Because keeping quiet may be a fatal mistake.

Within North America, agricultural biotechnology is on a roll. In 1998, substantial acres of Bt corn, potatoes and cotton will be grown. Corn hybrids tolerant to Roundup, Pursuit and Liberty are here. Transgenic disease-resistant crops and plants with unique chemical composition are coming soon.

Despite efforts of Greenpeace and others, biotech crops are also being introduced to other parts of the world – notably Europe, where Bt corn will be grown in France in 1998.

With some notable exceptions, such as the use of rBST in Canada, the arguments of those who proclaim "let good science prevail" are winning the day, at least for the present.

But the world can change quickly.

For example, witness what is happening to the Ontario nuclear industry. A few years ago, nuclear power was widely viewed as the obvious future source of electricity for a province deficient in fossil fuels, but with lots of uranium. The rationale for nuclear power generation is probably stronger in 1998 than it ever was, given growing concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. But years of mismanagement and deception have taken their toll. Ontario seems destined to move away from nuclear energy, even though the alternatives may be worse from perspectives of both environmental quality and human health. Faulty communications can have enormous consequences.

Pesticides are an example closer to home, beginning with the excitement of the post World War II era, when chemical pest control was seen as the ideal solution to a whole range of problems (global food supply, diseases such as malaria, wood preservation, home pests and more). Yet public distrust of pesticides now prevails, even though the benefits remain as large as ever, and even though the alternatives to pesticide usage are often more damaging to the environment and ultimate human well-being than the technology which they replace.

The same fate may await agricultural biotechnology. For, just as with pesticides, there are risks as well as benefits. Pests will evolve to become resistant to new biotech "resistance," just as they have with the traditional approaches of plant breeding and chemical and cultural control. Weeds will eventually become resistant to Roundup and Liberty. And despite the best intentions and efforts of industry and government regulators, there will be mistakes made (hopefully infrequently) in what enters consumer products, or escapes into the natural world. Murphy’s law prevails. It’s dishonest to suggest otherwise.

This is not to say time should move backwards. Biotechnology has much to offer in improvements to both food supply for a large and growing world population, and for a vulnerable natural environment. But these benefits have to be communicated accurately and effectively to a skeptical public, especially when others are attempting to fill this "communications void" with an alternative perspective.

The question is, where does this responsibility lie?

In theory, major responsibility should reside with the large multinationals spending billions of dollars for biotechnology development, ownership and legal protection. Unfortunately, experience has shown that public communication is a function these companies often do poorly

Doug Powell and William Leiss argue in Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk (see review elsewhere in this magazine) that risk communication is a responsibility of government. In some cases (e.g., some U.S. agencies) this is done well. Unfortunately, risk communication is not done well in Ottawa, and Canadian polls show that governments have a very low level of public credibility.

The communications role could be borne by the biotech scientists themselves. But while biotech scientists are good in the lab, most are ineffective when it comes to public communication. They use strange words, and lots of qualifiers. They have trouble communicating even with others in agriculture. Not a good choice.

That leads us to a fourth option: food producers, especially farmers.

Surveys show farmers have credibility and a reputation for honesty. And when farmers have endeavoured to "tell their story" in a coherent, consistent manner – particularly when the "talk" is backed up by deeds – they can be as effective as any activist group.

Farm groups – ideally in a coordinated, timely, and well-funded manner – are potentially as well positioned as anyone in agriculture and food to tell others what agricultural biotechnology is all about. The message must address benefits (i.e., to society, and not just to farmers) and must be open about risks. It must include talk about how risks are to be minimized and societal benefits enhanced. And it must be given over and over and over again.

For, in the era of biotechnology, there is one risk that looms largest of all: the risk that we’ll lose the ability to use this technology for the benefit of food producers and consumers alike...all because we didn’t make the effort to explain the technology to others and to address potential concerns.