Today is the first day of a three day international conference on genetically modified food in Sacramento. Like most gatherings of white people wearing ties in northern California, it spawned a protest :

The purpose is to show how biotechnology can improve crop yields and perhaps end famine in some of these countries. But protestors say not all points of view are being represented at the conference and those attending should hear about traditional and organic methods of farming.

One woman from Berkeley told KCBS she is worried that genetically modified food will soon spread worldwide. “We feel like our food supply is being hijacked and that it is a very important issue. And we wish that all Americans would wake up and learn about it because it’s going to effect all of us,” said the woman.

I’m sure this conference was about as one-sided as Bush’s energy meetings, but I agree with the suits on this one, in theory at least.

Genetically modified food does have the potential to end famine and for that reason alone I think an outright ban on GM foods is as foolish as a ban on nuclear power or cloning. Of course, saying something can happen isn’t the same as saying something will happen.

The only reason the biotech industry is interested in GM food in the first place is money. Their commitment to saving the starving people of the world just doesn’t compute, especially when it’s biggest proponents are “free market” zealots. The free market gave us viagra and rogaine before a cure for cancer, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t suddenly think that saving the starving people of the world is their biggest priority.

That said, I think outright bans on GM food are a little harsh and can only serve to ensure the status quo. Paul Krugman put in well in an article from a few years ago :

A report on the controversy by “Equinox,” a British equivalent to the PBS news program “Frontline,” caught the picture perfectly: comfortable middle- and upper-class activists talking reverently about the virtues of traditional ways of life and the evils of modern agricultural methods. (Yes, Prince Charles is an anti-GM crusader.) A recurrent refrain was that we have managed without GM for many centuries, so why change?

The answer, of course, is that throughout those many centuries the vast majority of people lived at the edge of starvation; only very recently has a decent life become available to more than a tiny elite. And that decent life is made possible by applied science and technology — including modern agriculture, which relies crucially on chemicals that developing countries cannot afford. Now, finally, genetic modification — which can substitute for some of the expensive chemicals used in the West — offers a hope of escape

Now I agree with protesters that the thought of plants deveoping their own pesticides is a little scary, but like every other scientific breakthough, it deserves to be tested by the scientific community and safety to ensure that it’s safe. Of course this is the part where the government comes in.

Let’s imagine that scientists suddenly developed a strain of wheat that could grow in sand and only needed a minimal amount of water. With Bush and pals in charge, we could expect this to get a fast track through the FDA so it could get sold to the poor countries for vastly inflated prices. Essentially extorting massive amounts of money from people already too poor to eat for a product that could possibly kill the. Let’s not forget, these are the same people who support the tobacco industry.

But would the reverse be much better? If the handful of Sacramento protesters were in charge, what would they do? Ban the grain before it ever has a chance to be tested? Spread the gospel of organic farming to people who live in an area that receives less than two inches of rain per year? This doesn’t make much sense either.

Clearly, the best solution would be for the govenment to extensively test the grain’s effects on animals and humans as well as its effect on the ecosystem in which it will be harvested. And when everything has been tested a retested, I would suggest there be some sort of patent buyback program be in place the way there is for some pharmaceuticals as well as a patent expiration so that generic versions of GM breakthroughs can be made available to the public. That’s what people should be protesting for.