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).