The unfortunate politicisation of agricultural biotechnology in recent years, most notably in the field of genetically modified (GM) farming techniques, conceals crucial issues that need to be addressed on a national and global scale.
To be sure, GM is not just about free trade and giant corporations.
With the number of people on earth expected to increase from 6.7 billion to nine billion by 2050, demand for food is expected to grow exponentially, by 70 per cent according to some estimates as developing economies strive to improve their standards of living.
This, everyone agrees, will place enormous pressure on farm land, hence the need to develop sustainable practices that reduce the environmental, economic and social impact of farming. The widespread use of pesticides and fertilisers has led to a plethora of directives from the EU, all intended to limit the damage caused to the ecosystem.
It must be said, that so far, there is scant evidence that genetic engineering of plants at least has had any tangible and negative side effects. Opposition to GM is rightly based on supposition that unintended changes in the genetic structure of crops may have an unexpected impact on the environment.
The truth, according to the experts, is that there is little difference between genetic engineering in its current form and other more conventional methods of genetic alteration in crops – the difference being that the former does not limit itself to using introduced genes from other plant species. The more conventional methods of genetic alteration or artificial selection include inter-specific transfers, the grafting of two closely related species to create a new variety and follow through from random mutagenesis.
The broad scientific consensus is that all the GM crops currently on the market are safe to eat, indeed the National Research Council, a non-profit US institution that advises the US Congress, concludes that the process of genetic engineering offers a similar level of health risk as more conventional approaches. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment. These findings are confirmed by the Joint Research Centre, the scientific body that reports to the European Commission. By contrast, there are about 300,000 deaths caused by pesticide poisoning.
Because opposition to GM is based on a fear of what might happen, regulatory controls have thus far focused on their traceability. Crops that are genetically engineered must carry a harmless genetic marker that allows them to be removed from the food chain in the event that an unwanted change occurs. It must be said that so far, there have been no such cases.
Also, the relentless drive towards globalisation and the lowering of trade barriers (free trade) has led to the development of rigorous legislation, ensuring that the principle of informed consent championed by the European Union underpins the way forward for a more acceptable global strategy.
Notwithstanding the fears of some critics, market forces have ensured that large scale bio-technology seed firms do not exert undue influence in the market. Awareness of the issues at stake has led to the growth of the important non GM (organic) market, itself an important benchmark in good practice.
GE has not proved to be the 21st Century equivalent of the Three Mile Island – despite the rhetoric, proponents and critics have much more in common that meets the eye.
Both for instance, stand to gain from maximising yields and minimising the use of expensive and harmful dangerous chemicals. Both are spending vast sums of money on research to produce food sustainably while minimising the environmental impact. Both seek to optimise the welfare of growers.
The way forward, seems to be in merging the interests of the two camps – helped along perhaps by the greater threats of global warming and the systemic economic paralysis of the global economic system. To be sure, the benefits of GE crops have been well documented – massive reductions of insecticides in the environment, improved soil and water table quality, reduced erosion, proven health benefits to farmers and families as a result of reduced exposure to harsh chemicals, economic benefits to local communities, enhanced biodiversity of beneficial insects, reduction in the number of pest outbreaks, and increased financial sustainability to farmers – GE crops have measurably and dramatically increased crop yields.
With desertification on the increase, perhaps this is as good a time as any to merge the good growing practices of organic farmers and the no nonsense approach of close to market, high yield, management techniques.
These arguments were presented in a debate hosted by The Economist on 2 November.
Independent Online © Standard Publications Ltd 2010
