Monthly Archives: December 2015

Why I am “pro GM”

Genetic Modification is a useful and safe way to produce crop varieties

There is a great deal of controversy about the use of what is known as Genetic Modification for use in the production of crop varieties. A lot of passion is on show from both sides of the debate, which is unfortunate because, I believe, most people with an interest in this area have a lot of overlapping values. I want to briefly explain why I am (loosely speaking) “pro GM” as the starting point to a more useful conversation.

I want to be very clear: I am in favour of the use of genetic modification technology – not Monsanto, not glyphosate, not every conceivable use of the technology, but the technology itself. I think that it has enormous potential for the good of mankind and for the planet. In fact, I think that we might need it as a species in the coming decades as population growth and an uncertain climate increase the difficulty involved in growing enough food for everyone.

For me, genetic modification technology is something that is highly likely to be useful and may in fact be essential for the future of mankind and the planet. When the existing staple crops have nothing more to give, GM may become essential in order to support a growing global population and an unpredictable climate. Building in pest resistance, draught tolerance and increasing the yield of staple crops may be necessary or at least very useful. One third of human-produced greenhouse gases come from agriculture – we need to investigate every possible way of reducing that huge load on the planet. GM may be one tool in the toolbox.

Critically, I believe that the technology as it is used is safe. This is a big point of conflict, so I want to be really clear about what this means; when crop varieties are produced using the various GM technologies, there is always a chance – just as there is with conventional breeding – that a negative trait could show itself. The crop could cause an allergic reaction in some people, for example or even be more generally poisonous. Although this is much less likely than with conventional breeding, each new variety is extensively tested. Years of laboratory and field testing precede the introduction of a new GM variety for commercial agricultural use. Of course, it would be entirely possible to produce a dangerous crop using these techniques – it could even be done intentionally. I trust the processes that oversee the development of these crops, though, including the huge amount of well-documented research and the range of international bodies that test the relatively small number of GM crops that are cultivated.

Nobody with any kind of serious interest in biotechnology will make blanket claims of absolute safety. In fact, it is well understood that biotech could be capable of producing very dangerous things, such as diseases. That is something that we should be concerned about. But the processes that are in place for the production of GM crops are more than adequate – in fact they are almost certainly excessive. There is, as far as I can ascertain, no evidence that anyone has been hurt by a genetically modified crop. The “precautionary approach” should be weighed against the benefits; if Golden Rice, for example, could save tens of thousands of lives and nobody can show any evidence of harm, it should be made available.

I am deeply concerned that much of the anti-GM commentary is, often intentionally, mixing up a number of issues that are not caused by GM technology. I would like to see GM techniques being available for humankind, because I think that we may need them. We should not throw out the baby with the bathwater; concerns about globalisation, monoculture, patents, unfair lawsuits or whatever should be tackled as specific issues – GM is too useful and has too much potential to allow it to be banned in places where it should be in active development.

While I may not be as reflexively nervous about corporate ambition as some people, I understand the fears regarding Monsanto et al. My interest is in supporting the incredible, international body of scientists who are developing new crop varieties for the benefit of humanity. Many of these work – directly or indirectly – for the major commercial players. This is to be expected. The reality of science is that it is expensive and somebody has to pay for it. To write off the entire enterprise because some people benefit financially is ridiculous. There are a plenty of independent scientists with whom to consult and no shortage of very vocal nay-sayers to remind us that not everyone is in agreement on the relevant issues.

As I alluded to above, I am strongly inclined to believe that most people involved in the GM “fight” – pro and anti – have very similar beliefs and interests. We want to feed everyone. We want safe, healthy food. We want to reduce the damage done to the environment by agriculture. We want farming to be sustainable – environmentally and financially. We want developing nations to have good quality food, but also choice and autonomy. The passion regarding some of the technologies and methods employed arises because we care about people, the environment and food.

It is critical that we recognise the good intentions of (at least some of) those with an opposing point of view in this area, otherwise the debate becomes distorted to breaking point. Once you believe the “shill” lie (rather than merely using it as a diversionary pejorative), you will start to lose touch with the issues at hand. Similarly, dismissing the viewpoint of those in the “pro labelling” camp, for example, will do nothing to reduce the prevailing fear.

If you disagree with me, go ahead and say so. But if you insist that my motives – and those of most of the rest of the “disinterested” pro-biotech camp – are financial (or inherently evil), your involvement will achieve nothing of any value.

–

A quick note: I have no formal qualifications in anything to do with biotechnology. Just an interest. In fact, I have a Computer Science degree and a background in that area – ie almost exactly the same qualifications as the Food Babe, for example (but without the looks or the yoga).

Why you should be nice to Jehovah’s Witnesses and other door-knocking proselytisers

Keep Out

If there’s one thing that we can all agree upon, whatever our religious point of view, it’s that there’s nothing worse than people knocking on your door and trying to talk to you about Jesus, right? Whether you’re religious or not, chances are that you have your own viewpoint and don’t want people bursting into your life and trying to convince you to change your mind. Religion is a personal thing for most people and an uninvited home visit can feel intrusive. It’s not surprising that most people seem to have their own technique for getting rid of such unwelcome visitors.

But I’m always kind to religious door knockers. That’s in spite of being very comfortably non-religious. I generally explain my position, but if at all possible say that they’re welcome to come in for a chat. If you don’t want to talk to religious door knockers, I would urge you to be polite, even to thank them for offering to share their religion with you. Perhaps take a copy of the Watchtower (or any alternative literature that is offered). Why? Because theirs is the right way to proselytise. Many people want to share their philosophical point of view and with many religions there is something of a duty to do it. If you genuinely believe that you are giving someone a chance at eternal life, or of avoiding eternal damnation, it’s a pretty decent thing to do. But the right way to do it is to approach adults and to offer them a chance to hear what you have to say. They can always say no.

This is in contrast to the wrong way to do it: take over the local school and force your beliefs onto other people’s children. Perhaps work your way into the legal system or become a part of the government in order to bind your beliefs into everyone else’s lives. That would be a cynical and unreasonable way to share your beliefs.

If you believe, as I do, in secularism – the freedom to hold whatever religious viewpoint you choose – then it follows that you should support the freedom of others to share their religion. Of course, you are free to reject what they are offering, but if you take out your distaste for proselytising primarily on those who do it in the right way, you are favouring those who do it in the wrong way. Will talking to Witnesses or Latter Day Saints make your local school any more secular? Hardly. But by supporting an effort to make this outlet for the need to share a pleasant option, you will in some small way be contributing to a truly secular society. As long as the established church knows that the general public is less bothered by vicars and priests descending directly upon their children in school than by the occasional inconvenience of a couple of old ladies at the door, it has every incentive to resist the secular education system that most people favour.