The GM Debate - Who Decides?

This 48-page document describes the place of genetically modified (GM) crops in agriculture; the controversies surrounding GM crop production; law and regulation of GM issues; a sampling of debate, decisions, and media coverage in five countries; and how governments make decisions, along with who has access to decision makers.

Initially, the document describes the spread of GM technology in agriculture starting in the 1990s. With 4 crops, all commercially sold on a mass scale, occupying 99 per cent of GM plantings, the majority are not grown for human consumption. By contrast, most GM research in developing countries focuses on food for human consumption and traits such as insect and virus resistance that would be as useful on small-scale farms as on large-scale ones.

Governments in all countries have to consider

decisions on the following:

• Whether to import GM ingredients, or manufacture foods and products containing GM ingredients;
• Whether to allow GM seeds to be planted commercially;
• Setting a balance between public and private investment in research on agricultural biotechnology;
• Appropriate laws and regulatory mechanisms to ensure GM food products cannot harm the health of people and animals;
• Appropriate laws and regulatory mechanisms to ensure GM crops do not harm the natural environment or pollinate non-GM crops; and
• Whether food containing GM produce should be labelled.

Currently, according to the document, each government must base GM regulatory decisions on its food security strategy, its competitiveness strategy in science, technology, and economics, and its agricultural export markets. Other stakeholders: farmers (subsistence, industrial and organic), scientists, non-governmental organisations (NGO), indigenous peoples and other groups, and the general public have varying attitudes and opinions. Legal issues have surfaced on illegal planting of seeds. Pollination between non-GM countries' and neighbouring countries' GM fields is a liability issue, as is the issue of who is the liable party, the farmer or the seed producer. Environmental and health risks have not yet been identified or defined, nor is there a scale of measurement for them. Regulations on food labelling and whether foods should be pure GM-produced foods and pure- non-GM produced foods, rather than mixtures, have not been established.

The document cites case studies of Brazil, India, Kenya, Thailand and Zambia regarding national decisions on commercialising GM crops and the internal debate among policy makers and stakeholders as well as media coverage of the debate.
Looking at communication strategies in these cases,

• Brazilian media include a diversity of viewpoints including a strong agricultural lobby, strong social movements, and, more recently, a council set up by the biotechnology industry to provide information and promote GM research and production. This council and industry efforts have gained media attention and caused a shift from an anti-GM voice in the media to a stronger pro-GM voice, based on a media research survey.
• In India, the media survey found more support for GM technology with a balance of critical reporting on industry claims and opinion articles. Journalists were divided on accepting industry invitations to workshops and study trips.
• In Kenya, according to the document, the industry voice is dominant, while the voice of farmer groups is absent. There is no source of critical reporting and little coverage in languages other than English. Industry has a strong lobbying and public relations organisation.
• Thai public opinion is sensitive about the role of multinational corporations, which has an effect on the debate and the content of media coverage, resulting in a tendency to be sceptical about GM technologies. Environmental groups use public relations skills to attract media attention, while the biotechnology industry does not yet have a promotional organisation, though the industry successes in Brazil and Kenya point to the likely formation of such an organisation in the future.
• Zambia resisted GM technology in agriculture, including in food aide, though ultimately accepted the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, and is now setting up strict GM regulations. This policy is reflected in editorial opinion in the media.

As the case studies in this report demonstrate, the framework for decision making on GM crops varies considerably in each country. However, in a broad sense, the countries studied had regulatory agencies with parliamentary bodies making laws. Citizen groups varied in their access to policy makers, while scientists, donors, the biotechnology industry, and representation of commercial farmers tended to reach policymakers. Consumer groups and others are more likely to gain access to public health and environmental agencies than agriculture, commerce, or science ministries. Scientific information has been used to support and to reject GM technology, and continues to be sought in decision making.

The document concludes that accurate, balanced media coverage is critical. Its media survey found more debate and more diversity of voices in countries with a longer tradition of multiparty government. The influence of external interest groups on the media was clear in the case studies, while the views of farmers, the group most affected, was the least often heard in the media coverage.