Debate
GMOs
Biotechnology remains in the news, as it should. It has been referred to as the science with the greatest potential for good in the twenty-first century. But the benefits claimed for agriculture are increasingly being questioned: "Benefits for whom?" and "At what risk to consumers and to the environment?" New Agriculturist presented the subject for Debate in its first issue and returns to the subject a year later as a storm of controversy has near overwhelmed the subject in the UK media, with similar points being made elsewhere in some other European countries. Among the concerns are: Is enough known to dismiss claims of possible risks to consumers? What safeguards are there to prevent escape of bio-engineered genes into wild species? Is the pressure to gain public acceptance for GMOs without delay driven by commercial imperatives to achieve payback on the very substantial investments already made in biotechnology? Will the technology concentrate commercial power in a handful of international agri-businesses and what would be the impact on farmers in the tropics? New Agriculturist welcomes your opinions.
The European debate on genetically modified (GM) food has taken a dramatic turn with an eminent
group of international scientists verifying research concluding its consumption could be
potentially dangerous to human health... Up until now the scientific community has been virtually
united in favour of the introduction of GM food into the human food chain..... Commodity traders
said the new findings would cause further uncertainty to the commodities trade.
Public Ledger Feb 15-21, 1999
Genetic engineering could turn out to be the greatest gift science has to offer the next
century. It is vastly more precise than cross-breeding, which has been used for centuries to alter
the genetic make-up of plants and animals... The resistance of consumers, however, is at present
developing faster than the science itself. Governments have to demonstrate that regulation, on
approvals and on labelling, is no less adequate than it is for the drugs industry.... If
politicians do not reassure the public, the pressure for a ban may become irresistible. That would
not be in humanity's best interest.
The Times, Feb 13 1999
There is a case for calling a halt (i.e. a moratorium) if only to allow time for the fog to
lift. Let's be clear: genetically modified food may turn out to be one of the great
achievements of the C20th. It may help to feed the poorer parts of the world by producing crops
that grow in drought or salt conditions. But because of its very nature - manipulating the life
process itself - it involves a huge leap into the unknown that could have truly fearsome
consequences. It is for this reason that new products must be tested in a far more rigorous and
independent way even than other food products. The understandable desire of pioneering corporations
to get an early return on the vast sums they have invested must not stand in the way of protecting
the consumer.
The Guardian, Feb 12, 1999
I think we have lost control of the debate. We have been slow in educating the public and its
got to the point where the interest groups such as Greenpeace and others really are leading....I
look at the world situation and think going into the 21st century without GM food would be like
going into a ring with one hand tied behind one's back - it's unthinkable. I cannot see
how we can produce the food we need in the world in the next 25 years without it.
Prof. Mike Gale, Director, John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK quoted from Eastern Daily Press, Feb.
15, 1999
Industry tells us that genetic engineering will be good for us. The environmental lobby tells us
it will be bad for us. And we are all supposed to take sides. I refuse to take sides. My position
is that some genetic engineering could be good; some could be bad; and that we should shape policy
so that we have the good and not the bad. That is the way we have tried to treat every other
technology since time began, and it has delivered us great benefits. Yet, hewing to such a middle
line is increasingly hard.
Matt Ridley, Daily Telegraph, Feb 15 1999
Our knowledge of genetics is still far too rudimentary and the technology far too crude for the
release of GMOs in the environment and their entry into the food chain to be justified. The only
current 'safe' use for GMOs is under industrial conditions for medical applications.
Michael Antoniou, Microbiologist, Farmers Weekly, 12 Feb 1999
The reality is that in the next 15 to 20 years the population of the world is going to grow by
45%. To feed that extra population we are going to have to grow up to 75% more food on each acre
than we do today... Chemicals on their own are not enough. Biotechnology is not the answer either,
but it is one of the tools.
Hugh Grant, Co-president, Agriculture Division, Monsanto, Sunday Telegraph, Feb 21 1999
Solving hunger is not simply a matter of developing new technologies....If poor farmers cannot afford expensive "modern" technologies, no amount of GM technology developed by companies or research establishments seeking to make a financial return will make any difference for them. But things could be different if farmers had alternatives that were cheap, renewable from year to year, and yet still improved their productivity...
Thousands of community-level initiatives are now showing that if farmers are involved in
technology development they can substantially improve the food outputs from farming without
damaging nature. Many of these countries are pointing to an alternative future, with sufficient
food outputs from farming without damaging the environment. Such a future may involve some GM
technology (such as nematode resistant bananas or virus resistant rice) provided we are convinced
these are safe, do not damage the environment, and that they are supplied to farmers at low or zero
cost.
Jules Pretty, Director, Centre of the Environment and Society, University of Essex, Colchester,
The Guardian, 24 Feb, 1999
The public, and the consumers of these products, need to be reassured that all relevant test
results are independent. Perhaps biotechnology companies should allocate more of the money they
spend persuading farmers of the efficacy of their GMO products to educating the public about the
production of GMOs and their safety. The public would become familiar with an issue which many
scientists sees as a great achievement of contemporary agricultural science. Many of us in the
farming business welcome that achievement, but we reserve the right to be sceptical. We don't
reject it, but we do recognise that it is controversial and that the public has a right to more
information on it.
Pantelis Elia Zoiopoulos, Forum, New Scientist, 21 November 1998
People are entitled to worry about the possible health risks of eating GM foods sold in
supermarkets, but they should also bear in mind that in developing countries, where one in seven
adults and one in three children are chronically malnourished, the ultimate health issue is whether
people who do not have enough to eat now, will be helped or harmed in the future by the widespread
introduction of GM crops.....If we are to decide whether GM foods are part of the problem, or the
solution to, the world's hunger crisis, we need a well-informed, accurate debate that will
address the global issues, not hype and scare-mongering about monster tomatoes in our local
greengrocer's.
Kitty Warnock, co-author of 'Greed or Need? Genetically Modified Crops' (See In Print)
The Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), an attached agency of the Department of Agriculture, stresses the need for national support for research and development efforts in biotechnology which will strengthen the country's chance of attaining food security.
The Institute's stand was made in reaction to a resolution filed by Sen. Gregorio Honasan
calling for a moratorium on the conduct of genetic engineering researches in the country. PhilRice
contends that "If properly managed, biotechnology can play an essential role in supporting the
economic and social development of both industrial and developing countries."..Speaking on
behalf of PhilRice, deputy director for R&D Dr. Leocadio S. Sebastian, says that a moratorium
on biotechnology research and development will be a big set back for the country. "It will
greatly affect our ability to increase agricultural productivity and be competitive in our
agriculture."
The Philippine Star, Feb 7 1999
Indian farmers have maintained a reliable and diverse seed supply over millennia. Today, the foundation of this sustainable and secure agriculture is threatened as global chemical corporations are invading the countryside, replacing agricultural diversity with vulnerable /monocultures of hybrids and genetically engineered seeds which need more pesticides and herbicides.....While the benefits of globalisation go to the seed and chemical corporation through expanding markets, the cost and risks are exclusively born by small farmers and landless peasants.
The seed companies have not moved into regions where hybrid seeds from corporations are failing,
experimenting with genetically engineered seeds. In June 98, field trails of genetically engineered
Bt cotton were begun in 40 locations in 9 states. No permission was given before the planting of Bt
cotton... The GM trials show that genetic engineering is not entering agriculture through the
freedom of choice of producers and consumers. It is sneaking in through stealth. The corporate push
for rushing genetically engineered seeds to fields is threatening democracy and freedom in
fundamental ways....But it is not the "No to GMO that is the real strength of the Indian
movement. Its strength is in reclaiming farmers' freedom by saving their varieties or
indigenous seeds and conserving the diversity of Indian food systems by the conservation of
biological richness in agriculture."
Vandana Shiva, The Guardian, 17 Feb, 1999
The promotion of GM crops is likely to increase the tendency to monocropping with a limited
range of genetically uniform commercial varieties. If the local varieties around the world are lost
as a result of the spread of commercial varieties, the range of genes available to feed the world
is drastically reduced.
Greed or Need? Genetically Modified Crops
"There is a need for further development of internationally agreed principles on risk
assessment and management of all aspects of biotechnology, which should build upon those developed
at the national level. Only when adequate and transparent safety and border-control procedures are
in place will the community at large be able to derive maximum benefit from, and be in a much
better position to accept the potential benefits and risks of, biotechnology".
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Agenda 21 16.9
Biosafety as currently discussed in the CBD (Convention for Biodiversity) refers to
environmental and human health safeguards concerning living modified organisms (LMO) produced by
modern biotechnology. Biosafety protocols should eventually strive to protect resources for food
and agriculture, while allowing for their sustainable use, development of international trade and
their commercialisation.
FAO and the Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity
