Blowing over the successes and dangers of GM foods

Critics continue to point out the drastic consequences, but the fight against 'Frankenstein foods' appears to have been lost.

Marco Visscher | March 2004 issue

Europe is almost done. The first applications for the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops have already been received in Brussels. Although discord still exists between different countries, the European Food Agency already has its scientific advice ready and waiting: safe, everything is fine. From April onwards, labels must warn consumers whether or not gene technology has been used in the production of what they are about to receive, but only if it constitutes more than 0.9% of all ingredients. And GM labelling is not compulsory for products such as meat, milk and eggs that have come from animals raised on GM fodder.

Like Europe, Brazil, the world’s second largest cultivator of soya beans, is feeling pressure from America, which together with Canada and Argentina, is fighting via the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for a relaxing of some countries’ stringent anti-GM trade barriers. Brazil has already agreed to lift its ban on GM soya seeds for one year. Should this relaxing of the rules become permanent, it would put an end to the last significant source of GM-free soya beans in the world. New Zealand has also bowed to international and local pressure and recently lifted its moratorium on genetically modified crops. With more and more countries opening up their markets to GM crops and food, it looks as if the fight against gene technology has been lost. However, according to critics, the consequences of this could be far more drastic than anyone has realised so far.

Just how safe is GM food? In a report commissioned by the British government, the New Scientist (July 26th 2003) concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that it is unhealthy to consume current GM nutrient crops. Indeed, in the United States GM food has been consumed for seven years and there are no indications that it is adversely affecting people’s health.

However, Alternative Medicine (September 2003), questions whether the lack of proof that GM food is unsafe is the right way of looking at the issue. Instead, the magazine argues, the question should be: is it safe? Anyone consulting the sparse amount of literature on GM safety will discover that many of the available studies have been carried out by the same companies that have developed and marketed GM technology. However, glimpses of another version of the truth sometimes slip through. For example, one reports reveals that rats fed a diet of GM tomatoes suffered from suppressed immune systems and underdevelopment.

Last year in his farewell speech as British minister of the environment, Michael Meacher also referred to the dubious links between researchers and biotech companies. In the New Statesman (November 10, 2003) he expresses his concern for the danger of mixing GM seeds with conventionally cultivated crops. Meacher refers to a recent report by the European Commission stating that it is almost impossible to prevent cross-pollination from taking place. This would bring about irreversible agricultural changes, which nobody wants.

This is not just theory. Meacher visited farmers in Saskatchewan, Canada, who showed him how GM canola (rape seed) had become mixed with their own conventionally cultivated crops. This, despite the fact that the lands planted with GM canola were located many kilometres away. The consequences of gene technology appear to be very difficult to control.

The Ecologist (July/August 2003) reports that GM pollen blowing over to other fields could have disastrous consequences. First of all for the environment: the stray GM pollen threatens biodiversity by killing off other plants. Moreover, it could lead to genetic pollution if the GM pollen germinates in combination with other crops.

The possibility of ‘blow over’ holds other potentially dangerous side effects for farmers whose fields become unwitting hosts to GM crops. Biotech companies could mount legal action against them for unlicensed use of their gene technology. Sound far fetched? More than 500 American farmers are currently facing being sued on such grounds. And Monsanto has successfully sued several farmers in the state of Kentucky for thousands of dollars for ‘patent infractions’.

Farmers wilfully switching to GM crops may face production cost increases of up to 40%. The extra outlays stem from the technology fee required by seed suppliers and the increased need for chemical pesticides. Despite gene technology’s promise of a more environment friendly agriculture, practical experience has proved that it leads to substantially more pesticide use. Moreover, farmers have to purchase GM seed every year as opposed to being able to recuperate traditional seeds from the crops.

If there are so many negative aspects attached to it why has GM been so successfully promoted? The main argument used by those who support biotechnology in agriculture has always been the alleviation of hunger in the world. However Down To Earth (September 30, 2003) scathingly remarks in a cover story on gene technology: ‘Anybody who understands poverty in the South knows that it is not due to a lack of food, but due to lack of access.’ The Indian magazine perceptively points out the three big GM crops: soy beans, maize and canola are intended for animal fodder and preserved foods, which are mainly consumed in the West. The fourth crop, cotton, is intended for the production of clothing, also largely for the Western market.

One of gene technology’s first notable achievements was the development of super resistant sorghum, a cereal that is able to germinate in heated subsoil, which neutralises the fungus that normally destroyes half of the crop. However, the British science journalist Colin Tudge, who at that time was enthusiastic about the potential of biotechnology, now concludes in Earth Matters (autumn 2003): ‘Today’s GM crops are not designed to improve people’s access to affordable food whether in the rich world or poor. The strategy, boldly stated, is to ensure that all the world’s agriculture will be controlled by just a few high-tech companies.’ And these companies according to Tudge are focused on profit: ‘There is nothing wrong with profit in itself. But such an approach for agriculture is clearly extremely dangerous.’

Enough food
When it was introduced we were told that GM would put an end to world hunger. This is still the fundamental argument for gene technology in agriculture. However, the amount of food available is not, in fact, a problem. Indeed, global food production is more than sufficient to feed everyone on the planet. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) the following amounts of food are available for every citizen of the world every day: 264 grams wheat, 269 grams rice, 268 grams maize, 120 grams of other cereals, one and a half ounces of potatoes, 6 ounces of vegetables, 25 grams legumes, 212 grams fruit, 50 grams sugar, a quarter of a litre of milk, 57 grams fish and 50 grams oil.

Tools: Discuss | Email | Print | RSS | Weekly Newsletter
Save/Share:

Comments