Abstract

Critics of the use of advanced biotechnologies in the agri-food sector demand a strict regulation of any such method, even more severe than rules applied to so-called “Genetically Modified Organisms”. 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 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 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.