G U E S T
E D I T O R I A L
European public policy on genetic
modification of agricultural products and food
Lessons to be learned over balancing public health, consumer confidence
and commerce
DAVID BARLING, TIM LANG •
J-J/uroipean public policy is in somewhat of a mess over
generic modification (GM). For the past decade or so,
policy has been driven by the European Union (EU)
wanting to back some of Europe's largest companies'
diversification into biotechnology on the one hand, while
increasingly having to be responsive to calls to protect
consumers and the environment on the other hand.
These tensions have been manifest not just within the
European Commission itself but in the Parliament where
a lobby alliance of non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) has grown in sophistication and political influence by the year.
Within this alliance, the voice for public health is comparatively weak, and as a result there has been relatively
little thought about public health. All that changed with
the explosion of interest following the premature release
of an incomplete study on GM potatoes conducted by Dr
Arpad Puzstai at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland.1 Suddenly in 1999, the human health implications
of eating GM foods have taken centre stage. A hitherto
bubbling unease about GM foods in Europe has boiled
over into rank hostility and into the threat of yet another
food trade war with the United States, as US companies
dominate the GM market. In truth, the health concerns
of the European public are also split. There is general
support for the benign possibilities of genetic engineering
(GE) in medicine, while there is much more caution over
consumption of GM foods. The public health world needs
to draw many lessons from this mess.
The first lesson is that some humility is in order. Europe
must get a grip on its food and health policy. The accession of a new Commission and Parliament provides a good
opportunity to do so. There is now an astonishing stalemate. A vast commercial investment has been made into
a surprising range of new food products and processes.
* D. Barling1. T. Lang2
1 Senior Lecturer, Centre for Food Policy, Worfson Institute of Hearth
Sciences, Thames Valley University, London, UK
2 Professor of Food Polky, Centre for Food Policy, Wotfson Institute of
Hearth Sciences, Thames Valley University, London, UK
Correspondence: Dr David Barling, Centre for Food Policy, Wotfson Institute
of Hearth Sciences, Thames Valley University, St Mary's Road,
Ealing, London W5 5RF, UK, e-mail: david.barllngOtvu.ac.uk
This is now meeting a brick wall of consumer resistance.
Politicians should recognise that they cannot ease commerce if the end consumers are not somehow included in
the process of thinking about needs and wants. Although
GM had begun to generate press headlines inrecentyears,
serious investment began decades ago, which is when the
full public health considerations ought to have begun
being considered. Europe cannot really expect not to have
crises of consumer confidence if it maintains this policy
of 'investment first and consumer consequences later'. It
was nothing short of a tragedy that the claims over safety
of GM potatoes made by Dr Puzstai stemmed from incomplete work in one of the few pieces of publicly funded
research in this area. Public funds for research into the
nutritional or public health implications of GM foods are
a priority. Almost all research has been commercially
driven and technocratic — asking if it works - rather than
investigating the public health and in particular nutritional implications of eating GM foods. This is no way to
run a food policy in a Europe that claims, under the
Amsterdam Treaty, to give a high priority to health.
The second lesson is that the arrival of GM foods and the
application of GE to agriculture illustrate what has been
called the 'productionist' paradigm in food policy,1'2 a
perspective in which the needs of production take precedence over other considerations. This was an understandable policy in the ashes of World War II when raising
production wasrightlythe priority but has less relevance
today. Indeed, the battle over GM is really a battle for the
heart and soul of food policy. Will it be left to commerce
or will other considerations such as public health have
equal or greater emphasis? The post-war revolution in
food - manifest not just in Europe but throughout the
industrialised world - has yielded astonishing changes in
how food is grown, processed, distributed, stored and
cooked. So triumphantly successful has this policy been
that barely had agribusiness worked through the
agrichemicalrevolution(pesticides, fertilisers, food additives, process enhancers, etc.) than it was already investing
in the biotechnology revolution.
Internationally, the first large-scale commercial plantings
of GM crops have been for herbicide resistance and insect
resistance, utilising chemicals owned by the company
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH VOL. 9 1999 NO. 3
with the patent for these modified plants. Bovine Somatotrophin (BST), a growth hormone for enhanced milk
yield, was originally rejected by the EU as it already had
a milk surplus, although it now officially recognises the
scientific problems, notably to animal health. 3 Trials
continue to use GM to enhance the growdi of animals
and fish. The next phase of development promises nonfood crops modified to produce a range of properties such
as vaccines, plastics and industrial starches. In addition,
so-called nutriceuticals, or crops modified for nutritional
advantage, can be expected to come to market soon both
for human consumption and animal feed.
The third lesson concerns the management of science
itself. The great irony is that die arguments about GM
foods will probably improve the scientific process. Good
science stems from asking awkward and sometimes
counter-intuitive questions. This has been hard when die
funding of almost all GM work has been widiin die
productionist paradigm. Hence the unfortunate tendency
of arguments to split into for or against science factions,
when die real issue is die arguments within science. Europe
needs more not less research into GM, only diis time
designed to answer public health questions rather than
technocratic ones about efficiency, cost and efficacy.
European science has a rosier future if it is more humble
about and acknowledges safety concerns. Too often it has
appeared arrogant when attempting to predict the effects
of the use of GM in agriculture and food production. In
trudi, diis is necessarily subject to scientific uncertainties. 4 The science on how genes work in a specific environmental context is still unable to predict with certainty
what will happen when genes are transferred from one
organism to another, and about the stability of die transferred genes (or transgenes). The possibility diat transgenes can 'escape' from dieir host organism into other
related species is real, as is the possibility diat die GMOs
diemselves will become invasive or persistent. When
medical opinion is now alive to declining effectiveness of
antibiotics, to have used antibiotic resistance as the
marker gene in GM food crops is bodi irresponsible as well
as careless. Then diere is die issue of efficacy. GM crops
are new, so knowledge is inevitably incomplete as to their
stability and predictability. As die UKs Pesticide Safety
Directorate has noted: 'There are very few results available from publicly funded research which allow detailed
evaluation of die agronomic consequences of growing
GM herbicide-tolerant crops'. 5
The fourth lesson from die GM debacle is diat public
institutions have failed to work pro bono publico. Alt-hough certain Members of die European Parliament, and
parts of die Commission, have honourably championed
die public interest in diis area, public healdi has rarely
been die dominant issue compared to EU concerns about
not allowing its bio-industries to fall behind US companies in die competition for global markets. Biotechnology companies have constantly threatened diat diey will
wididraw from Europe if Europe erects a complex or
hostile regulatory framework. In a Europe widi 35 million
people unemployed, such considerations held ultimate
political weight. The issue of governance over GM has
been made even more complex by die fact diat die
modern world operates on four levels: local, national,
regional and international/global. GM foods have failed
to be addressed adequately on all four levels. A tension
between die global and die regional levels has become
critical over die past year, widi Europe taking an increasingly cautious position, mindful of member states'
national public opinion, while world regulation passes to
die World Trade Organisation (WTO).
In an ideal world, diere would have to be better and faster
mechanisms for integration of die four levels. These difficulties are compounded by die emergence of a 'twin
track' system of regulation in food. Governmental frameworks of regulation are complex. Companies are frustrated
by diis and have increasingly begun to institute dieir own
systems of regulations as part of modern supply chain
management. Cross-border trading companies are under
pressure to be able to inform consumers about where dieir
food comes from - down to farm level. They also have to
implement EU consumer protection legislation which
requires diat diey show application of'due diligence' over
food safety at all stages of die production-distribution
chain. The net effect is diat Europe now has two regulation systems, one public, one private.
Quietly, die private sector is superceding die public regulatory function, as Europe's food system comes under die
sway of powerful supermarkets implementing tight 'traceability' dirough their contracts and specifications. While
Governments are left floundering, supermarkets can
quickly respond to consumer concerns. In die UK, for
instance, all major supermarket chains now claim to have
no GM ingredients in dieir 'own label' foods. Even proGM corporations such as Unilever, Nestle and Northern
Foods have had to implement bans for specific national
markets. This has not just been because diey might lose
dieir right to supply supermarkets but, as one processor
reported in confidence to die present audiors, it had seen
a drop in sales of dieir GM products of 60% in six weeks
following die Puzstai story. They had to act to protect
dieir brand image. Nonedieless, widiin die food chain die
most pervasive use of GM is in die enzyme technology at
die processing stages, which are not die subject of current
labelling regulations.
The fifth lesson is diat it is high time die public healdi
movement was more vociferous in debates about food.
Industry has long been able to argue diat almost any
agri-food technological investment is being selflessly designed to feed die world or to make more productive use
of existing agricultural land. 6 Alas, good intentions are
not good enough. (They are also often a fig leaf for good
old fashioned greed.) In a consumerist world where die
disgruntled public can resort to die law and where food
companies fear legal liability claims almost as much as die
US medical profession, diere needs to be a full and frank
debate about corporate concentration and control over
the food economy.
Where to from here? The current crisis actually offers a
wonderful opportunity for reform, if only die public
Guest Editorial
health world unites to help push for it. The upcoming
talks to revise the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) are an opportunity to rethink the inadequate WTO system onfoodstandards as a whole, and on
food safety in particular. The UN's Codex Ai'mentariits
Commission which arbitrates on health and safety food
disputes under die GATT's Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Standards agreement is long overdue for reform. Europe
too needs to put its own house in order. Food policy ever
since the BSE debacle has needed to be reformed.7 There
has never, for instance, been a public health assessment
of the Common Agricultural Policy. No wonder 'productionism' still holds sway. The Scientific Committees, too,
need an overhaul. They could begin by exploring how to
apply the precautionary principle. If they don't, the
schism between public and private regulation will continue to widen and it will be public pressure without
public health that will be in the driving seat.
1
House of Commons Select Committee on Science and
Technology. Evidence from Dr. A. Puzstai to the House of
Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology Inquiry
into the Scientific Advisory System: GM Food. London: House of
Commons, 8 March 1999.
2
Lang T. The complexities of globalisation. Agriculture and
Human Values 1999; 16:169-85.
3
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal
Welfare. Report on Animal welfare aspects of the use of Bovine
Somatotrophin. Adopted 10 March 1999. Luxembourg:
Commission of the European Communities, 1999.
4
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
The safety and impact of genetically modified organisms. BBSRC
Business, October 1998.
5
Pesticide Safety Report Scientific Review of the impact of
herbicide use on genetically modified crops. Report produced by
the Pesticide Safety Directorate. Pesticide Safety Directorate.
York, UK, 1998.
6
Conway G. Doubly Green Revolution. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1997.
7
Santer J. Speech by Jacques Santer, President of the
European Commission at the Debate in the European Parliament
on the report into BSE by the Committee of Enquiry of the
European Parliament 18 February 1997. Speech 97/39, 1997.
E D I T O R I A L
M O T E
International child health
STAFFANJANSON, Editor
w,
ith this issue the journal is pleased to present a section
on international child health.
The response from our recent call for papers was most
gratifying. Many excellent contributions were reviewed
and those articles which did not complete thereviewand
editorial processes in time for inclusion in this issue will
be considered for publication in subsequent issues.
In this issue, you will find three contributions from the
Netherlands and one from Spain (Mallorca). The four
papers all reflect current paediatric issues of modern
Europe, such as the need to develop early diagnostic tools
for psychosocial problems1 and low back pain in school
children2 as well as valid instruments for measuring
health-related quality of life in children.3 The paper of
van Steenbergen et al."* points to the obvious higher
mortality of children from some immigrant groups in
Holland, not only depending on socio-economic differences and where a battery of preventive measures ranging
from genetic counselling in consanguinity to road safety
lessons and early swimming lessons should be of great
impotance.
1
Bouchler CAM, de Rover CM, de Vries-Lequin I,
Kroesbergen HT, Visee WF, Aben DJM. Improving prevention in
Dutch child health care in schools: development of a short
questionnaire for early detection of psychosocial and related
child rearing problems. Eur J Public Hearth 1999;9:2<XW.
2
Gil del Real MT, Kovacs FM, Gestoso M, Mufraggi N,
Dlegue* JM, Balearic Back Pain Group. Evaluation of two
questionnaires to determine exposure to risk factors for
non-specific low back pain in Mallorcan schoolchildren and their
parents. J Eur Public Hearth 1999;9:194-9.
3
Verrlps GH, Vogels AGC, Koopman HM, et al. Measuring
hearth-related quality of life in a child population. Eur I Public
Hearth 1999;9:188-93.
4
van Steenbergen JE, Schulpen TWJ, Hoogenboezem J,
van Driel HF, Bijlsma F. Ethnicity and childhood mortality in The
Netherlands. Eur J Public Health 1999;9:205-10.