On May 17, 2004, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization endorsed biotech crops, stating biotechnology is a complementary tool to traditional farming methods that can help poor farmers and consumers in developing nations.

Scientists have determined that the transgenic products currently on the market are safe to eat, although they recommend ongoing monitoring and concur that newer, more complex products may need additional food safety procedures. The potential environmental impacts of transgenic crops provoke greater disagreement among scientists. They generally agree on the types of hazard that exist, but they disagree on their likelihood and severity. Thus far, none of the major environmental hazards potentially associated with transgenic crops has developed in the field.

Most of the controversies surrounding biotechnology focus on transgenic crops, but these innovations represent only a tiny fraction of the technical possibilities offered by biotechnology in crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries. Genetic engineering is both a more precise extension of breeding tools that have been used for decades and a radical departure from conventional methods. It is the ability of genetic engineering to move genes across species barriers that gives it its tremendous power and that makes it so controversial.

Scientists agree that transgenic crops must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the crop, the trait and the agro-ecosystem in which it is to be released. Scientists also agree that regulation should be science-based, but that judgement and dialogue are essential elements in any science-based regulatory framework. International harmonization through the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) or the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), for example, can help ease international tensions in this area. Developing countries must enhance their national capacity to regulate these crops and comply with their national and international obligations.

Whatever scientific or regulatory consensus emerges, genetic engineering in food and agriculture cannot succeed unless the public is convinced of its safety and usefulness. Views on these subjects vary widely both within and across countries, but a careful examination of the internationally comparable survey data reveals that people in all countries take a nuanced view of biotechnology, differentiating among technologies and applications according to their perceived usefulness and acceptability.

Very few people take a doctrinaire position for or against all biotechnology. Labelling has been proposed as a way to bridge differences of opinion on the acceptability of transgenic foods by allowing the individual consumer to choose. Others argue that labelling is appropriate only if the product – not just the process used to produce it – differs from its conventional counterpart. Member governments of the CAC are debating the role of labelling for transgenic foods.

All countries need strong and dynamic capacity at the technical, institutional and management levels for the successful and sustainable application of biotechnology in food and agriculture. Several international initiatives to build capacity are reviewed, but a great deal more needs to be done if all countries are to be empowered to make their own decisions about these technologies for the benefit of their own people.