Better food and more of it: Genetically modified Golden Rice grains (right) are easily recognisable by their yellow to orange colour, the stronger the colour the more vitamin A (β-carotene). Conventional white rice is on the left.
Credit: Golden Rice Project
The World Bank recently estimated that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty. And the future does not look brighter. Food prices, although likely to fall from their current peaks, are predicted to remain high over the next decade.
As the world considers how to respond, the debate about genetically modified (GM) crops has inevitably reared its ugly head. 'Ugly' because the public exchange about this technology has usually seen extreme viewpoints gaining the most airtime.
Ethical obligation
For example, in the United Kingdom, Prince Charles' spirited but ill-informed attack on GM crops recently led to a flurry of opinionated responses. We could have been back in the polarised debates of the earlier part of this decade.
Since 1999, my organisation, the U.K.-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics, has twice examined the ethical issues raised by GM crops. In a 2003 report, the Council specifically focused on developing countries. Two of the conclusions are still particularly relevant today.
First, the council concluded that there is an ethical obligation to explore whether GM crops could reduce poverty, and improve food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries. In coming to this conclusion, the council considered differing perceptions of risk.
When people have enough food, as in developed countries, consumers and producers will feel free to avoid risk — even if that risk is theoretical rather than real. But developing nations, struggling with widespread poverty, poor health, limited pest control and poor agricultural sustainability, have a different risk-benefit calculation. This is perhaps why the acreage of GM crops has tripled in developing countries over the past five years, compared to just doubling worldwide.
Exploring potential
Consumers in prosperous countries are being asked to suppress their doubts about GM crops so that research relevant to the developing world continues. In effect, they are being asked to concede that any potential losses to them are outweighed by potential gains to poor countries, where yields are declining and conventional agriculture is increasingly unsustainable.
This does not belittle other factors needed for poverty reduction and food security – such as stable political environments, appropriate infrastructures, fair international and national agricultural policies, and access to land and water. GM crops are just one part of a large and complex picture. But we will not know how important a part until we explore their potential.
The Nuffield Council's second key conclusion was that the wide range of GM crops and situations must be considered individually. Those who oppose or support GM crops per se make an unhelpful generalisation.
Each time, the gene or combination of genes being inserted, and the nature of the target crop, must be assessed. It is also important to compare a GM crop with local alternatives.
GMO FOODS
Dear Cosmos: We are a nation of disease. We are so removed from our earlier foodstuffs, we hardly have an idea what they once were. If it is not for control, and profit why would anyone want to tamper, with that which is not broken? Chemical fertilizers, and certainly science, today by researched practices, are increasing yeilds. To genetically modify a food from a species, that in some cases that even is not related is not a sane practice- nor a safe one.Already alergies are on the uprise-are you going to now take chemicals, to help you relax?.
Dear Albert, Great article
Dear Albert,
Great article and lets hope the debate can move forward past those who love to yell 'fire'!
love to yell 'fire'!
Americans have been eating GM food for years.Look what it has done to them.
Do I want to weigh 200 pounds?.No thanks.
200 pounder
I think you will find obesity problems occurred long before GM crops were invented... and have more to do with a lack of exercise and a high energy diet... by the way, there are proportionally more obese people in Australia than America.
You do love to yell fire don't you?
GM Crops
I recall watching a documentary on GM foods, in particular crops, and seeing a Canadian farmer state that he was perplexed when one season his cattle stopped reproducing. He had always had many new offspring from his herd and couldn't explain it, as veterinary advice seemed to suggest all was usual. He said it occurred to him he'd been feeding them a different feed - a new, genetically modified feed - and so he reverted to the usual (more expensive) natural cattle feed: following spring, new calves as expected. No actual "scientific proof" - just anecdotal evidence. In most western countries there is no legal obligation to specify on packaging which foods are genetically modified yet we wonder at rising obesity levels, falling fertility rates and many more "modern" diseases. Yes, majority world (third world) populations need feeding - but surely with the same quality food that the first world enjoys.
I agree, gm food is not the way to go..
I totally agree with the last comment. In 2009 there is still no law in Canada (and many other countries) to specify on packaging if it's GM food. That is terrible. How can we be forced to buy food that may be unsafe, only because some powerful companies are strong enough to convince governments that our health is not as important as the money they make.
Ashley from beef recipes and proud to be against GM foods!
GM crops are not a solution..they're a problem
Go research Arpad Pusztai who studied GM potatoes and found horrifying results. Go read "Seeds of Destruction" by F. William Engdahl to see how bad GM food really is. BT corn has a pesticide IN THE FLESH OF THE CORN and YOU EAT IT. It Causes liver and kidney problems and is linked to cancer. Why have cancer rates soared since the introduction of GM foods?
Ethics and GM food.
My 2 main concerns are: (1) the transfer of genes from one organism to another may also result in allergens being transferred from one organism to another, with potentially disastrous consequences for people with food allergies; (2) if rumours about the 'Terminator' gene(s) are true, how can it be ethical to produce GM plants that do not produce their own seeds and put farmers at the mercy of big biotech companies?
Non-scientific nonsense.
To the viewer who wrote "Americans have been eating GM food for years.Look what it has done to them. Do I want to weigh 200 pounds?.No thanks". You are connecting 2 unrelated pieces of information to make an unsubstantiated and invalid point. This is typical of the emotive and unscientific scaremongering surrounding the GM issue.
As for Arpad Pusztai, the fact that he went to the press over a year before he submitted his alleged findings to proper peer review shows that his methods and conclusions were suspicious. Moreover, no-one has managed to replicate his 'findings'.
Let's have more science and less irrational hysteria, please.
GM and cancer.
To the viewer who said "Why have cancer rates soared since the introduction of GM foods?", I would suggest it is because the research has been done by innumerate fools with an anti-GM agenda. Where have you seen any evidence linking an alleged rise in cancer rates with an increase in consumption of GM foods? Nowhere, I'll bet.
Confusion between correlation and causation is one of the easiest mistakes to be made by sloppy researchers, especially if they have a pre-set agenda. I can show a correlation between the increase in the amount of icecream consumed and suicide rates in New York. It does not, however, mean that icecream makes you suicidal. It does mean that any two unconnected bits of data can be connected by unscrupulous or lazy researchers.