GM foods: it's all about the economics

The real concern about GM is that it extends intellectual property protection into our fields.

Following the Government's stated intention to expand the growth of GM crops in Britain, debate about the safety of modified foods returned to the British press.

In keeping with the tradition of cack-handed Government science policy, they've been flubbing the response: David Cameron's spokesman refusing eight times to confirm whether or not he thinks GM food is safe, Owen Paterson mumbling about how healthy DNA is on the Today programme, and so on.

It's doubly depressing because, while there is an important debate to be had about GM foods, it's less about the science and more about the economics.

(Admittedly, that's what an economics reporter would say)

The most important thing about genetically modified species is that they are patentable, in a way that naturally bred plants just aren't. And patent protection is just about the strongest type of artificial monopoly there is: as a result, the seeds of genetically modified plants can't be harvested and resown without a license from the patent holder; can't be resold second hand; and can't be independently engineered by other companies.

So strong are the protections that the US Supreme Court recently ruled that an Iowan farmer who planted seeds bought from a grain vendor was infringing a patent for so-called "Round-up Ready" soybeans, which are modified to be resistant to weedkiller. Indianan farmer Vernon Bowman couldn't afford to carry on buying the GM seeds from Monsanto, and so instead bought generic soybeans from a grain elevator. The beans, which were intended for animal feed, contained some GM plants. Bowman planted them, and used weed killer, guessing that at least some of the beans would have resistance.

The Supreme Court ruled that he was infringing Monsanto's patent.

There is, in other words, a very real risk that relaxing the controls around GM crops in Britain would result in a trend towards centralisation and control of our food supply, in a way comparable to the effects that the patentability of software is having on the American tech market.

But there's a key difference between the scientific and economic objections to GM crops. The economic problems are man-made. Patent protections are not a natural thing, and so there is no necessary need for them to be extended to the physical crops. And given the very real question about whether or not patents in general actually promote or hinder innovation, there's even less reason to assume that the protection needs to be upheld.

That's not a change Britain can make on its own, because our intellectual property framework is intricately tied up in a raft of international treaties and EU directives. But it's the debate we should be having about GM crops which we currently aren't at all.

A field of transgenic soy. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Theresa May and the resurgence of the state

More than any of her recent predecessors, the Prime Minister seems willing to challenge the economic and political orthodoxies of the past 35 years.

Theresa May entered office in more tumultuous circumstances than any other prime minister since 1945. The UK’s vote to leave the European Union was a remarkable rebuke to the political and business establishment and an outcome for which few had prepared. Mrs May recognised that the result was more than a revolt against Brussels. It reflected a deeper alienation and discontent. Britain’s inequalities of wealth and opportunity, its regional imbalances and its distrusted political class all contributed to the Remain campaign’s ­defeat. As she said in her speech in Birmingham on 11 July: “Make no mistake, the referendum was a vote to leave the European Union, but it was also a vote for serious change.”

When the financial crisis struck in 2007-2008, David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, was caught out. His optimistic, liberal Conservative vision, predicated on permanent economic growth, was ill-suited to recession and his embrace of austerity tainted his “modernising” project. From that moment, the purpose of his premiership was never clear. At times, austerity was presented as an act of pragmatic bookkeeping; at others, as a quest to shrink the state permanently.

By contrast, although Mrs May cautiously supported Remain, the Leave vote reinforced, rather than contradicted, her world-view. As long ago as March 2013, in the speech that signalled her leadership ambitions, she spoke of the need to confront “vested interests in the private sector” and embrace “a more strategic role” for the state. Mrs May has long insisted on the need to limit free movement of people within the ­European Union, and anticipated the causes of the Leave vote. The referendum result made the national reckoning that she had desired inevitable.

More than any of her recent predecessors, the Prime Minister seems willing to challenge the economic and political orthodoxies of the past 35 years. She has promised worker representation on company boards, binding shareholder votes on executive pay, improved corporate governance and stricter controls on foreign takeovers.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has set the ­Labour Party on a similar course, stating in his conference speech that the “winds of globalisation” are “blowing against the belief in the free market and in favour of intervention”. He pointedly criticised governments which did not try to save their domestic steel industries as China dumped cheap steel on to global markets.

We welcome this new mood in politics. As John Gray wrote in our “New Times” special issue last week, by reasserting the role of the state as the final guarantor of social ­cohesion, Mrs May “has broken with the neoliberal model that has ruled British politics since the 1980s”.

The Prime Minister has avoided the hyperactive style of many new leaders, but she has deviated from David Cameron’s agenda in several crucial respects. The target of a national Budget surplus by 2020 was rightly jettisoned (although Mrs May has emphasised her commitment to “living within our means”). Chancellor Philip Hammond’s Autumn Statement on 23 November will be the first test of the government’s ­fiscal boldness. Historically low borrowing costs have strengthened the pre-existing case for infrastructure investment to support growth and spread prosperity.

The greatest political ­challenge facing Mrs May is to manage the divisions within her party. She and her government must maintain adequate access to the European single market, while also gaining meaningful control of immigration. Her statist economic leanings are already being resisted by the free-market fundamentalists on her benches. Like all prime ministers, Mrs May must balance the desire for clarity with the need for unity.

“Brexit means Brexit,” she has repeatedly stated, underlining her commitment to end the UK’s 43-year European
affair. If Mrs May is to be a successful and even transformative prime minister, she must also prove that “serious change” means serious change and a determination to create a society that does not only benefit the fortunate few. 

This article first appeared in the 29 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, May’s new Tories