Science and Society
Food for Thought on GM Crops
Per Pinstrup-Andersen
|
|
|
|
COPENHAGEN – As the world continues to debate the impact of climate-change while seeking a new global treaty to prevent it, Kenya has endured a prolonged drought followed by heavy flooding. Maize plants have withered, hitting poor rural families hard. People are starving, and many of those who survive are grossly malnourished.
There is hope: next year, the Kenyan authorities will begin testing maize varieties that they hope will provide high yields and prove more resistant to drought. But why did farmers in Kenya and other African countries not have access to drought-resistant crop varieties before catastrophe struck?
One reason is that such crops rely on research tools used in molecular biology, including genetic engineering. African governments have been told that genetic engineering is dangerous, with many Europeans and their national governments – as well as transnational NGOs such as Greenpeace – determined to stay away from it.
Unfortunately, Kenya’s government listened and did not permit their farmers to grow genetically modified (GM) maize, even though it has been approved, sown, harvested, and eaten by both humans and animals in South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, the United States, and other countries for many years. Although Kenya has a well-functioning and well-funded agricultural research system, the government has not even permitted field tests of GM crop varieties.
Molecular biology has provided excellent tools to address health, environmental, and food problems such as those seen in Kenya. The question is whether decision-makers are prepared to use them. Obviously, most EU countries’ governments are not. But why are developing-country governments dragging their feet? Are the risks so high that they justify the suffering that could have been avoided?
GM foods have now been on the market in the US for more than 12 years. Most of the food consumed by Americans is either genetically modified or exposed to genetic modification somewhere in the production process. There is no evidence of even a single case of illness or death as a result – in the US or anywhere else where GM foods are consumed. Similarly, GM feed has not resulted in any illness or death in animals. And no environmental damage has been detected.
It is unusual that a new technology has no negative side effects. Just think of all the deaths that the wheel has caused, not to mention the side effects of much of the medicine we take. What, then, is the danger of GM foods?
Opponents of genetic engineering in food and agriculture have several arguments, none of which appears to be valid. First, “genetic engineering cannot solve the hunger and food insecurity problem.” This is correct: GM foods cannot singlehandedly solve the problem, but they can be an important part of the solution.
A second argument is that “we do not know enough about the effects and side effects.” Since some of the groups opposing GM organisms destroy the field trials that could give us more knowledge, a more pertinent argument might be that many opponents do not want us to know more.
Third, “we should not play God.” But if God gave us brains, it was so that we should use them to ensure a balance between people and nature to help eliminate hunger and protect the environment.
Fourth, pollen from GM crops may “contaminate” organically produced food. This, of course, would be an issue only with open pollinating plants, and only if the definition of “organically produced” excludes GM, something that is difficult to justify, since genes are as organic as anything.
Lastly, some argue that if farmers are permitted to sow GM varieties, they become dependent on large seed producers such as Monsanto, which have patent protection – and thus a monopoly – on the seed. But private corporations undertake only about half of all agricultural research, whether or not it involves genetic engineering. The other half is done by public research systems using public funds. Results from such research would not be subject to private-sector monopoly power. The fact that virtually all US maize and soybean farmers, and all papaya farmers, use GM seed indicates that it is good business for them.
Similarly, a large share of farmers – most of them smallholders – in Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, China, India, and other countries, prefer GM seed because they make more money from the resulting crops. Large reductions in the use of insecticides cut costs for growers of GM varieties, while providing an important health and ecological benefit.
But maybe those who oppose private seed corporations are really against capitalism and the market economy rather than GM seed. If so, they should choose an issue for their campaign that would be less damaging to the poor and hungry in developing countries.
The global food crisis of 2007-2008 was a warning of what the future may hold in store if we continue with business as usual, including misplaced opposition to the use of modern science in food and agriculture. European and developing-country governments urgently need to reverse their current adverse position on GM organisms in order to help ensure sustainable food security for all.
Such a reversal would reduce hunger, poverty, and malnutrition; help protect our planet’s natural resources; and slow the emission of greenhouse gases from agriculture. All that is needed is political will.
Per Pinstrup-Andersen is Professor of Food, Nutrition, and Public Policy at Cornell University and Professor of Development Economics at Copenhagen University, Denmark.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
You might also like to read more from Per Pinstrup-Andersen or return to our home page.
|
|
Kelly 07:38 02 Jul 10
I beg to differ with almost everything in your post!
You said "there is no evidence of even a single case of illness or death as a result – in the US or anywhere else where GM foods are consumed." The evidence is in an unprecedented increase, in the last 10 years, in childhood obesity, diabetes, ADHD, asthma, a 1500% increase in autism, a 265% increase in hospitalizations due to food allergies The reason it can not be linked to GMO foods is because there is no labeling and therefore that makes it almost impossible for the link to be made.
Secondly you say "more pertinent argument might be that many opponents do not want us to know more." about the side effects. We do want to know more about the side effects as we are living with those listed above, in ourselves and our children.
Thirdly - "...balance between people and nature to help eliminate hunger and protect the environment." I do believe God wants us to eliminate hunger and protect the environment, but considering there has been more pesticides used since the introduction of GMO says that we are not protecting the environment.
Fourthly - "...may “contaminate” organically produced food..." May is not the key word 'IS' contaminating organically produced food is more like it. For you to say that organisms are everywhere and that GMO's should be considered organic is absolutely absurd! Nature has its checks-and-balances to make sure non-related species can not cross - a tiger can not mate with a cat for instance but in GMO's we are able to put rat DNA into corn or pesticides into soy beans this is not a natural selection process and therefore is not what is defined under the 'Organic' regulations.
Lastly - "...most of them smallholders – in Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, China, India, and other countries, prefer GM seed..." I beg you to Google 'Monsanto in India' and then tell me the farmers there prefer GM seeds! Ask the ones who have sold their kidneys to pay Monsanto back for the high cost of their low-yielding crops, as you can't ask the ones that committed suicide!
I ask that you do some research outside of Monsanto's press releases before you post such unfounded nonsense!
Respectfully,
Kelly
KrillBear 07:17 04 Jul 10
Per Pinstrup-Andersen,
In your post you ask "Why are developing-country governments dragging their feet? Are the risks so high that they justify the suffering that could have been avoided?"
The answer is yes. The risks are too great.
There are better solutions than GMO crops anyways.
Oilime 07:48 04 Jul 10
Mr. Anderson,
GMOs might be a solution to starvation. On the short run, it would all seem right. But there´s a greater issue, the one that deals with who owns the crop. The crop has been given to you and me and all of us on earth to freely feed ourselves, crucial to our lives. The one that owns the crop owns the lives of others. Thus, on the long run, GMO is the way to eternal slavery among humans beeings. So pls notice that by defending GMOs, even if your intention are good, your are sowing slavery.
WE-MUST-THINK-ON-THE-LONG-RUN
wauch 02:41 06 Jul 10
As Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
Dr. Pinstrup-Andersen while I respect your linear argument and adherence to pretty solid rebuttals I would note that the food crisis of 2007-08 you attributed to a lack of water was as much a function of the "ethanol craze" promulgated by our very own George W. Bush, Stephen Harper, and others incabable of thinking through unintended consequences. This is quite the non sequitar to finish up with Doctor! Also in reference to the above quotation I have no idea where your funding comes from but I would suspect that you must have some stake in the game as you fail to mention more practical and less wealth consolidating options like industrial composting, drip irrigation, and agroforestry all of which would empower Kenyan people and prevent truly nefarious operations like Cargill and Monsanto from padding their wallets. To defend these agribusinesses really calls into question your objectivity since their involvement in agriculture has nothing to do with buttressing the small farmer and everything to do with industrial farming.
cinnamonite 03:32 30 Aug 10
Per Pinstrup-Andersen is a nice looking man. And he is Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. He won the world food prize in 2001. Even my grandmother would trust him and would listen to him.
It is really sad that he uses his influence to spread such misleading informations. Yes, it‘s a shame that there are children dying on starvation every day. Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food from 2000 to 2008 said, that every child, that dies on hunger today, was murdered.
The reason is not, that farmers in Africa or South America don‘t have access to GMO‘s. The reason for the hunger in world is the greed of us, the people in the rich countries. Over the last ten years for example we erased an area of rainforest in Brazil as big as France and Belgium together, to plant soy beans to feed animals to pay five Cents less for a burger.
If we would reduce our meat consumption, we could easily feed all the starving people in the world. God did not only give us brains to use them, he also gave us hearts to feel compassion and love towards every other creature in the world.
Respectfully Cinnamonite
DavidLePage 10:41 31 Aug 10
This is a thoroughly disingenuous article.
After 46 years of declining food prices, GM foods were introduced to the market in 1996. In 2000, food prices began to rise again, and have done so ever since. Surely this is worthy of investigation?
The major motivation behind the production of GM foods has not been feeding the world's poor; it has been profit at any cost, without respecting the rights of those who would prefer not to have their food meddled with.
The IAASTD, or International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, an assessment of the current state of agricultural knowledge by literally hundreds of scientists concluded that GM foods have a minor, if any, role to play in securing the world's food supplies. Alone of the major nations, the US refused, of course, to endorse this report.
Even the more honest GM manufacturers concede this point. Steve Smith, of UK GM company Novartis has said, "If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not…To feed the world takes political and financial will."
Food historian Evan Fraser notes:
The high-productivity cow may produce more milk, but it will need more water, protein and energy than a regular cow. That energy has to come from somewhere. So these highly productive strains of animals and plants are actually a bit of an illusion.
It's the same reason that droughts have become increasingly difficult to manage. We now plant these highly productive varieties of wheat everywhere, but they actually require a lot more water. So now even a small drought creates extreme food shortages.
AGK 04:01 02 Jul 10
Mr. Anderson,
There is plenty of fertile land in Kenya. The problem is that the land is used to grow flowers for the European and world markets instead of food for the locals. And yes the GMO crops do have significant risk built-in as their structure. How many years took before areas subjected over DDT treatment started suffering from ecosystem malfunction? The chemical was considered completely harmless. An advertisement presenting human, consuming the pesticide was shown to the public. It turned out to be different story..