GM: A not-so-great debate?

In 2003, the UK Government launched GM Nation?, a wide-scale public debate into GM crops. It was then accused of ignoring the results. What can be learned from the experience?

Food from plants that had been genetically modified (GM) first appeared on UK supermarket shelves in 1996. There were few objections. Cans of GM tomato paste were clearly labelled, and shoppers could easily buy the old-fashioned kind instead.

A few years later, there was a public and media outcry over GM foods. Why? Partly because of new fears of possible hazards. Partly because GM soya and maize had found their way, unlabelled, into many processed products. Efforts to reassure people by the main company involved in selling the GM seed, Monsanto, only increased their doubts.

The UK Government was, in principle, supportive of GM crops. It also expressed a belief that the public should have its say. This led to the unprecedented 'GM Nation?' public debate in the summer of 2003, a large-scale effort to involve the public in discussion of GM agriculture.

Alongside a new scientific review of the safety of GM crops and an economic assessment of their possible benefits, more than 600 meetings were held all round the country. Those who took part proved overwhelmingly opposed to allowing GM crops to be grown in the UK. A clear result? Maybe. But people who were already strongly against the technology made a special effort to attend the meetings. It is debatable whether GM Nation? truly captured the voice of ordinary people.

The Government was criticised for 'not listening when the public spoke'. But it was also attempting to weigh up inputs from other groups, and the detailed analysis from scientific and economic experts. With complex issues and incomplete knowledge, reaching decisions is going to be difficult – and pleasing everyone impossible.

So is there any point in involving the public in such discussions? One conclusion from the GM experience is that access to the 'political ear' appeared to be biased at early stages – industry seemed to be dictating the agenda and the Government was failing in its duty to look after the public. A lesson for nanotechnology, then, may be that the world outside the lab should have a say in where nano is going sooner, rather than later.