GM foods have never been more divisive. Multinationals claim potential to feed billions, while NGOs fear worldwide contamination and crop failure. What’s the truth?
Science can often complement sustainable living, but for some GM is a step too far. Giles Crosse learns how one man’s meat is another man’s poison.
Like it or not, GM is here. And there are some potentially worrying statistics. According to Greenpeace, ‘GM maize MON810 is intended to prevent the need for three applications of insecticide. Yet this and other Bt maize varieties continuously release a toxin into the environment in quantities 3-5,000 times higher than sprays used for non-GM farming.’ There’s more.
The NGO also reckons ‘Roundup, the herbicide sold by Monsanto in conjunction with its Roundup Ready GM crops, has been shown to be a potential endocrine disrupter.’
The Royal Society (RS) is the UK’s National Academy for scientific policy. It has just released a report, ‘Reaping the benefits, Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture.’ What do they think?
“GM is like conventional breeding in that it changes the genetic make up of crops,” says Professor David Baulcombe, Chair of the working group for the Royal Society’s report.
“Research results referred to in our report indicate that it could be part of sustainable agriculture, because GM crops could be disease resistant and consequently grown with reduced inputs of fossil fuel based pesticides.”
“There are also research results indicating that GM crops could have better water use efficiency, improved post harvest storage characteristics, stress tolerance or other useful traits. Sustainability is more about the manner in which technology is applied rather than the technology as such.”
Something and nothing
It may seem then the RS favours GM, but Baulcombe continues: “There is always a risk of gene flow from cultivated plants into the environment, for GM as for conventionally bred plants, and we support the use of environmental assessment and monitoring processes.”
And when asked to describe a balance between business seeking to make capital from new science, and NGOs like Greenpeace who favour precautionary approaches, he revealed:
“We also support a precautionary approach, consistent with sustainability as defined in the report.”
Overall, this seems to imply support for GM, with the right safeguards in place. Marco Contiero, Greenpeace European Unit, Policy Director, GMOs, reckons that’s not enough: “GM is a problem. It is part of genetic engineering and works as part of the dominant agricultural system, which in itself is unsustainable.”
“There are high levels of inputs, chemicals, the whole system relies on a mono culture which is really what we want to be moving away from. There’s an increased use of pesticides associated with GM, so that has pollution effects on water, this only benefits the 5 or 6 multinationals which are involved in the global GM industry.”
Some governments think he’s right. Earlier this year, Germany banned MON810, contradicting the EC. French, Hungarian, Austrian and Greek administrations all agreed.
Cash for crops
Sadly, accusations are rife among both sides that cash is the true driver. “Monsanto supply the huge majority of global GM seeds, you’re looking at other majorities in terms of fairness of trade, and more companies like BASF and Syngenta are supplying all the fertiliser.” argues Contiero.
“GM is there for economic profit not global hunger. We need to look at new smart agri-systems that will provide us food for the next several hundred years. There are huge international blocks in terms of trading from the US to protect the old ways, it’s a non liberalised market.”
“We believe in following the leadership of the UN Agricultural Assessment,” he continues. “Business as usual is not an option, we need a paradigm shift in use and consumption, we need to shift subsidies and instead implement ecological practices, cut out chemicals, localise production. Less local isn’t necessarily bad though, if you’re storing stuff in a refrigerator for 6 months that can be less sustainable than shipping organic over distances.”
Contiero believes we need to feed profit back to developing suppliers too: “There seem no tangible benefits to GM beyond profit for the massive players, it’s a systemic issue. Diversity is essential and technology doesn’t encourage this.”
“Biotech companies say they can face climate change and feed the world. But we need serious political support to widen modern eco farming methods, encourage local variety, use local farmer’s knowledge, and these steps foster biodiversity which can help us challenge climate change.”
GM muddle
It’s an immensely complex argument, and frustratingly much of the science is beyond widespread understanding, while factions accuse one another of cash based divisive measures and political arm twisting.
One thing which will not go away is the need for a solution. “The challenge of producing sufficient food over a thirty to forty year period is so great that we need all of the above.” suggests Baulcombe.
“Slower growth in meat eating and particularly population control measures are important. However, as discussed in chapter 1 of our report, these measures are not likely to be enough. New science and technology, crop genetic improvement by GM and conventional methods and new crop management practice will be an important component of developing sustainable agriculture.”
Australia’s position on GM seems undecided. On October 14 2009, India’s regulator cleared BT Brinjal, their first GM crop, but only two days later public consultations were launched following strong opposition. Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines was declared a GM free zone in March.
Right now all that’s clear is how undecided we are.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up and start making a difference!
Resources for a more in-depth analysis:
The Royal Society:
Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture October 2009
Greenpeace Reports:
Agriculture at a crossroads: Food for survival
Why co-existence of GM and non-GM crops remains impossible
Greenpeace briefings:
When genetically engineered rice meets a toxic pesticide
Environmental and health impacts of GMOs: the evidence
Food Security and Climate Change: The answer is biodiversity
Organic Rice Art 03/07/2009
Hundreds of Greenpeace supporters, volunteers and farmers planted organic rice in a bid to create the first ever art on a rice field in Thailand. The 10-rai rice field in Ratchaburi province contniues to grow beautiful art showing an image of farmers wearing straw hats and using sickle to harvest rice. Locations: Southeast Asia, Asia, Bangkok, Ratchaburi
© Greenpeace / Vinai Dithajohn
