By Albert Weale

The World Bank recently estimated that a doubling of food prices over the
last three years could push 100 million people in low-income countries
deeper into poverty.
And the future does not look brighter. Food prices, although likely to fall
from their current peaks, are predicted to remain high over the next decade.

As the world considers how to respond, the debate about genetically modified
(GM) crops has inevitably reared its ugly head. 'Ugly' because the public
exchange about this technology has usually seen extreme viewpoints gaining
the most airtime. For example, in the United Kingdom, Prince Charles'
spirited but ill-informed attack on GM crops this summer led to a flurry of
opinionated responses. We could have been back in the polarised debates of
the earlier part of this decade.

Since 1999, my organisation, the UK-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics, has
twice examined the ethical issues raised by GM crops. In a 2003 report, the
Council specifically focused on developing countries. Two of the conclusions
are still particularly relevant today.

Ethical obligation

First, the council concluded that there is an ethical obligation to explore
whether GM crops could reduce poverty, and improve food security and
profitable agriculture in developing countries. In coming to this
conclusion, the council considered differing perceptions of risk. When
people have enough food, as in developed countries, consumers and producers
will feel free to avoid risk - even if that risk is theoretical rather than
real. But developing nations, struggling with widespread poverty, poor
health,limited pest control and poor agricultural sustainability, have a
different risk-benefit calculation.This is perhaps why the acreage of GM
crops has tripled in developing countries over the past five years, compared
to just doubling worldwide.

Consumers in prosperous countries are being asked to suppress their doubts
about GM crops so that research relevant to the developing world continues.
In effect, they are being asked to concede that any potential losses to them
are outweighed by potential gains to poor countries, where yields are
declining and conventional agriculture is increasingly unsustainable.

This does not belittle other factors needed for poverty reduction and food
security - such as stable political environments, appropriate
infrastructures, fair international and national agricultural policies, and
access to land and water. GM crops are just one part of a large and complex
picture. But we will not know how important a part until we explore their
potential.

Case by case consideration

The Nuffield Council's second key conclusion was that the wide range of GM
crops and situations must be considered individually. Those who oppose or
support GM crops per se make an unhelpful generalisation.

Each time, the gene or combination of genes being inserted, and the nature
of the target crop, must be assessed. It is also important to compare a GM
crop with local alternatives.

For example, Golden Rice - enhanced for b-carotene to help fight vitamin A
deficiency - is not needed where people have sufficient vitamin A from leafy
greens, or ready access to vitamin supplements. But where this is not the
case, the crop may significantly improve nutrition.

Similarly, herbicide-resistant soybeans can reduce demands for local labour.
This may be devastating if a community relies on wages from manual weeding.
But it may help communities struggling with a labour shortage due to high
prevalence of diseases such as HIV/AIDS.

The role of research

Scientific and other evidence must be central in the debate, and over the
past few years evidence about GM crops has grown.

For example, according to a recent news report in Science,
soon-to-be-published research will clarify the amount of Golden Rice a child
would need to eat each day to prevent vitamin A deficiency. This kind of
research is vital if governments and farmers are to make informed decisions
about GM crops. Indeed, before new research is funded, national and regional
bodies in developing countries should be consulted about their priorities
for crops and desirable GM traits.

In the United Kingdom, the government has committed ?150 million (US$263
million) over the next five years to research aimed at making agriculture
more resilient to the pests and diseases affecting poor farmers, and
increasing smallholders' agricultural productivity.

Research efforts are also growing in the developing world, with South
African scientists developing and working to commercialise virus-resistant
maize, and countries like Kenya and Nigeria hosting projects to develop
virus-resistant varieties of key African crops.

Striking a balance

Many people worry about possible environmental risks from GM crops, such as
gene flow to other plants, and this is something that scientific research
must clarify. But alarm-raising without evidence is as helpful as calling
'fire' in a crowded theatre. Similarly, demanding evidence of zero risk
before allowing a new technology is fundamentally at odds with any practical
strategy for investigating new technologies. Mobile phones or aeroplanes
might never have seen the light of day if such stringent demands had been
placed on them.

In the case of GM technology it is clearly crucial to ask what the risks of
adopting GM crops are. But it is also important to ask what the risks of not
doing so are. Realistic cost-benefit analyses that consider local social and
environmental conditions and development goals are needed on a
country-by-country basis.

Heated debate about the food crisis must not detract from an evidence-based
assessment of biotechnology's potential for improving agricultural
productivity in developing countries. The benefits of GM crops must not be
overstated. But neither can poor arguments be allowed to obscure strong
arguments for a good cause.

Professor Albert Weale is chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and
professor of government at the University of Essex, United Kingdom.
www.checkbiotech.org