Why the green movement needs to embrace GM

It has been cast as the great scientific evil of our time - creator of "Frankenstein foods" that will bring untold chaos to the natural order and decimate native species, not to mention damage health of those that consume it. Genetic modification of food crops will cause as much anger and bile at a green conference as nuclear arms, but is the furore deserved?

Let me start by saying that I am far from championing companies like Monsanto and their well documented less than philanthropic approach to spreading GM seed to both the developed and third world. The company have had their share of legal wranglings over various incidents, and as someone not legally qualified, I will not conduct a detailed examination of the charges. Suffice to say that I do not believe them to be the exemplar of marketing and deployment of GM products into the food chain, and that myriad other companies and institutions are doing stirling work that is sadly thrown into the shade by a big corporation doing what so many corporations are wont to do.

So what are the main arguments against GM technology?

1. "Terminator"  or GURT technology

In some GM seedcrop, they are engineered so that their seed will be infertile. It should be noted that this is NOT a strategy used in any commercial seed crops (due in no small part to the massive backlash from farmers and indigenous peoples). In warm, wet climates it has the benefit of stopping crops from sprouting before harvest. However, if it ever was used commercially, there are significant problems for farmers who use saved seed for a large proportion of the next season's crop; this is a matter for bodies such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation to examine and legislate for.

2. Adverse health effects

The Greenpeace website states that "they pose a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health", but does not elaborate further as to what this means. Instead, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine states that in 15 years of GM food consumption, there have been no discernible health effects. In the world of peer reviewed practice, there have been only a small number of papers proposing a deleterious effect, which have subsequently been shown to be severely lacking in their methodology. I have three pieces of advice when researching the topic: 1) stick to reputable academic journals rather than websites and other sources that do not cite their evidence in an accountable manner; 2) find out who is sponsoring or backing the research, as this can highlight what results they were hoping to find, and any inherent bias that may have crept through and 3) look for academic responses to any paper you read, as it will give a good breakdown of just how valid the research methodology is.

3) Adverse effects on the environment

As well as the risk of cross pollination between crop and native species, there are also concerns that as weeds become increasingly glysophate (a popular and relatively low impact weedkiller) tolerant, then farmers will have to fall back on more traditional, and more harmful, weedkillers. Leaving the fact the glysophate itself isn't exactly a bath of ambrosia for the soil anyway, the spectre of more harmful weedkillers is one the many of the organic farming lobby are most vocally protesting. Given that the reduced use of chemicals is one of the great selling points of GM, the problems of pest plant resistance are possibly some of the greatest stumbling blocks to GM crops being the acceptable future of food production.

What are the main benefits of GM?

1) Increased nutritional content

In a world with an expanding population, foods with a higher calorific or nutritional yield per harvest will form a vital factor in feeding the poorest nations, whether by international aid or subsistence farming. Although this is often countered by arguments of intellectual property of GM products blocking benefits for the third world, this is merely political obfuscation of what is a true benefit. Although headlines are dominated by large corporations, they are not the only face of genetic modification.

2) Reduction in pesticide use

I firmly believe that if the organic food movement were to embrace GM products, then there could be real progress on the use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals in world farming. Not just in food crops: the cotton industry is one of the worst offenders for its high usage rate of damaging pesticides. GM cotton has allowed a sharp decline in the amount of pesticides used to be made possible, and further advances could improve upon these results. As well as the obvious environmental benefits of using less pesticides, it also represents a cost saving on the part of farmers - providing that the global community works to ensure that GM seedcrop is provided to farmers at a competitive, and realistic pricing that allows the saving to be felt and not lost.

3) Crops to grow in increasingly hostile environments

Climate change, whatever your standpoint on the cause, is happening. Arid areas are spreading, whilst others are suffering further floods. GM technology can work to bring us crops that can resist drought, cold or diseases associated with dampness such as blight. When water could be a scarce resource, plants that need less of it will be a boon to local economies; by ensuring the GM technology works in hand with other plant breeding techniques, varieties can be produced to help feed people in the face of change.



I conclude by saying that, in principle, I approve of GM technology; I believe that with climate change looking and vast global populations requiring sustenance, it can form part of the way forward. I'm not saying it's a panacea that will free us from all of the troubles the future might bring. I am merely stating that progress is not always an evil. I am always frustrated by naysayers who seem to think that "normal" agriculture has any less in the way of complex scientific procedures behind it; indeed, with practices such as embryo recovery and molecular marker work, it is just as far removed from the "natural world" as any GM procedure. Mankind has been working with, and improving on, nature's model since the first farmers - this is not some kind of rejection of the natural order or deliberate attempt to, dare I say it, "play God". It is about survival. Survival of not just the human race, but the vast ecosystem that sustains us.