Just mentioning genetic modification (GM) creates division. The anti-GM lobby sees red mist, the pro-GM lobby seemingly wants to roll out the red carpet and others see GM as a red herring, a distraction from other (more easily acceptable) solutions to our huge food challenges.



My reaction? To be honest, my heart sinks. I’m fed up with arguments that GM is necessary to give us enough food in the future, but also tired with those who dismiss the technologies out of hand.

So why get embroiled? Firstly, as one of the most contentious subjects in food and farming, it’s exactly the sort of debate we at the Food Ethics Council should engage in. Secondly, it is time to reframe the debate – one that needs to be about the problems GM is seeking to solve, not about the technology in isolation as happened once again with the recent Scottish ban on GM crops.

I find the “we need to embrace GM to feed the world” argument spurious. It assumes that producing more food is the answer. I’m not anti-innovation and technology. I believe that in the west we need to change our diets (more plants, less meat), our business models, our structures of governance and our consumerist habits. We need to empower smallholder farmers and citizens around the world.

I recognise there is room to improve yields – nutrient supply per hectare not just output per hectare. We also need to improve resilience and cut food losses. But that doesn’t equate to a rubber stamp for all GM technologies.

Technologies move on – just look at mobile phones. We need to debate the extent to which they are fit for purpose and the conditions in which they can be used. A technology can’t itself be good or evil – the real issue is in how it is applied. I don’t think we should embrace the suite of GM technologies, because that implies unquestioningly accepting them with open arms. But – as with any technology – I believe we should be cautiously open-minded.

The vested interests at play mean the evidence we see from the research community isn’t always objective. So instead of allowing “experts” to determine the best course of action, why not ask the public? We could demand independent, objective evidence and then introduce people’s panels to assess different options and determine the best course of action.

“Do we need GM?” is a polarising and leading question. The challenge for policymakers and researchers is to ask different questions and not stick to the same old debates. Arguably there has been too much focus on GM, meaning other options have been under-resourced or even ignored, when there are many other ways to build better food systems for all.

We should instead consider the full range of technological and non-technological options that exist, and the relative long-term benefits and risks of each. For any technology, in a given context, we should ask who it empowers, who it disempowers and who owns it. And we should understand how it promotes diversity, resilience and fairness.

Rather than get stuck on whether GM is right or wrong, we need to get back to the most important question of how to solve our major food challenges: the need to ensure food security, environmentally sustainable food production and consumption, and food policies that promote public health – all in socially just ways.

