GM crops: consumers vs the multinationals?
Published: 11 March 2010
Author: Rose Gamble
[ 3 ] Recommendations
[ 4 ] Comments
GM crops like potatoes are seen by some as the solution to our hunger problems
GM plants, produced by inserting novel genes into individual plants' cells and then growing the cells into whole plants in the laboratory, have provoked debate and disapproval. The "Frankenstein's monster" reputation of modified foods has put off the consumer, while the ethical dilemma of "man playing God" has also divided opinion.
The decision by the European Commission last week to allow genetically modified potato varieties to be grown in some European Union countries indicated an increasing public acceptance of the GM concept.
Why? For a start, GM crops have grown well, and are clearly financially viable. Yet, the economic gain of GM producers has sparked some debate.
Last week’s European ruling is the result of a 13-year campaign by German chemical company BASF. In fact, as Eoin Lettice points out in the Guardian, Hans Kast, president and CEO of BASF Plant Science, is on record as saying that the Amflora potato could potentially earn European farmers an extra €100 million annually. But the consumer, Lettice argues, will only accept GM crops if they too are to benefit.
In a survey in 2005 by Ireland's Agriculture and Food Development Authority, 42% of consumers questioned indicated that they would consider purchasing a hypothetical GM-produced yoghurt if it had anti-cancer properties. In the same study, 44% of consumers said that they would use a GM-produced dairy spread if it had anti-cancer properties.
Obviously, health benefits through food are great in principle, but isn’t this argument pretty selfish? Is this a case of the Western consumer saying "if it doesn’t benefit me, I don’t want it"?
GM crops have the potential not just to aid European farmers financially, but to make an impact on world poverty. They could provide the means to counter problems caused by an ever-expanding population, desertification, land loss and starvation. With our world population set to expand from 6.8 billion to 9 billion by 2050, the demand for food will vastly increase.
“Given the challenges faced by humanity of increasing population, uncertain climate, limited resources and the need to farm in more sustainable ways we need all the tools at our disposal,” Mark Buckingham, Monsanto (GM crop specialists) told Sideways News. “Science and technology is needed to meet these challenges and alongside other techniques, GM can contribute in ways that cannot be achieved by traditional plant breeding alone.”
By modifying wheat so it can be grown on arid land in say, Niger, then the lives of thousands could be impacted. Previously unusable land could yield a crop resistant to heat and able to grow in harsh conditions.
Monsanto declares that it produces crops – sold globally – with high yields and positive environmental effects.
Take action
- Join the debate on GM crops
- Read more about GM on Sideways News
“We help farmers grow yield sustainably so they can be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber (sic), while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment,” they say.
Yet, for these global companies, is it really a case of rich helping poor? Or is there an element of the multinationals establishing a monopoly - making money out of others’ poverty?
Is it charging for an essential, and sometimes life-saving, product a little like a pharmaceutical company holding the monopoly on HIV/AIDS drugs? Or is it another inescapable loop of dependence?
Comments
Sorry, I should have proofed better. The word intended was "sue", not "sew".
In America, the Supremes ruled that Montsano can hold patents on seeds, thereby holding the control over food sources. After a while the GM foods grown in the fields cross over to the seed farmers saved from their last years harvest to plant, as has been traditionally done. Once a bee, and the wind blows pollen into the non GM food, it's seed with have GM genes, thereby the farmer cannot save his corn seed to plant for the next years, since Montsano owns rights to the seed. It has gotten ugly here, since Montsano sends it's teams of lawyers to sew an independent farmer who cannot hold his own to trial and usually has to settle with Montsano. They are put out of business pretty much. You need to think this over closely. Do you want a corporation to hold title to the food that you eat? Read somewhere that it was ruled at one time that no one can hold ownership to a food product/seeds. Be sure your court rule clearly in the farmers favor before you allow them to plant GM seeds. It is a trap. Furthermore, you lose the vast seed stocks you have now. If you plant primarily one kind of seed, the other seeds become more or less extinct. If there is a weakness that was not identified the crop, the only crop or one of very few, can be rendered infertile. Then what? God gave us so much diversity and we are losing a lot of it. Imagine all the types of apples that used to be available, now there are only a few grown, same for sheep as some liked more for a certain quality of wool or used more often, thereby the other types of sheep that also have a quality of wool needed become nearly extinct or do become extinct because they are not bred anymore. Lots to consider here.
Isn't it time we prosecuted false disaster-prophets? They have prevented the introduction of foods which will help to feed the world, basing their 'theories' on what has now been proved to be total rubbish. We all eat GM foods now, and the only Frankenstein's monsters are the doom-mongers.
There is an interesting article at the Skeptic’s Health Journal Club about a former Pfizer microbiologist who claims she was infected during research by a genetically modified virus and is suing Pfizer. If you are interested there is more on it here,
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/