The absence of scientists in the genetically modified food debate often leaves it shy on facts and big on misperceptions.
But scientists don’t know how to play a more active role, says the head of the University of Saskatchewan’s plant sciences department.
“A lot of scientists are frustrated by that,” said Graham Scoles, an active defender of biotechnology in Saskatchewan.
“But they’re not sure what to do about it.”
Many critics of genetically modified organisms say these crops can be dangerous to the environment, can be dangerous to human health and should be restricted until special testing is completed.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Most scientists, Scoles said, believe GM crops are safe.
Typical stories in newspapers and on television present a critic of biotechnology and then counter with a spokesperson for a company using the biotechnology. The view of independent scientists is rarely introduced.
Scoles said this problem, in which the people with the most knowledge about the issue are not playing an important role, is due to both the nature of the media and scientists.
“Scientists often are not good communicators. They want to tell you too much. So it doesn’t make a good sound bite,” said Scoles.
“But when you have people (at a recent anti-GMO protest) in Montreal dancing around with corn cobs on their heads and little kids dressed as butterflies, it’s a nice image and you can get a nice sound bite out of that.”
Scoles is trying to turn this around. During the week that he was interviewed for this story, he spoke to three groups about the risks and benefits of GMO crops.
But he said many of his colleagues are timid about publicly defending biotech. Scientists who work for private corporations that are developing GM crops worry they will be seen as “a puppet of private industry” if they speak up.
Government scientists are often reticent because people could accuse them of having a conflict of interest if they defend GMOs, since the government oversees the approval of those crops.
But Scoles said that even when scientists do speak out, they are hampered by a professional restraint that is often misunderstood.
“In science, the bottom line is that you can’t prove a negative,” said Scoles.
Never say none
Scientists can’t say there is absolutely no risk from GMOs, because, to a scientist, there is
always a chance that anything will have some possibility of risk.
So they tend to carefully qualify their statements.
“You can say, ‘it’s extremely unlikely that those things are going to happen, based on our past experience.’ “
Scoles said scientists can’t swear that coffee or any other everyday substance is safe.
“You could treat any food substance (with the suspicion many people have for GMOs), and you’d probably find something nasty in every one.”
The qualified statements of scientists are often ineffective when dealing with vociferous, dramatic presentations by biotech foes.
Critics “can make blanket statements that are absolutely incorrect, but those are the ones that are picked up by the media.”
Peter McCann, the head of biotechnology promoter AgWest Biotech, said the true nature of biotechnology is seldom explained to the public in media accounts because it is far too complex to easily summarize.
“You’d lose the readers half way through,” said McCann.
When individuals and small groups of people visit AgWest Biotech’s demonstration lab in Saskatoon and are able to spend some time
digesting the science behind GM crops, they tend to be more accepting, McCann said.
“It works on a one on one basis – small groups. When we actually talk to people,” he said.
One reason scientists have not successfully assuaged public worries about biotechnology is the deep well of suspicion toward government and science, Scoles said.
Scientists can state that something is safe, but in the wake of the mad cow and E. coli scares, the public is skeptical.
“The public is not going to accept that any more, as they were when scientists were looked up to.”
Scoles said he decided years ago to take a role in the GMO debate and try to get a mainstream scientist’s view out into the public.
“I have tried to put things into perspective,” he said. “As a university professor, I feel I have a little more freedom to say what I’m thinking.”
– WHITE
