Globalization of the Market. A third modern trend that helps frame the context for the biotechnology debate is the international nature of today's food market. While this trend greatly expands the potential market for genetically engineered crops, it has also greatly complicated the process of reaching consensus on how to balance risks and benefits. No longer is a U.S. decision that a food is "safe" enough to ensure its acceptance; if the food is exported to Europe, for instance, it must meet the acceptability criteria of European consumers and governments, which so far has been an uphill fight for the products of food biotechnology. Nor is this concern just one for American agriculture. Developing countries growing crops for export to bolster their struggling economies will have to face the same issues, if they choose to plant genetically engineered crops.

Some see the international dimensions of the debate over food biotechnology as a major problem, a parade that can move no faster than the slowest marcher. I think the potential impacts of globalization in this case are largely positive. Yes, the pace of adoption of innovations may be slowed, initially. But attempts to find consensus at the international level-which are already ongoing under the auspices of the U.N.'s Codex Alimentarius Commission-have some advantages. Most affected parties are "at the table," including some (not enough) developing countries. Some other governments and other cultures are ahead of ours, in some respects, such as in open debate of how much precaution should be applied in safety decisions. The effort to resolve debates over food biotechnology at the international level may help inform the debate within the U.S. And if we're lucky, we won't reach a solution domestically only to learn later that it must be adjusted to meet the needs of our trading partners around the world.

The international dimensions of the biotechnology debate have implications for efforts to achieve societal consensus on how best to use the technology. If biotechnology really is an important part of the solution to food sufficiency problems in developing countries, (an assertion that remains interesting but uncertain, in my view) then developing-country perspectives need to be included in the consensus. Since opinions about biotechnology are as divided in the developing world as they are here, a broad range of developing-country views, from different countries with diverse crops and cultures, also needs to be represented.

This sounds like a daunting task, and it is. But like biotechnology, the global market for foods is not going to be un-invented. It is the arena in which any successful resolution to this debate must be played out.

Recommendations

I am cautiously optimistic that society can find a pathway to a broad consensus, toward a scenario for using food biotechnology to realize its benefits, while satisfying practically everyone that we are effectively minimizing unacceptable risks. It won't be easy, and it will take hard work for many years by many people of good will from a very broad range of backgrounds. But I think it can be done. Here are some preliminary ideas as to how it might be achieved, framed as eight simple (or at least, simple-sounding) guidelines:

1. Set clear, explicit goals. As a society, we need to agree on the steps in the process of resolving this dilemma. No process is likely to work well if different participants get involved with different expectations of what is to be achieved. Goals should include finding consensus solutions to specific problems: For example, choosing applications of food biotechnology to pursue or not to pursue; establishing research agendas (what questions need answers); decision criteria for risk management; codes of conduct for the biotech industry. Goals may be ambitious but should be achievable.

2. Practice inclusion. Make sure all the stakeholders are at the table. This may require creating new forums; few institutions that exist now have the capability to bring all the needed participants together. Something like a national commission may need to be established. And since it is not really practical to get everyone with a stake in the issue in one room at the same time, a process should be developed for first building a tentative consensus with a relatively small number of participants, and then gradually widening it to include more stakeholders.

3. Listen. Identify everyone's concerns as objectively as possible, and get them on the table for discussion. Try to withhold judgment and to understand each other's points of view.

4. Practice humility. This involves scientific humility-acknowledging questions that current science can't answer convincingly, weighting what's not known along with what is known. It also involves humility about policy-acknowledging that none of us has all the answers, but nourishing hope that together, we can come up with better answers.

5. Confront value issues. The debate over food biotechnology is fundamentally about values, such as what risks are acceptable, what benefits justify taking the risks-both known and unknown ones-and ethical choices, what's right or wrong. Focusing on scientific data without confronting the core issue of what is "safe enough" or what is right in ethical terms is likely to result in "talking past each other." Agreements on value choices are central to any general agreement.

6. Commit to better science. That means supporting research on risk issues, until more certainty can be attained about the nature and magnitude of some risks. It also means getting better and more concrete information about benefits; benefits assessment may need to be almost as rigorous as risk assessment. The independence of research will also need to be addressed; researchers need to be free to pursue questions that don't interest the corporations that fund most biotechnology research. Public support (and control) of an increased share of biotechnology research may be required to meet this goal.

7. Frame questions broadly. Try to avoid getting boxed into "yes or no" decisions on specific applications. The bigger questions include, which applications should be highest priorities, and why? Which risks are most unacceptable, and why? And in cases where a genetic engineering solution is proposed for a problem that is now being addressed in another way, a relative-risk analysis is needed. For instance, if a crop can be engineered to resist pest attack, the analysis should not just compare the biotechnology solution with the riskiest chemical alternative, but should also include biointensive integrated pest management approaches and other available choices. In assessing the risks of developing a particular application of crop biotechnology, the risks of not developing it should be assessed as well.

8. Be open and transparent. The process needs to be carried out in full view of the public, and amply documented, so that the basis for decisions is clear.

I make no claim to have a magic solution to this debate, and my advice is free-it costs you nothing unless you take it. But I believe that if the scientific community and the biotechnology industry hope to resolve the current crisis of confidence positively, they will need to begin a process of ongoing dialogue with critics of the technology. The goal of the process cannot be to persuade the critics that their concerns are baseless; it must be to reach a new consensus that accommodates both perspectives. To ensure that society will not miss out on many major benefits of crop biotechnology, we need to stop thinking in "us/them" terms. Unless "they" become part of "us," decisions "we" make about how to apply this revolutionary technology will never be seen as legitimate.

<-- Back