Genetic modification (GM) is often marketed as the solution to our global food crisis. GM crops are sold on the basis of their economic and environmental benefits through increasing yields and greater food production with lower production costs, compared with conventional crops.
A Royal Society report ‘Reaping the Benefits’ (2009), supports the use of GM crops. The report confirms that GM can provide control of pests and weeds through use of disease-resistant crops that can minimize the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides. They also suggest that GM crops enable no-till agriculture, which can reduce soil erosion and fossil fuel use and drought tolerant seeds can be used to provide resilience to climate change. Thus the report states that ‘Britain's future food sustainability depends on employing some form of GM to increase yields’.
The Royal Society fully support the notion that technological advances have provided us with the potential to use scientific solutions to feed the world. The report indicates that the problem of food security for our growing population is so serious that we should try anything we can, to solve the problem, and that this will not be possible without the use of GM.
Alternatively, a group of NGOs, coordinated by environmentalist Vandana Shiva, produced a report on the role of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in increasing food production (Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, 2011). The report reveals that the way that genetic modification is marketed as the solution to the world’s food crisis is highly misleading. Shiva boldly states that genetic engineering has failed to increase the yields of a single food crop but instead, it has increased the growth of superweeds.
The NGO report indicates that weeds are becoming resistance to herbicides and pesticides, through the transfer of herbicide resistance to weeds, resulting in the development of super weeds and super pests. Shiva (2011) gives examples of this in India, China, the US, Argentina and Brazil and describes it as failed technology, as GM crops have not increased the control of pests and weeds, they have actually reduced it. This has resulted in an increase in the requirement of pesticides.
Evidence suggests that some GM crops actually have reduced yields when herbicides are not applied therefore GM crops can increase our reliance on herbicides. Some believe, that the biotech industry is forcing us into a more chemical dependent agricultural system. Shiva (2011) states that any benefits of GM crops are outweighed by the negative impacts associated with increased use of pesticides.
These two reports from different reputable actors puts great uncertainty in the fate of GM crops as a solution to sustainable food production for the future. For some, it seems like the ideal solution for increased yields and resistance to pests and weeds, whereas others see the problems of the uncertainty associated with the use of new technology and ideas. As the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs reveals, technology and nature do not always interact as expected and as a result, GM crops could create a food production system ever more reliant on natural resources.
Whether we go ahead with GM food production or not is a highly important decision, as co-existence between GM and conventional crops is not possible due to genetic pollution and contamination of conventional crops which is impossible to control (Shiva, 2011). Therefore the Royal society report admits that we need a lot more investment in research into sustainable agriculture before we go ahead and fully implement GM practices.
This is a obviously a very brief overview of the debates associated with Genetic Modification, so check out the two reports in more detail if you're interested.
I quite like this cartoon I found on another blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment