The bottom line on policy debates around genetically modified foods? Back up your positions with scientific facts.

“When we have political discussions that are not bringing in scientific information, then we lose as a community,” according to Pam Ronald, professor of plant pathology and chairwoman of the Plant Genomics Program at the University of California, Davis.

Ronald made this point during a panel discussion on the political and social roadblocks that biotechnology companies face in trying to help feed the more than 1 billion hungry people across the globe.
Political decisions have such a lasting impact on the public’s perception of biotechnology that science needs to be involved in these discussions, she says. Political decisions made in the absence of scientific information and data ultimately are poor decisions, Ronald pointed out during the discussion, which took place at the 2010 BIO International Convention, held recently in Chicago

For the session, “When Politics Impedes Progress to Combat Hunger,” panel members came from the worlds of science, politics and journalism to talk about how a lack of understanding among politicians (and by extension, the public) of genetically modified crops has impeded their use in the fight against world hunger. Panel members suggested that an open dialogue and collaboration between the political and scientific communities is needed.

Why? Because policy decisions and lawmaking have a direct effect on the public understanding of biotech crops, said C.S. Prakash, director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University.

Because of skepticism, some advocacy groups work to stymie the regulatory approval of GM crops despite the enormous proven and potential advantages such crops have in the fight against hunger, Prakash noted. “Many food problems that currently exist around the world can be addressed through biotechnology, and due to unwarranted concern, the potential of the technology is only being scratched,” he said.

Biotechnology holds promise in combating hunger in parts of the world where pests and disease ruin crops. GM crops would enable impoverished farmers in such regions to produce larger yields in a sustainable fashion, breaking the cycle of hunger while also raising their incomes. The fears held by some members of the public are misplaced, panel members said as they pointed to data that more than 2 billion acres of GM crops have been grown and consumed without a single adverse effect on human health. 

The panel agreed that to better inform the public, increased communication between scientists in academia and the press is needed, along with improved science education in the K–12 grades.
The logic behind this sentiment is simple: Misconceptions about biotechnology will be removed if the scientific community works with the press to accurately and regularly report on genetically modified crops. Moreover, if children were taught about farming and food production from an early age, biotechnology would cease to be an unknown concept, Prakash said.
Last, the panel stressed that regardless of one’s view on biotechnology, world hunger affects everyone on the planet. Margaret Zeigler, deputy director of the Congressional Hunger Center, explained it simply: “World hunger is both a humanitarian and a security issue for all of us.”

In the past three years, the number of people who suffer from hunger worldwide has surged from 800 million to more than 1 billion.

Source: Biotech-Now