• Home
  • About us
  • Contact Us
  • Date/Time
  • Login
  • Subscribe

logo

  • Home
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
Home
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
  • Home
  • Features

The real GM food scandal

GM foods are safe, healthy and essential if we ever want to achieve decent living standards for the world's growing population. Misplaced moralising about them in the west is costing millions of lives in poor countries

by Dick Taverne / November 25, 2007 / Leave a comment
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

Published in November 2007 issue of Prospect Magazine

Seven years ago, Time magazine featured the Swiss biologist Ingo Potrykus on its cover. As the principal creator of genetically modified rice—or “golden rice”—he was hailed as potentially one of mankind’s great benefactors. Golden rice was to be the start of a new green revolution to improve the lives of millions of the poorest people in the world. It would help remedy vitamin A deficiency, the cause of 1-2m deaths a year, and could save up to 500,000 children a year from going blind. It was the flagship of plant biotechnology. No other scientific development in agriculture in recent times held out greater promise.

Seven years later, the most optimistic forecast is that it will take another five or six years before golden rice is grown commercially. The realisation of Potrykus’s dream keeps receding. The promised benefits from other GM crops that should reduce hunger and disease have been equally elusive. GM crops should now be growing in areas where no crops can grow: drought-resistant crops in arid soil and salt-resistant crops in soil of high salinity. Plant-based oral vaccines should now be saving millions of deaths from diarrhoea and hepatitis B; they can be ingested in orange juice, bananas or tomatoes, avoiding the need for injection and for trained staff to administer them and refrigeration to store them.

None of these crops is yet on the market. What has gone wrong? Were the promises unrealistic, or is GM technology, as its opponents claim, flawed— because of possible harm to human safety or the environment or because it is ill-suited to the needs of poor farmers in the developing world? Public discussion of GM food in the British media, and throughout Europe, reflects a persistent suspicion of GM crops. Supermarkets display notices that their products are “GM-free.” Sales of organic food, promoted as a natural alternative to the products of modern scientific farming, are increasing by about 20 per cent a year. Indeed, EU regulations, based on the precautionary principle, provide safeguards against “contamination” of organic farms by GM crops; they require any produce containing more than 0.9 per cent GM content to be labelled as such, with the clear implication that it needs a health warning and should be avoided. This causes a major conflict over GM soya beans imported from America. Some GM crops are taking root in some European countries, but in most they are in effect banned. The public is led to believe that GM technology is not only unsafe but harmful to the environment, and that it only serves to profit big agricultural companies.

YOU'VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don't worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we'll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we'll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

DEBUG messsage: regular

Related articles

The rare gene that helps one Amish community live longer
Philip Ball / November 21, 2017
In an Amish community in Indiana, those with one copy of the mutant SERPINE1 gene live up...
Share with friends
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

Comments

  1. Yacko
    August 15, 2009 at 21:09
    If the only goal is to increase the human carrying capacity of the earth then GM crops make perfect sense. Unfortunately there are many other factors involved that make this planet agreeable for human life and foisting an inappropriate and hasty solution to accomplish a single goal is wasteful. Like any other quick fix without careful thought, it is likely to have unintended future consequences. This scheme is similar to circumstances involving companies with public stock whose only incentive is to maximize immediate profit for stockholders, and not have a far reaching and future proof model for its own corporate sustainability. I sense the author is a conservative, perhaps of the Club for Growth school of thought. What is more conservative, to act hastily on the latest flavor of scientifically fueled economic thought, or to be truly conservative and hold the pace of change to a lower and steady state, and find other true conservative solutions to the perceived problem? The small-farm organic approach is ultimately the more conservative approach because it advocates diversity, competition, personal responsibility and avoids the squandering of natural resources and timeless processes that have been earth friendly for centuries, as opposed to promoting a monoculturist approach whose targeted consequences may actually cause manageable problems to get worse. Personally, as a strong conservative myself, I hold little hope that the conservative philosophy of the last 50-60 years, going forward, will learn to embrace a concept that doesn't involve quick profit and short sighted strategy.
  2. Jacqueline
    October 19, 2009 at 22:27
    The issue with GM crops is not that they are good or bad but there is not enough creditable research yet to cover the entire picture on GM crops. The true issue behind GM crops is that large corporations are selling their GM products when they haven't been fully developed. For example golden rice: it does not contain a significant amount of vitamin A precurser to prevent deficiencies furthermore studies show that when the rice is cooked, the amount of vitamin A precurser is decreased even more. Golden rice has a potential to be great and save many lives but it still needs work. In short some GM crops are beneifical and harmless, some are harmless but not benefical and some have been shown to cause damage. I think we all need to take a step back with GM crops, review them individually, not over price them or advertise to uneducated publics about the mircales that do not exsit.
  3. Zigismund
    January 22, 2010 at 12:28
    Whoever wrote this article should try farming next to a farm growing GM seeds, supplied by Monsanto, of course, who else is there? If the wind blows some GM seeds into your field and you are therefore found to be growing a Monsanto crop without buying seed from them they sue. The should be suing the wind, but instead they sue you. Too many cases to mention throughout the US. So that's why those of us who farm properly don't even want GM seeds next door, never mind buy the things and effectively be tied into a contract for life. Take a look at the 'seeds of change' website.
  4. Alyzza A.
    May 23, 2010 at 14:50
    With the many negative risks of the GM technology regarding human health, environment and livelihood, every consumer should be educated and have the right to know about what they are eating, and labeling plays an important role in this. By labeling, the consumer is granted the right to choose whether or not s/he want to support this controversial issue. This movement should be focused more on the countries that favor GM foods such as the United States, Canada and the Philippines but do not have strict regulations about labeling. In most European countries like Italy, if a food contains more than 1% GMO, then it must be labeled. It is a guarantee that if genetically modified foods are labeled, it would make the consumer think twice about the decision on which foods to eat. In France, about 76% of the French support the “GM-Free” label, and over 86% favor the label “Fed Without GMOs Minimun Guarantee 99.1%”. Besides, why use an uncertain technology that may harm the current agriculture system, the human body and the environment many have been trying to protect? If a new innovation poses this many risks for little benefits, then consumers should not support the idea. This comment has been edited by moderators
  5. John
    July 7, 2010 at 10:40
    Good article in general. However, when you say things like "Some opponents of GM crops, who seem to have realised that the argument based on lack of safety has no basis, now focus their opposition on environmental concerns, arguing that GM crops destroy biodiversity", it does somewhat imply that people who oppose GM in general start with the assumption that it is bad and then go looking for reasons to claim so. That's fair for the anti-science crowd, but many people quite fairly dismiss health concerns as unfounded and quasi-religious "playing God" arguments as facile while still being worried about the environmental and human impact.
  6. cissie
    July 15, 2010 at 22:10
    This is a more worthwhile article: 10 Reasons why GM won't feed the World http://www.theecologist.org/investigations/food_and_farming/269351/10_reasons_why_gm_wont_feed_the_world.html
  7. John
    March 5, 2011 at 14:50
    I'm actually too enraged. The research which has gone into this article is so biased it's unreal. The fact that people will be turning to this as a source of information worries me and all I can do is encourage people to do their own research.
  8. Organic Nitwits
    June 8, 2011 at 03:42
    "This is a more worthwhile article: 10 Reasons why GM won’t feed the World" Nope, just the same old ploys at emotional hysteria and anti-science propaganda.
  9. Organic Nitwits
    June 8, 2011 at 03:44
    "The fact that people will be turning to this as a source of information worries me and all I can do is encourage people to do their own research." In other words, you want people to only consider sources that are politically and financially based in organic industry interests.

Prospect's free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world—straight to your inbox. PLUS a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.

This Month's Magazine

Perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus.

Time to rip up the economics textbook and start again? Howard Reed says the discipline needs rebuilding from first principles. Also: Sonia Purnell on Jacob Rees-Mogg's chance of cracking No 10; Will Self on his first acid trip

Subscribe

Most Popular

  • Read
  • Commented

Leonard Bernstein invented how we do modern classical music

Rules of origin: the biggest Brexit problem you didn’t know about



Can Jacob Rees-Mogg become Britain’s 55th prime minister—and Eton’s 20th?

Rip it up and start again: the case for a new economics

In defence of the economists

5 Comments

Brexit will no longer be a significant event

3 Comments

Why I won’t be leaving Labour over anti-semitism

3 Comments

Rip it up and start again: the case for a new economics

3 Comments

Britain has the legal power to withdraw Article 50—it should use it

2 Comments

About this author

Dick Taverne
Dick Taverne is the author of The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism (OUP)
More by this author

More by Dick Taverne

A load of greenwash
October 21, 2009
Political climate
August 28, 2005
Radiation works
August 22, 2004

Next Prospect events

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Jesse Norman

    London, 2018-07-16

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Henry Marsh

    London, 2018-06-18

  • Details

    HowTheLightGetsIn 2018

    Hay-on-Wye, 2018-05-25

See more events

Sponsored features

  • Supporting UK businesses trading overseas

  • The Commonwealth has put vision for everyone on the world’s agenda— now we must act

  • Brexit and the future of industry

  • Seeing Clearly

  • Meet the brains behind Exo

PrimeTime

Prospect was originally founded by Editor David Goodhart and Publisher Derek Coombs, as a home for intelligent debate. The magazine is owned and supported by the Resolution Group, as part of its not-for-profit, public interest activities. The aim is to tackle the big challenges confronting society, through rigorous thinking and fine writing.

Follow us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • RSS

Editorial

Editor: Tom Clark
Deputy Editor: Steve Bloomfield
Executive Editor: Jay Elwes
Managing Editor (Arts & Books): Sameer Rahim
Head of Digital: Stephanie Boland
Deputy Digital Editor (Political Correspondent): Alex Dean
Design: Mike Turner
Production Editor: Chris Tilbury
US Writer-at-Large: Sam Tanenhaus

Commercial

Commercial Director: Alex Stevenson
Finance Manager: Pauline Joy
Head of Marketing: Paul Mortimer
Marketing and Circulations Executive: James Hawkins
Head of Research and Engagement: Saskia Perriard-Abdoh
Events Coordinator: Oliver Ward
Head of Advertising Sales: Adam Kinlan 020 3372 2934
Senior Account Manager: Sophie Ryan 020 3372 2927
Senior Account Manager: Dominic Slonecki 0203 372 2972
Account Manager: Scott Smith 020 3372 2931

  • Home
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Acceptable Use Policy
© Prospect Publishing Limited
×
Login
Login with your subscriber account:
You need a valid subscription to login.
I am
Remember Me


Forgotten password?

Or enter with social networking:
Login to post comments using social media accounts.
  • With Twitter
  • Connect
  • With Google +
×
Register Now

Register today and access any 7 articles on the Prospect’s website for FREE in the next 30 days..
PLUS find out about the big ideas that will shape our world—with Prospect’s FREE newsletter sent to your inbox. We'll even send you our e-book—Writing with punch—with some of the finest writing from the Prospect archive, at no extra cost!

Not Now, Thanks

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

×
You’ve got full access!

It looks like you are a Prospect subscriber.

Prospect subscribers have full access to all the great content on our website, including our entire archive.

If you do not know your login details, simply close this pop-up and click 'Login' on the black bar at the top of the screen, then click 'Forgotten password?', enter your email address and press 'Submit'. Your password will then be emailed to you.

Thank you for your support of Prospect and we hope that you enjoy everything the site has to offer.

This site uses cookies to improve the user experience. By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. For more details on the cookies we use and how to manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.