Prince Charles usually speaks from the heart; and his latest outpouring
on genetically modified crops is expressed in terms that are forthright
even for him.
Judging by readers' comments appended to the Daily Telegraph article
outlining his position, he has struck a chord.
This should not be surprising. There are few, if any, such divisive
subjects in the scientific firmament; and in the UK at least, polls show
deep public suspicion.
But the prominence given to the Prince's words across a range of news
media prompt the question: is he right?
While he is adamant that food supplied through genetic technologies
would be "guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster, environmentally, of
all time", he offers not a jot of evidence to support the claim.
GM agriculture is often treated as a single entity which must in its
entirety be regarded as good or bad, healthy or unhealthy,
environmentally benign or destructive.
In the real world, biology is rarely that simple.
Take the example of gene flow, the spread of introduced genes from a GM
plant into non-GM neighbours, either weeds or conventional crops
How likely it is to happen depends on many factors, among them the type
of crop, how its genes may be carried (for example by insects), the way
farmers manage it, the weather, and whether any related plants are
growing nearby.
So even though it has been shown to occur in some situations - for
example, between hybrid radishes grown on the farms of Michigan and
wild radishes growing nearby - in others, it does not.
Even if gene flow is documented, it does not automatically cause
problems.
And that is just one example of an isolated environmental question.
Global trends
Everyone will have their own opinion about the risks involved; and
humans are notoriously bad at assessing risk, as evidenced by a common
instinct that driving is safer than flying.
But it is clear that if we look at what science tells us, the GM world
is considerably more complex than the one Prince Charles has painted;
and you can multiply the complexity a thousand-fold if you include all
the environmental, social and economic questions.
But the Prince also had some harsh things to say about the modern system
of food production and distribution.
There were some apparent omissions and confusions. For example, the
Green Revolution crops he mentions - the rice, maize and wheat hybrids
developed half a century ago that sent yields through the roof in Asia
and Latin America - were not products of genetic technologies but of
conventional cross-breeding.
True, problems are now arising with the crops in some areas with water
shortages - they are heavy on irrigation - and soil degradation. But the
Prince does not mention that the Green Revolution changed India from a
country that regularly needed liberal doses of food aid to one that was
self-sufficient and food secure.
Nevertheless, many of the issues he raises - pressure on small-scale
farmers, the hunger of modern farming methods for water, food security -
are all too real in some parts of the world.
Food production, and more especially food distribution, are increasingly
in the hands of giant multinational companies. Farming has already had
its industrial revolution in developed countries, and the developing
world is following suit.
For society and for the environment, this is a much bigger issue than
whether those industrialised farms are growing GM or non-GM crops.
Both mean increased use of pesticides and fertilisers, the trading of
machinery for human muscle and the consequent loss of labour compared to
traditional agriculture.
[image caption: GM crops have long been opposed by UK campaigners and
the public]
In Britain, where GM crops have never been widely grown, intensive
farming has been a factor behind a wide range of environmental ills
ranging from water pollution to biodiversity decline.
European and national schemes that encourage farmers to look after the
environment are repairing some of the damage.
Perhaps the most telling comments on the Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSE),
the biggest UK trial of GM crops, came after the event from
environmentalists who said what was really needed was a trial of
intensive versus non-intensive farming methods.
They could have added that such studies might not restrict themselves to
environmental questions; it would also be worthwhile investigating
social and economic questions, such as whether intensive or artisanal
farming benefits the entire economy more, rather than specific players
such as supermarkets, and trying to find some objective answers rather
than relying on the theologies of rival schools of economics.
Broken promises
Would the uptake of genetically modified crops across the world make
these issues worse?
Perhaps. There are conflicting studies from different areas - often
prepared by institutions with a vested interest - showing that GM crops
either produce higher or lower yields, need a higher or lower chemical
input, and generate higher or lower profits for farmers compared to
their conventional equivalents.
A few indisputable facts leap out, however. One is that commercial GM
farming is dominated by four crops - soybean, maize, cotton, and canola
- and has been wholeheartedly embraced by only a few countries, among
them the US, China, Argentina and Canada.
A second is that consumers in Europe do not want to eat GM food, which
is one reason why farmers in the EU and in regions supplying food to
Europe, especially Africa, are not going to be making a large-scale
switch any time soon.
A third - and the one most pertinent to Prince Charles' argument - is
that the people and institutions behind the technology have failed to
deliver on promises to right their original wrongs and develop strains
that would benefit people in poorer countries and loosen corporate
control.
Almost exactly four years ago, I was in Cologne, Germany to cover
the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (Abic).
Scientist after scientist (many of them working in the commercial
sector) told me how companies had messed up by appearing to force GM
products on an unsuspecting world, and how narrow the lines of research
had been.
A second wave of crops, they pledged, would bring things that people
actually wanted and needed, from drought-resistant rice for Africa to
vitamin-enhanced fruit for Europeans, and would largely used
technologies that did not involve transferring genes from one organism
to another.
On a commercial scale, these developments have not arrived.
Earlier the same year, at the Indian Science Congress in Chandigarh, I
listened to Indian scientists from the president down explain how
national research institutions were going to develop strains with traits
such as enhanced nutrition and salt resistance, and give them away to
farming communities.
That, also, has not happened.
The strains being grown commercially today have been engineered either
to help farmers control weeds through proprietary herbicides or to
reduce pest damage, and remain products jealously guarded by the
companies that market them.
Against this backdrop it is perhaps not surprising that many
commentators on Prince Charles' interview share his apparent view that
GM crops would only add to the woes of farmers and the hungry in poorer
countries.
But it is also possible to argue that as things stand, GM crops are
irrelevant to the wider patterns of increased corporate control of food
chains, the stubborn and enduring hunger felt by much of the developing
world, and the global trend of environmental decline.
|
