Cabinet enforcer Jack Cunningham hit out at people who, he said, told him, the public and the media that bioscience developments should grind to a halt and that there should be an absolute moratorium. "Some of these same people were saying something similar 20 years ago about an industry not a million miles from my constituency. If these people had had their way at the time the [nuclear] industry would have been stopped in its tracks and closed".

In the 1950's the public were promised that the new nuclear technology would provide them with cheap, safe power throughout their lifetimes. As the twentieth century has drawn to a close nuclear power is a discredited and rejected technology, but the public are again being promised a new miracle technology in the form of genetically engineered crops that will feed the world in the twenty-first century.

Promises, Promises
The civilian nuclear power program was borne out of the 1940s and 50s nuclear arms race. The huge emotional, intellectual and financial commitment made during the early years of the nuclear era needed another avenue and the “atoms for peace” program was created. Initially its vendors promoted nuclear power as a good investment, clean, safe and necessary for a country’s technological development, and these claims resulted in a large number of orders for nuclear power plants in the US and subsequently in other countries. Many of the same types of claims have been made by, and on behalf of, the GE industry since they began to seek public support for their technology in the 1980s.

The genetic engineering industry has also promised huge profits and rapid growth. However, a recent report by financial analysts at Deutsche Bank suggests that this success may be short-lived. The report, entitled “GMOs are dead”, explores the financial consequences of consumer rejection of GE food products. The report analysed the “value chain” on which the economics of genetically engineered crops is based and concluded, “in order for GMO crops to be viable they must be sold at a price that is as good or better than non-GMO options”. Instead the Deutsche reported:

We see a two-tier grain market developing with GMO (genetically modified organisms) corn and soybeans at a discount to non-GMO. Very bad news for farmers... If a two-tier market takes hold, we see price premiums for high-value-added GMO seed collapsing. Very bad news for seed companies.

Interestingly the authors of the report compare the current misfortunes of the GE industry with the beleaguered nuclear industry:

Are GMOs safe, good for the environment, and necessary to support the inevitable growth in the world's population? Yes, but the same arguments can be made for advancing nuclear power. Despite the support of the scientific community, it is unlikely that we will add any new nuclear power plants any time soon.

Global Benefits?
One of the interesting similarities between nuclear power and genetic engineering is the way in which both technologies are claimed to be the solution to complex global problems. In the case of nuclear power, it is now being promoted as the solution to climate change and global warming, as it is claimed that it is the only source that can meet future energy demands without adding further Co2 to the atmosphere. As one nuclear power promoter said, “in the next century mankind must harness the nuclear genie if our energy needs are to be met and our security preserved”. Promoters of genetic engineering say that it will end world hunger...some have gone so far as to suggest that by imposing regulation on genetic engineering, the European Union is actually perpetuating mass hunger . Mark Cantley of the Biotechnology Unit at the OECD, warned that if restrictive laws on genetic engineering continued:

"the consequences for food security and nutrition could be severe for many millions of people in developing countries…Careless policy costs jobs – and lives."

But the major development agencies have pointed out that world hunger is not caused by an absolute shortage of food but by conditions such as war, civil unrest and inequitable distribution. A report prepared by Christian Aid earlier this year argued that GM crops are 'irrelevant' to ending world hunger, will concentrate power in too few hands and will strip small farmers of their independence:

'GM crops are . . . creating classic preconditions for hunger and famine. A food supply based on too few varieties of patented crops are the worst option for food security. More dependence and marginalisation loom for the poorest.'

Both world hunger and global warming are complex problems and their solutions will involve political, social and economic changes – principally in the developed world, nuclear power and genetic engineering have the apparent advantages of being one-off technical fixes which will sort out these problems whilst maintaining the status quo. At the same time this role then provides the ultimate justification for the acceptance of these technologies in the developed world.