By Robert Wager

When it comes to evaluating the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops
and food the world should rely on experts with good credentials.
The media can, of course, add words of caution from critics. But it must be
clear which opinions come from detailed knowledge and training, and which
may be driven by other agendas.

Evidence-based reports showing the low risks associated with GM crops are
scarcely reported. For example, there was little, if any, coverage of the
International Council for Science 2004 report. It stated that there is no
evidence that current GM crops damage the environment, or that consuming
foods containing GM ingredients harms people.

Rather, headlines about 'frankenfoods' are common, with alleged health
threats and environmental risks frequently gracing the pages of newspapers
around the world. Most of these stories come from biotechnology critics and
anti-GM lobby groups. A few are extreme extrapolations and one or two
exaggerations from a kernel of truth. Such scare stories consistently lack
evidence from quality peer-reviewed literature.

A 2002 report (updated in 2008) by the American Medical Association said
"attempts to introduce GM foods have stimulated not a reasoned debate, but a
potent negative campaign by people with other agendas. Opponents ignore
common farming practices and well investigated facts about plants, or
inaccurately present general problems as being unique to GM plants".

Genetically modified crops are not a panacea, but they are also not the
bogeyman the media has allowed the public to believe. So how can the media
differentiate between fanciful hypotheses and real concerns regarding GM
crops and food?

Just because someone calls themselves an 'expert' in GM crops does not mean
they have formal credentials in the field. Far too many critics have little
or no training in the science ? their opinions should be corroborated before
being believed.

Science writers would be well served by talking to people trained in the
field of agri-biotechnology, who actually know what the real issues are.
Private corporations aside, the public sector has many world-class
institutes heavily involved in agri-biotech. The International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre
(CIMMYT) have long histories of improving agriculture in the developing
world. They look at all options, including biotechnology. And publicly
funded university-based research in biotechnology is happening around the
world. There is no good reason why a given journalist cannot contact a
scientist working in biotechnology for an authoritative point of view.

Journalists can also consult regulators. Many countries have tight
regulations on food production to ensure public safety. For example, North
American regulators demand data on food safety, nutritional composition and
a wide variety of environmental considerations before commercialising any GM
crop.

The developing world too has strict regulations. In the Philippines, several
government regulators as well as independent scientists and technical
experts perform safety assessments of potential GM crops. And Brazil, India
and many parts of Africa are rapidly institutionalizing regulations that
will permit their farmers to benefit from growing GM crops.

The media must also stop presenting claims that we know nothing about the
long-term hazards as being unique to GM foods. A recent European Union
report points out that little is known about the long-term health effects
ofany food, including GM. After pre-market safety evaluations, all we have
to go by is a food's past safety record. And, in the case of GM crops and
food, the safety record is impeccable.

The media must be more careful in covering scientific subjects like
agri-biotech. There is a danger of putting the public off science
altogether.

www.checkbiotech.org