Is modern farm technology a saviour or a threat?

Journalistic ethics require objectivity and balance. Although that may sound straightforward, reporting on genetically modified (GM) crops and biotechnology is anything but. The terrain is full of paradoxes. Notional ‘good guys’ such as non-government organisations (NGOs) – would-be guardians of the environment and human well-being – have no qualms about distorting information about GM organisms even when they lead to benefits for the environment and people. Witness the campaigns against vitamin A rice and Bt cotton. ‘Card-carrying’ scientists champion research that is poorly designed and where the conclusions bear no statistical significance. Witness the ‘circus’ around the publication, retraction and republication of Gilles Séralini’s paper. One might think that people approach the issue on the basis of evidence. That seems not to be the case. Rather, pre-existing world views seem to dominate. Politicians and NGOs appear to exploit these attitudes, fanning the flames for their own ends. As with climate science, it seems dismayingly easy to distort logic and evidence. Staggeringly, the attack on GM crops seems to know no bounds. Recently European NGOs including Greenpeace called for the abolition of the position of the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Officer. Accusations of conflict of interest and undue corporate influence resonate and stick like mud. There is a view that providing information barely helps: it is only filtered to fortify pre-existing positions. It is disheartening, but that is the nature of public discourse. Journalists can only continue to explain the issues and the science as objectively and clearly as possible. The battle is not just about GM crops but for science itself.