Geoffrey Lean asks - do we need GM?

Geoffrey Lean in the Telegraph asks whether we need GM crops. Do we need GM to feed the world? It's not as simple as it seems

He raises the question of whether we need to utilise GM technology in order to feed the world and references studies that suggest that GM may actually damage crop yields.

He writes that the "world’s biggest ever agricultural study – the work of 400 scientists and 60 governments, headed by Dr Bob Watson, now Chief Scientist at Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture – concluded that GM was not the simple answer to poverty. In truth, it could even do more harm than good." Lean suggests there are several problems with the belief that GM crops will be a solution to the growing pressure to increase crop yields in order to feed the worlds growing population.

1. GM takes such a long time to develop that advances with non GM crops through selective breeding programmes are often found to be more productive.

2. GM is focused upon making profit for companies and such companies are not very interested in providing food for the world's poorest farmers who cannot afford the technology. Lean writes that there is a tendency for GM to enhance the power of those wealthy enough to afford the technology, and even if it is successful it may only force the poor farming communities off the land. Poverty then is increased even if yields are increased overall and the poor may not be able to afford to buy food they once produced for themselves more cheaply.

3. GM may actually decrease the yield because the crops are not selected for yield, but for resistance to certain diseases. This may weaken the crops overall. GM crops may also lead to 'superweeds' in the struggle for life.

GM crops harming the soil in India

What is happening with Monsanto these days? A recent report by Navdanya in India has noted that Bt Cotton is damaging the soil in parts of India by reducing the number of bacteria that perform vital ecological roles. Monsanto’s policy appears to be to make farmers around the world dependent upon their own GM modified seeds and pesticides, that they have patented, in order to make a profit for shareholders.

Read more at the Institute of Science and Society website Institute of Science and Society

Meanwhile, in America there is concern about a Food Safety Modernization Act 2009 that seeks to extend food safety laws to seeds that are to be grown for food. The concern centres around possible dependency on GM crops by small farmer's who fear they will be forced into the arms of big multinationals when unnecessary health and safety legislation becomes too costly petition comments

The pressure from secular science to extend ethically questionable practices has recently been shown by Obama’s determination to push through embryonic stem cell research, a technology that can lead to tumours and is less stable than adult stem cells, together with being ethically questionable because it leads to the destruction of the embryo.

In the same way the idea that it is acceptable to modify seeds and patent crops for profit, and thus make small farmers dependent upon big business for seeds, also goes against the grain of creation, and against the idea of equality in the global economy.

Andrew Sibley

Prince of Wales criticises GM crops

The Prince of Wales has criticised GM crops for threatening extensive damage to the ecosystem. He commented that GM was being developed for the sake of big business against the interests of small farmers around the world. Calling GM crops a "gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity" he argued that it has "gone seriously wrong".

The Prince believes that relying on "gigantic corporations" for food production will end in "disaster" for the environment and humanity. Instead he argues that we should be developing "food security not food production." "If they think this is the way to go, we will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness." This is a fair point regarding the social consequence of making poor farmers dependent on big agro businesses for the management of their farming practices, undoing centuries of tradition.

Of course Charles has come in for a lot of criticism from politicians, scientists and business for his comments. Undoubtedly this will result in some further comment from environmentalists, and although some of his comments might seem over the top they are very welcome for those who want to see a more organic, local and sustainable future for agriculture.

Prince Charles on GM crops

Andrew S

GM crops will not solve world food crisis

The Guardian is reporting on comments by a leading biotech company boss, Martin Taylor who is chairman of Syngenta. He commented that the current industry is focused on farming in rich countries. This means that it would take 20 years to develop crops designed to address the problem in the developing world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/27/gmcrops.food

This would appear to contradict statements from UK and EU politicians who have claimed that GM crops may be able to solve the current problems of food shortages and excessive prices of basic foods.

Phil Woolas, Environment Minister commented recently in The Independent that "There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food crisis. It is a question that we as a nation need to ask ourselves. Many people concerned about poverty in the developing world and the environment are wrestling with this issue." The European Commission has also recently released briefing documents that comment that GM crops can "play an important role in mitigating the effects of the food 'crisis'".

The claims for GM crops is that they can reduce losses due to pests and boost crop yields, although there are potential risk as well and the evidence is equivical. A major report by UN experts said GM crops offer limited benefits over natural crops in feeding the world's poor. The report is from the influential International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). It noted that "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." Incidentally the GM industry, which helped to fund the report, pulled out before it was published.

Bob Watson, who is director of the UN assessment, and also chief scientist to the UK environment department Defra, said on the report's publication: "The short answer to whether transgenic crops can feed the world is 'no'. But they could contribute. We must understand their costs and benefits."

Martin Taylor, for his contribution, admitted at an agricultural conference in London this week that the main driver for GM was profit. As it is so expensive to win regulatory approval for GM crops, the industry has been forced to focus on "blockbuster" varieties, which could be sold to western farmers but had "hardly any environmental benefits".