Learning to live with Frankenfoods

Traditional opponents of biotechnology have refined their views, but the fierce debate over genetically modified crops will continue. Emily Smith reports.

For many people ‘plant biotechnology’ means only one thing: genetic modification. Many environmental groups have made a name for themselves campaigning against crops developed by altering their genetic make-up in a laboratory, dubbed ‘Frankenfoods’ by Greenpeace in the 1990s.

So it comes as something of a surprise to hear Marco Contiero, a policy adviser for Greenpeace Europe, say that his group is not opposed to the use of biotechnology for agriculture.

"It is very difficult to get the message through that we are not opposed to plant biotechnology as such," said Contiero. "There is one form of biotechnology that is very useful and barely mentioned: marker assisted selection (MAS)."

MAS allows scientists to check the genomes of a plant and select the version best suited to their needs, rather than rely on slow breeding cycles.

"All plants and animals have developed in this way," said Contiero. "But whereas it has traditionally taken years to breed the ideal plant or animal, MAS can cut the time down to weeks."

Contiero describes MAS as a speeded up version of a natural process: a very modern green technology.

But Wilhelm Gruissem, president of the European Plant Science Organisation (EPSO), warns against false distinctions between modern and traditional agriculture. "We can’t encourage a myopic view and say: ‘No genetic modification. Everything has to be natural’," said Gruissem. "Agriculture is not natural."

Gruissem says that fears over GM crops miss the point. Speaking this summer at a meeting of Plants for the Future, a Commission-supported technology platform, he pointed out that GM varieties face safety assessments no one would dream of imposing on traditional foodstuffs.

"No one has ever assessed broccoli," he said. "But I guarantee you could kill someone using only substances found in broccoli."

Plants for the Future was launched in 2003, and is managed by EPSO and EuropaBio, a European biotech industry group. It uses EU and industry money to look for ways in which plant technologies, including GM and MAS, could help the world face modern challenges.

The research agenda of Plants for the Future, up until 2025, identifies particular challenges including the need to feed a growing population, the development of plant-based energy (biomass) and the search for sustainable agricultural practices.

No one knows if plant biotechnology will fulfil its potential to meet world food and fuel needs while protecting the environ-ment. The future of Plants for the Future itself is uncertain, with its funding set to run out next year and no replacement budget yet agreed.

For now, EU attention focuses on the risks rather than the potentials of this technology. Greenpeace may have found a place in its heart for MAS, but the fear of Frankenfoods is still very much on environment-alists’ minds.

Governments have failed to reach a decision for or against Amflora, a biotech potato developed by German company BASF, handing the decision back to the Commission. The European Food Safety Authority says the potato - which would be authorised for industrial purposes and not human consumption - poses no health or environmental risk, but environmental groups and, many believe, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, are not convinced that any GM crop can be guaranteed not to pose any long-term problems. This is one green technology that looks unlikely to win over green activists.

Bio-crops across the world

• Area of land used to grow GM crops in hectares, 2006

United States: 54.6 million

Argentina: 18.0 million

Brazil: 11.5 million

Canada: 6.1 million

India: 3.8 million

China: 3.5 million

Paraguay: 2.0 million

South Africa: 1.4 million

Uruguay: 400,000

Philippines: 200,000

Australia: 200,000

Romania: 115,000

Mexico: 60,000

Spain: 60,000

Colombia: 30,000

France: 5,000

Iran: 4,000

Honduras: 2,000

Czech Rep: 1,290

Portugal: 1,250

Germany: 950

Slovakia: 30

Source: The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA)

Biotech Voices

"Technological change has given us the capacity to shape and develop [the natural world] for the public good… Biotechnology is a critical part of the world’s economic and environmental future."

Peter Mandelson, European trade commissioner.

"GMO products raise a whole new series of possible risks to the environment, notably potential longer-term effects that could impact on biodiversity."

Stavros Dimas, European environment commissioner.

"GM farming has arrived, and we must have the administrative tools to handle all aspects of it."

Mariann Fischer Boel, European agriculture commissioner.

"Our biotechnology products have provided specific benefits to farmers, the environment and society at a large."

Monsanto, US biotechnology company.

"Genetically modified organisms can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organisms, thereby contaminating… environments and future generations in an unforeseeable and uncontrollable way."

Greenpeace, environmental campaign group.

Traditional opponents of biotechnology have refined their views, but the fierce debate over genetically modified crops will continue. Emily Smith reports.