Genetic engineering: It’s a technology, not an ideology

Not as simple as 'for' or 'against'

Whether you are pro or anti genetic engineering has become a divisive political issue, but remember that we are talking about technology; it shouldnt be an ideology.

Last week, BASF said it would stop seeking European regulatory approval for three genetically modified (GM) potato varieties, citing uncertainty in the regulatory environment. After a decade of research, its going elsewhere.

It was a decision welcomed by anti-GM campaigners. Jubilation exploded on various internet forums. But I think its a sad indictment of the scientific climate in Europe, when a company thats invested millions to produce potatoes that are resistant to late blight a major potato crop disease is driven out of Europe because regulators cant decide what to do about divisions in public and political opinion.

In the balance

Genetic engineering shouldnt be a political issue, no matter how much sci-fi-sensitive individuals might be reminded of the plot from The Day of the Triffids. Plants can be engineered in many ways, and their potential benefits should be balanced with an assessment of their potential detriments no matter what the technology.

Meanwhile, new GM crops are carefully considered by safety assessors around the world, including by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which, if youve been paying attention to its work on health claims, has an excellent record of telling the industry to go back to the drawing board if the science isnt solid enough.

From my perspective, the reaction from many people on internet forums underlines the need for better science education, not necessarily around genetic engineering, but in order to be better critical consumers of scientific knowledge. In other words, dont believe everything youre told.

Toxic genes

Read the original:
Genetic engineering: It’s a technology, not an ideology