|
Point of View with Barb
Sumner Burstyn - May 2003
Unresolved issues in GM debate leave potential
for disaster
I love a finely tuned argument, a sound justification or a well-debated
issue. I've even been known to swap sides in response to new information
or a reasoned defence.
So when I read about the first crops of genetically modified potatoes
planned for planting after October when New Zealand's GM moratorium
is lifted, I was at first dismissive. But by the end of the article,
ably reported for the Herald by Simon Collins, I was almost convinced.
First, there's the pesticide argument. Genetically modified crops,
in this case Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) infected potatoes will be
resistant to alien invaders, allowing farmers to cut back on pesticide.
In fact, biological controls will increasingly replace chemicals to
control all manner of pests and diseases.
That argument worked for me. After all, with around 3300 tonnes of
pesticides finding their way into our ecosystem annually, anything
that reduces them has to be a plus.
Then there's the productivity angle. GM crops will produce more for
less effort. Or as Lincoln University's Dr Colin Eady, from Crop and
Food Research, puts it, genetic modification allows for the production
of safe, sustainable and efficient food supplies.
Eady, who seems typical of New Zealand scientists, says his motivation
comes from a desire to reduce the harm done to the environment.
He believes his vision is complementary with a green viewpoint and
he quickly has me seeing the virtue of a world in which biotechnology,
and not poisons, is used to specifically deal with pests and disease
- a world that can provide plentiful nutritious and varied food with
reduced impact on natural environments and free of poisons like 1080,
varroa mites and painted apple moths; a world without possums; and,
most especially, a world able to deal with the problems of famine.
But ask Dr Suman Sahai about resolving famine through genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) and she's dismissive. Dr Sahai is part of
the Gene Campaign in India, an organisation dedicated to protecting
genetic resources, strengthening self-reliance in agriculture and
sustainable food production.
According to Dr Sahai, the first commercial Bt cotton in India, grown
under normal local conditions, either did poorly or failed altogether.
Even so, a report published in the reputable journal Science hailed
the crop a huge success.
Now here's the really disturbing part. The article, which is being
widely quoted, is based exclusively on data supplied by the company
that owns the Bt cotton, Mahyco Monsanto. To make it worse, the figures
were based on a few selected trial plots belonging to the company,
not farmers' fields.
But it's not only India. The antipathy to GM foods is spreading to
other Third World countries.
Last year Zambia refused 63,000 tonnes of GM corn from the United
States.
And across Africa there's a growing concern that the US is taking
advantage of famines to dump genetically modified foods on starving
populations, which, in turn, depresses prices and destroys local markets
Then there's the issue of the growing importance of organic produce.
Even though our own scientists want to believe they share the green
agenda, the organic brigade does not agree.
In short, with worldwide demand for organic produce rising at about
10 per cent a year, European consumers are rejecting GM food as if
it were the plague.
The American response to consumer rejection of GM is to blame tightened
European labelling laws for fuelling fear. In fact, Americans, just
like people in Africa and Europe, want to be able to make informed
choices about what they eat.
In February a collaborative study by 12 US universities found that
93 per cent of Americans wanted GM food labelling.
But under present regulations it's an offence to label food as genetically
modified.
That's because US food law recognises only outcome and not process
- so a tomato is a tomato no matter its composition or how it's grown.
There are many other areas of concern, from contamination of non-GM
crops and lack of compensation for the contaminated - in New Zealand
as in the US - to the compromising involvement of agribusiness in
pushing for and controlling the development of GM products and markets,
to fundamental concerns about GM safety.
For example, new research just in by scientists at Imperial College
London and the Universidad Simon Rodrigues in Caracas, Venezuela,
has found that Bt, the same naturally occurring poison that New Zealand
scientists are preparing to insert into potatoes - seems to be acting
as a "supplementary food protein", nourishing the pests they have
been specially engineered to kill.
According to the research, one of the key benefits of GM - crops that
come equipped with their own pesticide - is being radically undermined,
striking at the heart of genetic engineering in agriculture. The report
also suggests an even greater threat to organic farming than has been
envisaged.
Pete Riley, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth, said: "If we'd come
up with the suggestion that crops engineered to kill pests could make
them bigger and healthier instead, we'd have been laughed out of court."
Given all the loose ends of this debate and the safety and moral implications
of the development and use of GM, you have to ask why New Zealand,
a small, perfectly formed country, isolated in the middle of the South
Pacific, is rushing to embrace a technology that has the potential
to destroy its most compelling international advantage - being GM-free.
© Barbara Sumner Burstyn, 2003
Send your comments to:
Barbara Sumner
Burstyn.
|
