I can understand why many Europeans and Americans on the far-left are against “frankenfood”, but if they stopped being so reflexively anti-GM everything, they could probably do a lot of good. For a good example of what I’m talking about, check out this article (link from Bob Harris)
- “It’s agricultural asbestos!” That ripe phrase is how one British farmer described the menu of genetically modified (GM) crops being offered by Monsanto, a food biotechnology company in the United Kingdom. It became a rallying cry for farmers and environmentalists across Britain seeking to keep GM seeds out of English soil. For its part, Monsanto, and the Blair government, dismissed such charges as the ravings of Luddites. But now, a three-year study by British scientists, commissioned by Blair’s own environment minister, Michael Meacher, reveals that the environmental risks of GM crops may be even greater than previously believed.
The Farm-Scale Evaluation study, conducted by the Royal Society, is the first large-scale field test of GM crops. It compared the biodiversity in fields planted with three GM crops — corn, sugar beet and oilseed rape — with the crop of similar non-GM crops in adjacent fields. The study found that the super-charged pesticides required to grow GM crops dealt a severe blow to local farmland wildlife species, killing bees, butterflies, insects, wildflowers and birds. The GM version of RoundUp is so potent that it kills almost every non-GM plant in its path, including non-GM versions of the crops themselves.
. . .
Monsanto, clearly on the run, says it’s abandoning Europe for now. Following Bill Clinton’s lead, Blair stocked his cabinet with Monsanto flacks and fought off attempts by the European Union to ban GM crops. The lone holdout in the Blair camp was Meacher, the environment minister, who vowed last year that the government would ban the crops if the studies produced negative results. But Blair sacked him last year, after Meacher publicly savaged Blair’s support of the Monsanto machine.
. . .
If there’s any hope for the company, it probably lies here in the United States rather than Europe. Americans don’t like the idea of eating GM food, but, thanks to an indifferent press, they also know next to nothing about it. A case in point: A recent survey by the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University found that 75 percent of Americans believe that their palette has never been contaminated by GM foods. Yet, almost everyone in the United States has eaten lots of GM foods. It’s part of our daily diet. More 80 percent of processed foods contain some GM crops. “Americans have no idea that foods with genetically modified ingredients are already for sale in the U.S.,” says William Hallman, author of the Rutgers study. “But the bottom line is: If you eat processed foods, you’re probably eating GM ingredients.”
It’s not just a matter of processed foods. A recent report from the Department of Agriculture shows that GM crops are rapidly monopolizing the fields of the farm belt. More than 80 percent of U.S. soybean fields are planted with GM seeds. Similarly, GM seeds account for nearly 75 percent of cotton and 40 percent of corn grown in the United States. One reason so many Americans remain ignorant about the prevalence of GM foods in the U.S. diet is that Monsanto and other biotech companies, with the help of the Clinton and Bush administrations, have fended off calls to label GM foods.
Now I’m strongly in favor of labeling GM foods. I think the idea of essentially tricking people into eating something they don’t want to is borderline criminal. That said, I still think the possibilities of GM food are endless.
The environmental concerns that have been raised about GM crops are valid, but the big complaint in the article above says “the GM version of RoundUp”. So it’s not the crops themselves that are the problem, but rather the pesticide. In a broader sense though, there are some problems with the crops themselves, as this study points out (also via Bob Harris) :
- Today eight scientific papers containing the results of the farm-scale evaluation of spring-sown crops (maize, beet and spring oilseed rape) have been published in The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Biological Sciences). The publication of these papers, following full peer-review, provides independent endorsement of the SSC’s view that the farm scale evaluations were designed and executed to a high standard. The SSC is content that these eight papers collectively have adequately addressed the null hypothesis under test: that, for each crop, the effect on the abundance and diversity of wildlife of the management of the GM crop does not differ from the effect of the management of the conventional equivalent. The null hypothesis was rejected in each case.
Growing conventional beet and spring rape was better for many groups of wildlife than growing GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) beet and spring rape. Some insect groups, such as bees (in beet crops) and butterflies (in beet and spring rape) , were recorded more frequently in and around the conventional crops because there were more weeds to provide food and cover. There were also more weed seeds in conventional beet and spring rape crops than in their GM counterparts. Such seeds are important in the diets of some animals, particularly some birds. However some groups of soil insects were found in greater numbers in GMHT beet and spring rape crops.
In contrast, growing GMHT maize was better for many groups of wildlife than conventional maize. There were more weeds in and around the GMHT maize crops, more butterflies and bees around at certain times of the year, and more weed seeds.
The environmental concern here wasn’t that the environment was being poisoned, it was that the GM crops and herbicide worked too well and killed so many weeds that it negatively affected the surrounding ecosystem. What’s also worth noting is that the GM corn was actually better than its conventional counterpart.
I think we’re at a crossroads here as far as GM food is concerned. Personally, I think the potential for GM products to solve the world’s famine problems is too great to be ignored. If impoverished areas like Ethiopia were provided with some GM vegetable seeds that could grow in sand with little water, it would do a hell of a lot more to help those people out than “We Are The World” ever did.
But as repeated testing (as well as government and corporate foot-dragging) has shown, we can’t reliably say whether or not many GM food products are safe. If I had my way, I would ensure that an international standard (perhaps enforced by the U.N. or WTO?) for testing and implementing GM crops was in place that followed these guidelines :
GM foods should be extensively tested for safety for human beings and animals. Any side-effects that are deemed minor (such as the problems that plague Olestra and Saccharin), should be clearly mentioned on labels (I’m talkin’ Surgeon General’s Warning-style here)
Any crops that are deemed safe to consume, should only be grown in controlled settings (ie. hydroponic warehouses) pending a full study of the environmental impact that these crops would have on the environment.
Certain standards should be established for what kinds of GM development is allowed. Good innovation : larger produce, more immune to insects, etc. Bad innovation : a “super-plant” that’s only grows well when treated with GloboChem™ pesticides, crops that are designed to not produce seeds (thus forcing people to continuously purchase seeds from a third-party)
A patent buyback system should be in place to allow international aid organizations to quickly take advantage of of technological breakthroughs without screwing the companies completely. On the one hand, if the companies don’t get some sort of profit, they won’t be inclined to continue development, but on the other hand this whole “Sorry, you people are going to have to starve for another 30 years while we still hold our patent” bullshit that the pharmaceutical industry pulls is completely unacceptable.
I’m sure I’m leaving out lots of stuff, but the point is that we can’t be scared of technological progress. Pragmatism is good, but outright revulsion doesn’t help anybody. Like it or not, GM is here to stay. What we should concentrate on is making sure that there are standards that ensure that GM foods are provided in an ethical and safe manner.