GMO or not GMO? Here are the issues we should talk about instead

What do genetically modified (GM) crops have in common with HIV and blood donation? A lot, says Sven Ove Hansson, Professor of Philosophy at KTH and SLU and program director at Mistra Biotech. In a recently published article, he points out the similarities in how the risks have been managed in terms of the ability to grow GM crops and gay men's ability to donate blood. From the first reaction with safety measures and regulations to prevent negative consequences, followed by research and increased knowledge, and the difficulties to revise initial risk assessment.

– In both cases, with GM crops and blood donation, uncertainties previously highlighted by the experts have now been replaced by scientifically based knowledge. What was previously well-founded caution is not relevant anymore, but it is politically difficult to reverse decisions that were once taken to protect the public, says Sven Ove Hansson.

Especially the risks and precautionary principle are interpreted incorrectly in the case of biotechnology in agriculture, Sven Ove Hansson claims. What many seem to believe is that the precautionary principle is a general instruction to be cautious, while it is actually evaluation of uncertain or incomplete scientific evidence. Sven Ove points out that no plant breeding is risk-free but that the discussion about how the plants got their traits is scientifically outdated.

– We should talk about the breeding goals, regardless of technology. For long time the focus has been increased yield, which in itself does not have to be in conflict with, for example, environmental sustainability or nutritional content. But we need to consider how socially beneficial breeding goals can be realized in a system that today is dominated by large international companies with their own priorities that do not necessarily go hand in hand with what can be considered sustainable and what farmers and consumers think is important. We need to ask whether intellectual property rights can be reformed or applied in a better way, to strengthen the farmers and to enable innovations that are important for sustainability and food safety, says Sven Ove Hansson.

Regarding the current legislation, Sven Ove Hansson reflects on the lack of addressing benefits in the EU's risk assessment of GM crops and how, from both sides in the debate, it is talked about "GMO or not GMO" as if it was a choice between no GMOs at all or to allow all GMOs. The motifs for one or the other is often about what may come in the future, rather than what the decision refers to here and now.

Instead of focusing on GMOs or not GMOs, there are several ethical aspects to reflect on that relate to plant breeding and biotechnology in agriculture:

• The selection of breeding goals, a choice that should be guided by the long-term public good and by the interests of smallholders and consumers,
• The implementation of these breeding goals in a system for plant breeding that is currently dominated by large international companies with other priorities,
• The measures that plant breeders need to take in order to prevent the inadvertent release of cultivars with undesired traits, such as toxicity or weediness,
• How the (science-based) precautionary principle should be applied to plant breeding,
• How a food labelling system can ensure adequate information to consumers wishing to avoid foodstuffs obtained with biotechnology, without contributing to unjustified worries concerning these products, and
• How the intellectual property regime can be reformed and/or better applied, in order to empower subsistence farmers and better support innovations that are important for sustainability and food security.

More information

Sven Ove Hansson, Department of Crop Production Ecology, soh@kth.se, +46(0)70 6229339. 

Scientific article
Hansson, SO. 2019. A science-informed ethics for agricultural biotechnology. Crop Breeding, Genetics and Genomics DOI:10.20900/cbgg20190006