Giovanni Tagliabue

In this book, Giovanni Molteni Tagliabue asserts that the realization of the values and the implementation of the objectives as indicated in democratic constitutions (political, social rights and the people’s welfare) are hindered by structural defects of the legislative/government architecture and processes. Expertise and science have scarce say in politics and policy. The author suggests an innovative view through the ‘REDemo Project’. 1. Rationalization: the insertion of public scientists into legislative/executive mechanisms, with the creation in each democracy of a National Scientific Assembly – parallel to the extant partypolitical Chamber of Representatives – consisting of academic experts and researchers (legal scholars, political analysts, economists, sociologists, land/urban planners, industry/infrastructure designers, biotechnologists, agronomists, ecologists, educationists, specialists on public health, on cultural heritage, etc.) elected by universal suffrage; 2. Extension: the broadening of the institutions of direct democracy and reinforcement of the electorate as decision-maker of last resort. So the main themes and objectives of the book are an examination of the major flaws in today’s democracies (pars destruens) and a proposal for a renewed institutional framework (pars construens).

In un suo recente intervento (www.georgofili.info/contenuti/biotecnologie-e-miglioramento-genetico-riuscir-il-genome-editing-dove-hanno-fallito-gli-ogm/14970), il prof. Mario Enrico Pè dichiara il “sostanziale fallimento degli OGM in agricoltura”, adducendo alcuni argomenti logicamente ed empiricamente insostenibili.La radicale affermazione è che “di fallimento si tratta, nonostante i milioni di ettari coltivati nel mondo con OGM.” Se le parole hanno un senso, “fallimento” significa fallimento: non ci verrà rimproverato se usiamo una mera tautologia, perché ci sembrerebbe offensivo per qualsiasi lettore trascrivere una definizione da un dizionario. La bizzarra proposizione che unisce la nozione di “fallimento” con la diffusione mondiale della tecnologia (solo dove è permessa, benché non manchino casi di vendite sottobanco e contrabbando di sementi transgeniche dove sono proibite) ha già costretto qualche commentatore ad acrobazie semantiche, con espressioni tipo “fallimento di successo” (www.stradeonline.it/scienza-e-razionalita/4208-un-fallimento-di-successo#).L’autore rileva che “le varietà OGM di successo si limitano all’introduzione di un numero di caratteri che si può contare sulle dita di una mano. Un risultato ben magro per una tecnologia che si proponeva di rivoluzionare il modo di fare miglioramento genetico.“ E’ vero. Non poteva essere altrimenti, visto che la regolamentazione anti-scientifica (Ammann 2014) adottata in molti paesi, in particolare in Europa, e ancor più in Italia, ha imposto agli sviluppatori dei cosiddetti “OGM” – acronimo senza senso, non dimentichiamolo: un ingannevole e tendenzioso meme virale, non un concetto – irragionevoli carichi burocratici e asfissianti restrizioni alla sperimentazione delle colture transgeniche: generando così un oligopolio dovuto al fatto che solo multinazionali con le spalle finanziariamente larghe possono sostenere i costi connessi (Miller e Conko 2003) – aziende che, ovviamente, hanno puntato solo sui tratti commercialmente più redditizi (soprattutto resistenza agli insetti e tolleranza agli erbicidi).Quindi, dire che “il loro fallimento sia dipeso in buona parte anche dall’incapacità di questa tecnologia di proporre quella gamma di caratteristiche ‘migliori’ necessarie a rendere fortemente desiderabili le piante OGM anche al di fuori dell’agricoltura intensiva” è scorretto: non si tratta di “incapacità della tecnologia”, ma di camicia di forza legalistica imposta (non dappertutto) a chi quella tecnologia voleva svilupparla.

Critics of the use of advanced biotechnologies in the agri-food sector (“New Breeding Techniques”, comprising CRISPR) demand a strict regulation of any such method, even more severe than rules applied to so-called “Genetically Modified Organisms” (i.e. recombinant DNA processes and products). But their position is unwarranted, since it relies on faulty arguments. While most life scientists have always explained that the trigger for regulation should be the single product and its phenotypic traits, opponents insist that the target should be certain biotech processes. The antagonists maintain that NBTs are inherently risky: this belief is exactly the opposite of a long-standing, overwhelming scientific consensus. NBTs involve unpredictable effects, but it is the same for the results of any other technique. The critics wrongly equate “unintended” with “harmful” and misunderstand two meanings of “risk”: the “risk” of not achieving satisfactory results does not automatically translate into health or environment “risks”. Generic claims that allergenic or toxic properties are a hidden danger of outcomes from NBTs are unsubstantiated – as they would be for traditional techniques. Among several errors, we criticize the misuse of the Precautionary principle, a misplaced alarm about “uncontrolled spreading” of genetically engineered cultivars and the groundless comparison of (hypothetical) agricultural products from NBTs with known toxic substances. In order to “save” traditional techniques from “GMO”-like regulations, while calling for the enforcement of similar sectarian rules for the NBTs, the dissenters engage in baseless, unscientific distinctions. Important and necessary socio-economic, ethical and legal considerations related to the use of agri-food biotechnologies (older and newer) are outside the scope of this paper, which mostly deals with arguments from genetics, biology, and evolutionary theory that are provided by those who are suspicious of NBTs. Yet, we will provide some hints on two additional facets of the debate: the possible motivations for certain groups to embrace views which are utterly anti-scientific, and the shaky regulatory destiny of NBTs in the European Union.

The expression “Genetically Modified Organisms” was coined to indicate a group of agricultural products (mostly crops and vegetables), modified through direct DNA recombination in order to obtain useful phenotypic traits or to inhibit undesirable characteristics. But the border between rDNA (“GMO”) and other biotech methods is blurred. Moreover, the ill-assorted group is frequently charged with having peculiar, negative characteristics: many activists, part of the public and a few social science scholars think that “GMOs” are all dubious, even inherently dangerous. However, theoretical justifications of this alleged problematic nature which is supposed to be necessarily linked to the “splicing” of DNA, only when applied to agricultural products, are missing: the only text which tries to go in depth on the subject, an article by biologist Barry Commoner, takes aim at the wrong target, misunderstanding the Central Dogma. “GMO” is a term that has no clear reference, let alone in a detrimental sense. The only attempt to give it epistemological dignity fails.

Most life scientists have relentlessly recommended any evaluative approach of agri-food products to be based on examination of the phenotype, i.e. the actual characteristics of the food, feed and fiber varieties: the effects of any new cultivar (or micro-organism, animal) on our health are not dependent on the process(es), the techniques used to obtain it. The so-called “genetically modified organisms” (“GMOs”), on the other hand, are commonly framed as a group with special properties – most frequently seen as dubious, or even harmful. Some social scientists still believe that considering the process is a correct background for science-based understanding and regulation. To show that such an approach is utterly wrong, and to invite scientists, teachers and science communicators to explain this mistake to students, policy-makers and the public at large, we imagined a dialogue between a social scientist, who has a positive opinion about a certain weight that a process-based orientation should have in the risk assessment, and a few experts who offer plenty of arguments against that view. The discussion focuses on new food safety.

The EU regulation of agricultural biotechnology is botched and convoluted: the pseudo-concept of “Genetically Modified Organisms” has no coherent semantic or scientific content. The reasons of the paradox by which the cultivation of “GMOs” is substantially banned in Europe, while enormous quantities of recombinant-DNA cereals and legumes are imported to be used as feedstuff, are explained. The Directive 2015/412, giving Member states the choice to refuse the cultivation of genetically engineered crops at a national or local level, paves the way for a mosaic-like, Harlequinesque form of protectionism: nothing resembling a well-regulated free market. In the meantime, importation of “GMO” feed goes on at full speed all over Europe. A proposal by the Commission to adjust the rules on importation according to those for cultivation has been rejected by the Parliament.This dynamics may be seen as an ongoing “Schumpeterian” chain of public choices: the calculus of consent drives politicians more than a science-based approach to law-making. The EU should restart from scratch with the right concept, i.e. the careful examination of the pros and cons, the costs and benefits of each new agricultural product (“GMO” or otherwise), freely cultivated and/or imported, assessed case by case, at last acknowledging that the biotech processes used to create new varieties are of no practical or legal relevance. In doing so, the EU would pursue its stated “better regulation” approach, cancelling any sectoral and sectarian regulation.