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

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

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

Comments

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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.