general public would have had chance to take part in the open debate.

    To test whether there would be a sampling anomaly about participation in the open debate, parallel focus groups were conducted by the official organisers. These formed groups from random samples of people nationwide who had no prior connection with the issue. This was reflected in how much less they said they felt they knew about the subject than the open debate participants. Their individual opinions were asked first without prior inputs. Then they were told to go and find out about GM for themselves for a fortnight, using whatever information they could find. They were asked the same questions again, together with in depth group discussion.

  6. Comparing the Open Debate and the Focus Groups

    Examining the results of the GM Nation report suggests that effectively two distinct but overlapping constituencies of people were sampled by the Open Debate and by the focus groups (known as the Narrow-but-Deep study). There is certainly agreement on some points but there are some significant differences, sufficient for the GM Nation Report to conclude that in effect the open debate did show a sampling anomaly and that the focus groups are more likely to reflect the opinion of the general public than the open debate. They agree that there is little support for the early commercialisation of GM crops in the UK, in distrusting government and multi-

    nationals, in wanting much more information about GM, especially about potential risks, and particularly over any long term health effects. They disagree in some very important respects.

    "The most important difference between the two groups is that the Narrow-But-Deep group were generally more prepared to acknowledge potential benefits from GM crops, both in their initial response and after two weeks' engagement. In spite of their scepticism about the companies controlling GM, they consistently accepted the possibility that GM might offer cheaper food, help British farmers, reduce pesticide and fossil fuel use, provide medical benefits and help developing countries. Every single one of these potential benefits was overwhelmingly rejected in the open debate." (205) "The general public is likely to have a lower degree of outright opposition to GM than the self-selecting component who involved themselves in the debate." (209)

    The report concludes that the discovery of information over the fortnight of searching tended to confirm the focus group participants in both their negative and positive views about GM. This is more complex than the conclusion makes out. Concern that we do not know enough about health effects rose from 80% to 96% of participants, and about negative environmental impacts rose from 57% to 85%. Conversely, beliefs that GM crops could help developing countries rose from 50% to 63%, and that they could lead to cheaper food rose from 43% to 60%. Where participants were uncertain, information could shift them either way. Initially only 32% agreed that GM crops could provide medical benefits and 56% were unsure. After two weeks information gathering only 25% remained unsure and 60% agreed to there being potential benefits. Conversely a more even spread of people initially agreed (37%), disagreed (29%) or were unsure if (35%) GM represented unacceptable interference in nature. 2 weeks later this had shifted to 66% agreeing, 20% disagreeing and 14% still unsure. This latter point was one of the biggest opinion shifts.

    Return to Top of the Page

  7. Key Conclusions

    "Very few people ... want to see the early commercialisation of GM crops" (207), but the broad public would better be described as sceptical about GM than being in outright opposition. "Narrow-But-Deep participants did not express the same unconditional opposition to GM. However, they had a preference for caution: GM technology should not go ahead without further trials and tests, firm regulation, demonstrated benefits to society (not only producers) and, above all, clear and trusted answers to unresolved questions about health and the environment." (208)

    The general public seems to think there could be some benefits from GM in some circumstances, but is unsure whether the current infrastructure could deliver them. "Although people in both groups were prepared to identify benefits from GM, they expressed frequent doubts that GM companies would actually deliver them." (198) Government is also distrusted.

    As expected, the unknown aspect of GM is a very large concern. Many doubt whether we have enough data yet for what is perceived as a riskier intervention than selective breeding. There is also a surprising health concern. The plausibility of long term health risks contrasts markedly with the general consensus in both scientific and even NGO communities that if there is a problem with GM it is much more likely to be with the environment than with health. This disjunction may be driven by unfamiliarity, basic values, or lack of trust, or a combination of all three. One clear conclusion is that the current health assessment of GM food based on the notion of "substantial equivalence" carries no public confidence. It is now useless as a basis for public regulation and should be replaced by some method that would command trust.

    We agree especially with the finding that "In both groups people consistently expressed a very strong wish – almost a longing – for more information about GM from sources they could trust. They wanted such information partly to resolve the contradictions and disputes, claims and counterclaims, in the existing body of information, science and research on GM issues. They wanted information which serves as a corpus of agreed "facts", accepted by all organisations and interests, and independent of any special influence." (199) This is exactly what we have found consistently in our engagement with the public. Even at the height of the mood of opposition in spring and summer 1999, what we picked up in discussion with church and other groups was not outright antagonism but confusion and an aspiration for bodies and data who are trustworthy. It indicates a need for some way of organising research into GM risks that ring fences any studies which are set up specifically as a basis for regulation. The work and its researchers need to be set apart from any involvement with research into potential commercial applications, and its interpretation from the influence of vested interests, whether proponents or opponents of GM.

    From this survey and my own observations I conclude that whereas the UK people are not absolutely opposed to all GM crops, they certainly do not want to see the current generation of GM crops with primarily agronomic traits grown in the UK for some long time to come. There is a very widespread belief that not enough is known about potential risks, and there is no obvious and commanding public need that they would meet that is considered important enough to override uncertainties and concerns. Some future applications might be acceptable, but heavily conditional. It is not just a question of data or information, but of trust and other intangibles. As the GM Nation report commented, "Wait and see means wait rather than see." (50)

    Should we become a GM Nation?
    SRT considers the evidence from various quarters and updates whether we in the UK should or should not go ahead with GM crops and also its global status.

    Return to Top of the Page

Dr Donald Bruce, Society, Religion and Technology Project, Church of Scotland,
, 121 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 4YN
Tel: 0131 240 2250 Fax 0131 240 2239,
srtp@srtp.org.uk www.srtp.org.uk
13 November 2003


Return to Top of the Page
SRT GM Food Pages
SRT Website Map
SRT Main Contents
SRT Home Page

This page was last updated on 26 November 2003.