In 1999, Dick Taverne wrote an article for Prospect in which he passionately denounced the “anti-science” of a public culture indifferent to evidence and research, above all in the case of GM foods, which “act as a kind of lightning rod for the public malaise with science.” Eight years later, in our November cover story, he returns to the fray with an extended account of the ways in which public ignorance and a lack of foresight on the part of corporations have meant the proven benefits of GM food are still largely failing to reach those most in need of them.
Taverne’s is not a conciliatory tone, and his message is stark: Britain and Europe have lost the opportunity to lead the world in GM technology, and millions of lives have already been lost for no good scientific reason. In a world that will have to more than double its food production over the next half century, Taverne sees the need for GM crops as indisputable and the cult of “back to nature” as a misguidedly moralistic anachronism. Hard evidence, in other words, is the bottom line, and there is no need to dignify irrational arguments by taking them seriously. Let us know what you think here.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
One reason that developing countries have rejected GMO crops has nothing to do with the safety of the crops and more to do with the economics of farming. If you plant an non-GMO crop on 10000 acres and get 3 tons of usable produce you cam hold a small amount of the crop back as seed stock. Many GMO crops forbid farmers from using the product as seed stock, you have to agree to buy more seed from the manufacturer.Even if the GMO produces 2 or 3 times more food, if you have to spend money on each planting when you have no money to begin with can be a deal breaker.
Add in the fact that manufactures have tried to claim ownership of crops that have cross pollinated with their GMO product and you have a very sound economic reason to avoid these items.
I should not consume too much chocolate, coffee, crisps or alcohol, I should not smoke, I could care about the level of funghi in (organic) crops, I could be equally noisy about chemical ingredients in food or about food derived from mutation breeding, I could support public R&D of GM crops for the poor or call for a revision of the respective international IPR rules (to cut back the power to nasty multinationals from which I am otherwise happy to buy cars, electronics, software, DVDs, etc.), I should use my car less, etc. — But instead of facing real dangers or attacking other imagined (but more difficult to tackle) ones, I choose to project my angst onto a “danger” that I can fight easily and that does not affect me if I do: I simply avoid eating food derived from GM crops and feel better because I “act” and “fight” my fears (no matter if it is only a proxy). Rejecting food derived from GM crops does not hurt me otherwise, I live in society of plenty (here in the “West”). No, I even help the poor (or at least so some say)! And when I get sick and there is some medicine that involves biotech, well, this is a different story altogether – after all I can differentiate… So please leave me alone with Frankenfood – or reason, for that matter – I want to be emotional and subjective.
GM foods have been on the shelves in the U.S. now for over 10 years. I had absolutely no idea of this until about 5 years ago. The media never or hardly ever mentioned it here for years. Most of us living here had no idea that we had hormones in our milk and that we were eating genetically modified food every day. I learned it from a European friend. We were kept in the dark. Presumably because we would (maybe emotionally, maybe subjectively) vote with our wallets to NOT eat these foods. I choose to buy non rBGH-treated milk for my young daughters. There is plenty of evidence out there, actually, that these hormones in milk can be harmful when cumulative and especially on smaller bodies.
This has grown into a really worthwhile debate with plenty of good sense. It’s a relief to hear from Saraswati Kavula about what is really happening in India and the absolutely criminal abuses being promoted there in the name of patent rights. Vandana Shiva is the most articulate authority about this. The concept of indigenous knowledge is slowly being understood in the West, but the recognition of how biodiversity actually works has yet to be fully absorbed. Organic farming in this country was first inspired by Indian practices introduced by Sir Albert Howard who found himself completely persuaded as to the wisdom of these methods, during his experience as a colonial agent.
Of course, Gabriela is absolutely right. Natural foods are better for us, because they taste better and they nourish us better. Ask Raymond Leblanc! The whole basis of Ayur-Vedic medical philosophy is this natural ecological balance. It really doesn’t take much more than growing and enjoying natural food to convince any serious minded person that biodiversity supports both environmental & cultural diversity and directly aids planetary health. One wonders what sort of gardening Taverne does in his own back yard when he isn’t peddling “quasi-kosher” (??) “biotech” gimmickry.
This new reactionary species of bio-fascism is wholly insidious because it is so desperately short-sighted, profit-driven (whatever the hype) and clearly obsessed about imposing monocultural controls. As usual, the theoretical experts are telling people how to destroy what they have been doing very successfully for generations. Rather, they are actually ordering them to do so by every means at their disposal. Has the world gone completely mad? We need to be pragmatic and realistic. Jim Lovelock doesn’t believe in organic gardening, but he does believe in deep ecology, now there’s something peculiarly inconsistent about that. Could it be a gender issue Mrs Lovelock?
I would invite all your readers to consult Dr Mae-Wan Ho’s website – at the Institute for Science In Society, and check out her articles about Dream Farm 2, and the way that sustainability can be understood as an empirical biophysical process.
This article makes so many veiled, unstated assumptions about agriculture—for instance assuming that it fits with a business or industrial model—”agribusiness” is a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one. Sadly, the study used to promote GM use is fatally flawed, and our knowledge of the genome does not compare with our profound ignorance about the complex dynamics of the relationship between genes and their evolution with environmental conditions. In addition, biotech companies design their seeds to not regerminate as perennial plants next year making the milennia old practice of saving seeds obsolete—thereby depriving poor farmers the ability to control the future of their own land and crops. Agribusiness profits from selling patented seeds and the chemicals necssary to maintain these frankenfood crops. The planet is already overburdened and overpopulated—-we need to stabilize population growth and feed the population we do have with safer, natural foods not contaminated by the ignorant scientists proffering the insane idea that we can overturn centuries and millenia of inherited cultural wisdom about food.
amittebant legem naturae
I very much agree with Nick’s comment, particularly ‘we need to stabilize population growth and feed the population we do have with safer, natural foods not contaminated by the ignorant scientists proffering the insane idea that we can overturn centuries and millenia of inherited cultural wisdom about food’. Very well said.
For a little more background on Lord Dick and his support for biotech firms, please see http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=127&page=T
A response for Smith Beaumont and others who insist that there is no meaningful response to Tavernes GM science puff piece, is posted on http://www.ekogaia.org/the-real-gm-food-scandal.html
It is by no means complete – that would take a book – but it serves as a broad rebuttal of the outrageous and egregeous hype and hubris served up by Taverne and his fellow travellers.
The response has many references and links to other sources.
Comments invited.
Where does science come from and what does it build on if not “centuries and millenia of inherited cultural wisdom”? Where do today’s crops come from if not from imaginative and creative hunterer-gatherers (and subsequent generations of investigative and experimenting farmers)? Where does our modern medicine come from if not from new insights building on previous ones – thus reducing ignorance slowly and step by step? (A process that still goes on, to be sure.)
Of course scientists are ignorant – that’s why they are scientists, to increase knowledge (and thus reduce ignorance). Nevertheless many of them are probably less ignorant (in their field) than lay people and can make reliable statements on some issues… And of the few I have met, many were rather reasonable people who cared. (Of course sometimes there are also hidden agendas and personal interests involved – just as other people have vested interests, whether from industry or also NGOs: Some people live more or less well from keeping the GMO hype going…)
Finally, to put that straight, blind and undifferentiated acceptance of GMOs is certainly wrong – but so is blind and undifferentiated rejection. There are no such things like black and white in real life, it’s all shades… Assess, weight, reject one, accept the other, regulate and control GMOs (and the companies, universities and research institutes working on them).
After reading Taverne’s writing promoting GM food, my opposition to all GM technology is stronger than ever before. He wants to tell us what to eat and what to think or rather not to think because we are not qualified to do so. He hardly offers any evidence but tries to bully us into agreeing with him without thinking. Thinking is done for us by individuals with strong vested interests. Similar to those individuals who back in the 50’s predicted that nuclear power would be clean and abundant and would easily feed the world’s hunger for energy. GMOs are far deadlier than nuclear waste and the GM “science” is nonsense science.
It is appallingly misleading that some responses to this article liken GM foods to natural processes or even accelerated natural processes. GM foods involve processes and manipulation that could never occur in nature. Natural food can’t be patented so corporations pretend that their patented foods are better natural foods. It takes unbelievable arrogance and self interest to assume that they are safe after such a short experience with them. It took much longer for proof against smoking to become scientifically known and proven! It is pure hubris to attempt to add a layer of guilt to the anti GM food movement for somehow contributing to the planet’s starvation problems by opposing GM foods. The GM food as “cure” to starvation argument is simply false and unproven as many responders have already pointed out. Buying GM seeds only makes the GM companies richer since they are hybrids who cannot reproduce and require the farmers to keep buying seeds from the GM company. Just look at the GM cotton example in India where the vast majority of the GM farmers regret their decision and most are bankrupt.
As far as the anti-vegan comments, it is a simple fact that livestock contributes 18% of all greenhouse gas load on the planet, more than all forms of transportation on the planet combined (see recent UN report on Livestock’s Long Shadow). The amount of water and food resources consumed by livestock would be put to much better use by directly feeding people. As other respondents have pointed out, the earth can easily nutritionally sustain its entire population (more than four times as many if people become vegan or rarely eat meat/dairy as they did before refrigeration) and the problem today is distribution of food. If you look at the rise of heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes, they are not labeled diseases of affluence by accident. They are the result of the rich western diet and lifestyle. As Western “progress” expands to the rest of the world, the number of health problems increase! Is that real progress? In the developing world, most health problems are caused by water-borne pathogens which are most often the result of human or animal activities near water sources. No amount of GM foods would solve this.
Finally, we applaud the respondents who have exposed Taverne’s affiliations and background. They completely illuminate and thoroughly discredit the source. Taverne is clearly a bad salesman for those who directly or indirectly pay him because instead of persuading us, he has strengthened our resolve to fight GM foods.
What is most shocking to me is not that Prospect published this article, but that the opening magazine editorial seemed to condone and agree with it. The idea that people cannot feed themselves and need superior western “scientific magic” to solve their problems is arrogant and patronising. In my opinion GM science is bad science, and its application is wholly unethical and misguided. However, the real issue at stake here is the willingness of scientists to participate in a full and open debate. It’s one thing to defend experimental science and new ideas, but it is entirely another to ignore or exclude other scientists who happen to disagree or dispute the data. Many scientists do reject GMO’s and moreover, they challenge the central dogma of biology that tends to drive the research and development of GMO’s. It is corporate interests, and the voracious competition for economic advantage and lucrative patents that are dictating the terms of engagement, not ethical science or sane politics.
Skimming through the pro GM lobbyists increasingly bizarre replies, I do sometimes wonder if there are perhaps already more genetically modified human beings out there than we thought
Why are we hearing about the costs to world health of obesity in
one sound bite ( excuse the pun ), then being Greek chorused about GM manufacturers profits – albeit disguised as charity – the next ?
Apparently, the current UK stat for edible food disposal is roughly one third of whatever shoppers with eyes bigger than their pea-sized brains gas guzzle home to their outsize refridgerators each week
May be third world peasants do not need GM crops, but for the West
to revise its increasingly absurd ideas about what constitutes wealth ( over-crowded cities with crystal meth muggers on tap ;
or clear waters , pure rivers , blue skies etc ) and invest in an economic dialogue that would allow these gentle folk to happily feed themselves without making us all grow day-glo eyes and teeth
I agree with so many of the comments here that remind us to be skeptical of corporate motives for and exclusive control of the food we eat. I also take issue with the author’s comment that people are inconsistent: we rail against GM food, but “embrace” GM medicine. Well one major reason for that is that in the realm of medicine, most of us in the US have no choice about such matters: if we are in the hospital facing an acute health crisis, a) we are unlikely to have the time to question the source of our insulin (or whatever) and b) the health care industry is structured in such a way as to completely leave out the people and their needs/desires. All the decisions about care, medicinal products, and sources are made in the lab, out of the purview of the public. Are acutely ill patients supposed to reject any medical intervention because it might include GM medicine? The author expects/creates such an either/or view of the world. very unhelpful.
This so called wonder food, GM foods, is 100% garbage. The public doesn’t know what is good for them? Let me tell you here in the US this GM garbage is in almost everything. People are dying of cancer at such an alarming rate that companies like Monsanto are going to be sued. Not only has the cancer rate jumped to a point where EVERYONE has someone dead or dying in their family, but also acid reflux is so prevalent that little kids and even babies are getting acid reflux and what are the doctors saying? Acid reflux causes throat and stomach cancer. What causes acid reflux? GM FOODS!!! Idiots. This stuff is not a good source of vitamins! The human body does not except it as a vitamin, it is rejected as a foreign object, unnatural as it truly is!!! So instead of people getting healthier they are dying by the thousands in the US where our government is so stupid that they have allowed this garbage to be grown. The people here are starving while all the food they need is right at their finger tips! They can eat as much as they want and their bodies will absorb any nutrients from it. Ban it. All countries need to ban all food from the US. When that happens this genetically modified killers will be gone. Good luck.
It’s interesting that this GM article is about science – It’s the most breathtakingly un-scientific piece of work I have ever read, & I read these things for a living!
“if we are in the hospital facing an acute health crisis we are unlikely to have the time to question the source of our insulin” – Actually insulin is used by diabetics in an everyday setting and for years. These people have plenty of time to inform themselves and and they do have a choice: most of them opt for not taking purified pig insulin but rather the synthetic stuff (because it is “cleaner” etc.) But as so often in this discussion, ignorance helps a lot to keep it going and to “justify” a certain position…
At least Prospect has finally posted some decent rebuttals by J. Porritt and Colin Tudge. However, the print response was lamentable with two token letters published, one “pro” from “Brazil,” shouldn’t it be Brasil? & the other “con.” This matter should be thoroughly debated, and Dr Mae-Wan Ho invited to contribute a full-blown article in the print edition to balance the scandalous nonsense Taverne is peddling. Not nearly enough said. There appears to be a deliberate editorial agenda of elision and evasion. I’m seriously considering cancelling my subscription. We deserve better than this from what many consider to be the leading popular intellectual journal in the UK.
DLF
No, no please don’t cancel your sub – yet ! I have enjoyed reading your blogs – so if you do cancel , please keep blogging at least ?
Perhaps Prospect are doing their best – ‘when they know better they will do better’? A significant reason that Prospect is so enjoyable might be because one rarely agrees with anything it says ; but this in itself invites one to challenge or confirm one’s own views or even to form views about something one might otherwise have ignored?
” The man who says he has no illusions has at least that one ”
Plus which, anyone with half an eye darkly disapproves of GM foods
and needs your help to stop them turning us all into baked beans..
The science of GM is complex and beyond the understanding of almost everyone, including the majority of people who have contributed comments here. Some may find it surprising that people can hold views so strongly while being completely ignorant of the facts necessary to form them. We call such views prejudiced.
Having informed myself with a course on bioethics, studied evolution, the psychology of risk, and genetics, I now feel competent to make qualified comment. What depresses me is that so many people bandy words like contamination, terminator, species barriers, precautionary principle and many others whilst making it clear that they have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about.
I attended a seminar on GM recently with an audience (mainly) of social science postgraduates. They were largely hostile to GM. It was interesting to note that when fears about health, contamination, biodiversity and a few other specifics had been allayed by some facts, their objects retreated into vague concerns about big business, profits and corporations. I see the same happening here. When the shallowness of some of these views were exposed, three fell on the accusation that we (I was not entirely alone) were being too rational.
Well done Dick Taverne for an excellent article. I personally think that the medical benefits of GM, which are already with us of course, have been understated.
Given that the world cannot support the health and lifestyle aspirations of everyone and the projected growth of population, perhaps the detractors might wish to attack GM on the grounds that it saves too many lives. They would at least have some facts on their side.
Steve Borodin should be commended for educating himself about these issues, however I think he should keep an open mind. The main controversy is not about science per se, but its applications and ethos. There is little doubt that advances can be made through the appropriate (read “wise”)use of genetic research, but the real GM scandal concerns the corporate exploitation of potentially extremely hazardous technologies. Few of us would object to some life saving therapeutic intervention if no other option existed. The point is that knowledge is part of an ever expanding process of understanding, and will never adequately be confined to specific symbolic logics unique to some particular intellectual discipline. Inclusion is a demanding word but it is one that invites us to cultivate tolerance and generosity of spirit, rather than adopt partisan and dogmatic reactionary stances, that seldom help but only hinder the development of human virtues.
(PS Dear St Trinians – that’s a compliment no sane man could ignore…I appreciate your wicked sense of humour.)
I can’t help wondering what A.C. Grayling thinks about all this GM business. Also, Steve Borodin mentions fears fears about “health, contamination, biodiversity and a few other specifics…” being allayed by some facts. What facts would those be? Certainly not the same facts that many of us have recognised as plausible, probable and almost certainly true according to the highly informed opinions of reputable scientists like Mae-Wan Ho. It is indeed another fact that the emotional response often over-rides the capacity for rational reflection, but it may also be evidence of an instinctive reflex, not just a cultural prejudice. After all, we are getting pretty close to the genetic bone here. I would invite Mr Borodin to consult the works of both Dr Ho and Vandana Shiva, before he accepts any “facts” about the impeccable “science” of genetic modification at face value. Also he could have a look at Jonathan Porritt’s and Colin Tudge’s first draft articles.
Since reading his letter in the August ‘Prospect’ I no longer have any interest in what AC Grayling thinks about anything – my loss, no doubt.
Let’s have reasons rather than authorities. Let’s base our views on facts, not myths. The story about sterile corn in this month’s ‘Prospect’ is a myth. ‘Terminator’ is not on the market anywhere yet. The campaign against it has been so successful that it may not ever be. The letter-writer (like some of those above) appears to think that all GM seed on the market is sterile. None is.
Excellent article. One small correction. The much publicised rejection by Zambia of US GM maize is not the whole story. Zambia did reject the maize for several reasons, the major being that in spite of FAO, OXFAM, USAID BBC etc stating there was a 200,000 tons shortfall, in fact there was a surplus coming and indeed Zambia did export about 100,000 tons that year. Though an irrational dislike of GMOs does hold sway in Zambia, partly fuelled by advice from the EU, this was not a relevant factor at that time. More importantly perhaps, and this was reported by the then US Ambassador to Washington, this was partly due to the strong anti US feeling in most of Africa following Iraq etc.
This case does show how it is often hard to get to the real truth when spin merchants have undue influence on the media, sadly even on the BBC. including sadly
I haven’t been able to read all of the interesting posts, but wished to comment as an American farmer who has used GM crops for years.
First of all, it’s true that corporations have too much control over farmers since chemical companies have purchased seed companies and are starting to dictate what we can purchase by what they make available. However, that’s not a question of safety but of the marketplace.
Some have said that GM crops don’t increase yields or diminish chemical use. I beg to differ. They do both. We just went through a bad drought this year and had poorer than normal yields. It is generally agreed that ten years ago without the new genetics we would have had nothing. My chemical use has decreased substantially through the use of GM crops. I don’t have to use dangerous insecticides that require great care to apply. As an aside, these insecticides are the synthetic version of the very chemicals used by organic farmers.
It’s also true that over time pests will/may become resistant. This is because of poor farming practices however, and doesn’t have to be the case. In the U.S. we are required to plant refuge acres for our BT and RW corn to prevent this from happening. It’s the crops that resist glyphosate herbicides where we see the greatest problems. You see, this herbicide is much cheaper than others and much safer to apply, so farmers want to use it on all their crops. whenever you use one product at the exclusion of all others you will get resistance.
Another writer was correct when he said there is no sterile gene. That was shot down a few years ago because of the public outcry.
There are those that say we shouldn’t be using GM crops because we don’t know the long term effects. If we take this argument to it’s logical conclusion we won’t try anything….because we don’t know it’s long term effects. Because we’re not using it. Yes, we must be careful but let’s also be sensible.
An interesting article, that is refreshing in it’s candor.
Hi,
You will find an extensive and interesting response to Mr Taverne’s The Real GM Scandal here:
http://www.ekogaia.org/the-real-gm-food-scandal.html
A last few words on this issue. It is excellent to see both sides of this debate in evidence, however I think we should all recognise that some of the leading scientific opinion against GMO’s is neither sufficiently listened to nor properly acknowledged by the mainstream media. Dr Mae-Wan Ho is a biophysicist who specialises in the physics of organisms and is eminently qualified to present an informed opinion. Her independent Institute for Science In Society and associated journal are of profound interest to anyone with an open mind. Dr Vandana Shiva trained in quantum physics and has a superb grasp of the economic, ecological, social and ethical issues pertinent to the situation in India. Although she runs her own centre for research into sustainable practices where they offer ecologically responsible courses, she teaches regularly at Schumacher College in Devon. How often are these two powerfully motivated women invited to participate in ethical public debate? Prospect should ask both of them to contribute individual articles or engage in dialogue with GMO proponents of equal stature. Of course there may not be any other pro-GMO scientists up to the task, so maybe that is why we don’t get the specialised debate at the levels of expertise and understanding the public deserves.
Perhaps Dr David King would be willing to debate “under the opposite banners of the controversy”?
It seems what people resent are corporations, not the technology behind genetically modified foods. Is it then safe to say that marketing departments in these corporations need to retool their messages? Scientists do a sterling job of innovating novel technologies, but they fail terribly to market it to consumers. Anti-technology activists with their solid social science background take advantage of this to misrepresent scientific facts. On my blog, GMO Africa, I repeatedly urge scientists to come out and defend their work. No one else will ever do it.
Dear Jim,
There are far too many scientists being “defended” for their work. the corporations are doing it for them. Some one had made a comment that the anti-gm activists are creating paranoia. Please give us a break. Why don’t we just try to find out, how many meals a day, Monsanto’s head eats GM food? Or the diet of Donald Rumsfield, George W Bush? I bet they are eating natural food…as do most of the heads of state of India. But when farmers unions demand for a compensation for lost crops by way of GM crops, the State Govt.’s power to regulate the large corporations has been taken away by the Central govt. Since the Indian Prime Minister is a stooge of the mighty corporations.
Today in this country – India, anyone who wants to oppose or speak critically about GM does not get space in any kind of media (unless it is an alternative media-which doesn’t reach many) – no one, no newspaper, tv channel, radio wants to discuss this – if ever they will say, we will discuss but at the end of the day, we must follow the directions of the agricultural departments (which are pro-gm) it is an unwritten rule.
It has been proven beyond point that pesticides are failing, Harmful pesticides like Endosulphan are banned all over the world, but these very same pesticides are RECOMMENDED to farmers in the Govt run television programmes, as well as all private channel farmers programmes…where is the choice of information for the millions of illiterate farmers?
There are plenty of advertisements on TV speaking about hte benefits of GM crops…but do the farmers ever get to hear the other side? NO WAY…you must go to a village and see how the marketing is done…with much fan fare, farmers are lured with free seeds, credit advances…(in a country where it is easier for a middle class person to get a loan to buy a mercedes benz it is difficult for an illiterate farmer to get 200 dollars worth crop loans from a bank…so what does the farmer do? Readily accepts whatever choice he is given…he has to feed his family, so even if it is GM seeds, he doesn’t care…for he is looking at his immediate needs…not in a position to think about the future.
So, are the farmers making an “informed choice” as far as GM or pesticides are concerned? No Way…that choice to know the truth and know the facts has been taken away from them. Everyone is bought and sold…Governments are bending over backwards to accommodate large corporations.
Not just for seed sales…but in everyway, India and her poor are being raped. Just today there was a news that farmers in the most fertile region of Andhra Pradesh, the rice bowl of the country were given notices over night to vacate their lands and their villages (13 villages in all) in order to set up a multinational corporations’ SEZ (special economic zone). They are now being forced out by the police.
In this country which is now in the hands of the corporations, where poor peasants are thrown out of their homes and farms at gun point and sometimes even killed, to facilitate development of “the big corporations”, can we expect Governments to act in the interest of people?
And one person was speaking of companies working against law are taken to task in the US…what a joke. You have no law in your land or any land…Law is meant to be manipulated. Haven’t you seen how many lies you were told to make you all partners in the Crime called Iraq? And yet if you believe in your governments and the corporations that fund them, you either are too naive or you are living in a fools’ paradise.
Forty years ago, people were told chemicals were needed to feed the hungry of the world. Forty years later, they are a failed case, besides causing death. So now we introduce GM…ten years down the line, Scientists may wish to apologize for their mistakes called GM…but then it may be just too late…
To all the supporters of the GM food, you eat it and enjoy the benefits.
Europe can do without.
a really great homepage! i’m a big fan of your stuff although i’m just 16!