Genetically modified (GM) food has come a very long way in terms of its
technological advance and the stigma towards it. These stigmas are based on a
lack of knowledge or myths which I wanted to explore in further depth. For
example, in an article by the Economist in 2002 titled ‘Better dead than GM-fed?’,
I was shocked to read how Zambia had refused American food aid into the country
because of fears surrounding GM corn and soya (The Economist 2002). Levy
Mwanawasa, president of Zambia, declared the aid as poison (ibid). There
were uncertainties regarding the overall safety of these GM crops to human
health, and fears of ‘contamination’ with other non-GM crops (ibid). Do
these myths hold any weight? The phrase in the article’s title ‘better dead’
was very gripping as it demonstrates that sometimes difficult and unfavourable
decisions have to made in order to achieve the lesser of two evils. But to
reject food aid in a desperate situation where food supplies were expected to
be depleted in Zambia within two weeks, is bizarre in my mind.
Throughout the course of this blog, I have demonstrated the various ways
in which Africa is bracing itself for climatic variability and improving its
adaptive capacity. GM foods can provide a way to increase crop yields and
provide a greater outcome per unit of water. In other words, GM foods can be
genetically engineered to more drought resistant and if implemented on a wide scale,
can contribute to Africa’s long awaited green revolution (Schnurr 2015). GM
foods can also be modified to be insect-resistant, herbicide-tolerant and more
nutritious (Qaim 2014). For
example, a new drought-resistant maize has been undergoing development and
testing since 2008 by Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) (Schnurr 2015). Studies
have revealed 20% increases in yield (ibid).
Myth 1: Health
The majority of studies have suggested that GM foods are indeed safe to
eat, including a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences. But widespread public
concern remains (National
Geographic 2016). No
matter how health-conscious you are nor how carefully you select your foods,
you’re probably already consuming GM food without realising. Depending on where in
the world you live, you will have different exposure to GM food in your diet. For example, GM ingredients are found in 80%
of packaged food in the USA (Fast Company
2014). This is contrasted to the UK which currently does not grow any GM crops (New Scientist
2015).
Myth 2: Contamination
One of the promises that you may have heard is that farms growing GM
crops can be kept separate from other organic farms. Unfortunately, there have
been many reported cases of contamination worldwide: 396 cases across 63
countries to be precise (Price and
Cotter 2014). You
can find more information about the specific cases here.
Myth 3: Seeds
The successful 20% increase in yields from the water efficient maize is
distracting from one particular characteristic about GM food that I find distressing;
farmers are forced to buy new GM seeds year on year because GM crops are
designed to be sterile (Genetic
Literacy Project 2015). How can this be morally correct, in a
time where farmers in poverty cannot afford the seeds year on year? It seems
wrong that companies would design their GM crops to be sterile. If they truly
cared about poverty and food security, they would allow farmers to make a one
off payment. The concept is formally named Genetic Use Restriction Technologies
(GURTs), and is one of the most controversial biotechnologies in current
debates surrounding GM crops (Lombardo 2014). The
main reasons for this technology is to prevent unlicensed use of patented
seeds. From an economic standpoint, research and development is a costly
process and patents allow to compensate for this innovation (Genetic
Literacy Project 2015). Seed piracy, where GM crops are
covertly planted in unregulated regions, can also be prevented by GURTs (ibid).
This is extremely important because without regulation, the government will
obtain inaccurate information regarding its use of GM foods and will not be ill
equipped for any potential problems.
Even after explaining these justifications, the commercialisation of
nature in this regard is still an upsetting one for me. GM foods have a big
potential to provide resilience to climate change through drought-resistant
crops, but we are disrupting the way of life for millions of people who depend
on seed saving and the exchanging of seeds to save money and secure an income (Lombardo 2014).
List
of References
Fast company (2014) ‘The Genetically Modified Food You
Eat Every Day’ (WWW) (https://www.fastcompany.com/1676104/the-genetically-modified-food-you-eat-every-day;
accessed 26/12/17).
Genetic
Literacy Project (2015) ‘GMO patent controversy: Terminator genes, seed piracy
and 'forcing' farmers to buy seeds’ (WWW) (https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/14/gmo-patent-controversy-terminator-genes-seed-piracy-forcing-farmers-buy-seeds/;
accessed 26/12/17).
Lombardo, L. (2014) ‘Genetic use restriction technologies: a review’, Plant
biotechnology journal, 12, 8, 995-1005.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects, London:
National Academies Press.
National Geographic (2016) ‘Scientists Say GMO Foods
Are Safe, Public Skepticism Remains’ (WWW) (http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/17/scientists-say-gmo-foods-are-safe-public-skepticism-remains/;
accessed 26/12/17).
New Scientist (2015) ‘More than half of EU officially
bans genetically modified crops’ (WWW) (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/;
accessed 26/12/17).
Price, B.
and J. Cotter (2014) ‘The GM Contamination Register: a review of recorded
contamination incidents associated with genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
1997–2013’, International Journal of Food Contamination, 1, 1, 5.
Qaim,
M. (2014) ‘Genetically modified crops and development’, in V. Desai and R.
Potter (eds.) The Companion to Development Studies: Third Edition, London:
Routledge, Section 4.5.
Schnurr, M. A. (2015) ‘GMO 2.0: Genetically modified crops and the push
for Africa’s green revolution’, Canadian Food Studies/La Revue
canadienne des études sur l'alimentation, 2, 2, 201-208.
The Economist (2002) ‘Better dead than
GM-fed?’ (WWW) (http://www.economist.com/node/1337197;
accessed 26/12/17).
Hi! This an interesting article, but I would add, that what most countries and people fear concerning GM crops, is the fact that they come with intensive farming and heavy herb- and pesticide applications. The most mediatised example here is Monsanto's Glyphosate/RoundUp, which is most likely causing cancer. Also, in the context of the blog topic, intensive framing contributes to soil depletion, which makes soil losses due to floods/heavy rains more likely. Also, monocultures (charcteritic for intensive farming) make farmers more vulnerable to climate induced harvest losses. Countries that are still dependent on small scale farming might be reluctant to introduce this kind of agriculture in their country...
ReplyDeleteI also have one question: As most European countries (apart from Spain - I believe) the UK does not grow GM crops, but do you know if GM foods can still be sold here? I only know that animals in the EU can be fed with GM food, unless they are raised on organic farms.
Hi Louisa,
DeleteSorry I saw your question and I thought I'd jump in!
I was interested when you said Glyposphate/RoundUp- I thought that's a herbicide, not a GM crop? What scientific studies have you seen that say it most likely causes cancer?
I think 2 types of GM crops have been approved for commercial growth in the UK. I don't think it's outrightly banned in the EU, but over half of EU countries have banned it (Britain hasn't, but a lot of supermarkets have refused to stock it). I think there is also a legal obligation for all GM products sold in the EU to be labelled as such.
Hi Louisa and Mari!
DeleteThanks for commenting and running your thoughts by me. I really appreciate it. Well first of all, I think you make some interesting points about small scale farming and the reluctance of farmers to introduce this kind of agriculture. I've never thought about it from that perspective before.
Also, I'd like to second Mari's questions of clarification regarding the cancer and the herbicide.
With regards to your question Louisa, I found that on the UK Government website, there's a list of produce that can be imported into the UK.
GM foods you can import are varieties of the following:
-oilseed rape
-soybean
-cotton-seed oil
-maize
-sugar beet
There's this article that I thought you guys would enjoy reading: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4179870/Genetically-modified-wheat-grown-UK.html
Kind regards,
Anparasan
Hi Anpu,
ReplyDeleteThis is a brilliant post on debunking the myths around GM. Your point just hits the nail on the head: surely the "unknown health effects" of GM are a lesser evil than the very well known detrimental effects of starvation and malnourishment?
I also totally agree, on the other hand, with your fear on the "commercialisation of nature" and the risk of monopolisation by huge TNCs over the seed market through the use of the terminator gene.
What do you believe to be the solution to this? Should the law be changed to ensure huge companies can't patent seeds/force farmers to buy new ones every year? Or do TNCs hold too much power for this to be feasible? Is the solution to give small-scale farmers legal property rights, or is this equally idealistic? What are your views?
Hi Mari,
DeleteThanks for your comments and insightful thoughts!
To answer your questions, I do not think changing the law overnight would be the best way to go about it. If we do, then companies may lose valuable finances to fund research and development. After all, GM foods does need further research into order to truly bring it to market and to ensure that it is a suitable substitute for organic crops. Even though there are moral questions surrounding the terminator gene, it's an important one to alleviate the risk of seed pirating. To a certain extent, yes, TNCs do hold much leverage on the international market and I fear that by changing the terms and conditions, research and development into GM crops may not be as desirable. In other words, GM foods need to be profitable if TNCs are going to pay any attention.
To summarise, I think that international regulation can be put into place in order to set price controls for GM crops, so that small scale farmers are not exploited year on year.
Thanks for your question!
Anparasan