The global debate over how agriculture and food systems can better meet people’s needs is passionate and often muddled. It is easy to get lost in the complex interactions between the many forces that shape the system. Views differ widely over what is right and wrong about the system and the direction it’s headed. People see the risks posed by farming systems and technology very differently. Some think biotechnology is the ultimate answer, while others see it as unsafe, unneeded, and even unethical. Given that perceptions of the impacts, risks, costs, and benefits of agricultural biotechnology are so divergent and visceral, it is little wonder that consensus remains elusive when discussions turn to how policy, development assistance, or research capital should be directed and invested. As long as the current state of affairs persists, companies, governments, and international organizations will struggle to find a safe path through the minefield that has become public discourse on agricultural biotechnology.
A first step in changing the terms and hopefully tenor of debate is to seek a common understanding of the characteristics of agricultural and food system technologies – whether chemical, biological, or genetic -- that should determine placement on a list of priorities. As a society, we cannot afford to develop, test and commercialize all technically plausible applications of biotechnology. Priorities must be set, choices must be made. A method is needed to screen and rank potential applications. Some will emerge as clearly needed, feasible, likely to be safe, cost-effective, and compatible with cultural values, while a few others, upon reflection, will be seen as too risky or not worth the cost and effort required to bring them to market.
Here, a set of “first principles”, against which technology can and should be appraised, is described. These principles encompass performance attributes related to how a technology is intended to work, as well as the technology’s impacts and consequences. No technology – whether biotech-based or organically approved – will possibly be fully compatible with all relevant principles and performance attributes. The goal is to work toward more assuredly safe and beneficial technology, while avoiding technology with foreseeable pitfalls and adverse unintended consequences.

By: C. Benbrook (Benbrook Consulting Services)

download this document:    173 kb