| Slate published an article called The Four Barriers to the Genetically Modified-Food Revolution-and why no one is talking about them and I think it's pretty right on. Their reasons why we aren't using more GM seeds to solve world hunger?
1. Biotech companies aren't making the seeds for the right crops needed to solve world hunger. Most GM seeds are corn, soy, cotton, and canola ("Western cash crops" as dubbed by Slate). These seeds are designed for enormous, industrialized farms... common here in the U.S. but not for your average village in the developing world.
2. Poor farmers can't buy GM crops anyway! (And if the prices were dropped so they could, that's much less attractive to biotech firms)
By contrast, relatively little GM investment is going into the crops that do matter to poor farmers-cassava, sorghum, millet, pigeon pea, chickpea, and groundnut. These crops are more nutritionally balanced than corn or soybeans and are far better suited to the local soils and often-tough climates of poor nations. Yet, because poor farmers can't afford high-tech seeds, GM companies have little incentive to invest research dollars to improve "marginal" crops.
3. The properties of the GM crops aren't all that great... and the wonderful promises of the biotech firms are, well, a bunch of B.S. They are just like the old alchemists, trying to turn everything into gold. Genetic modification can do SOME things, but in many cases, you're just not going to beat Mother Nature at her own game.
GM companies also aren't being honest about what this technology can do-and what it can't. In the rush to exploit the current crisis, the industry routinely promises to re-engineer crops to give massive yields-Monsanto has vowed to double grain yields by 2030-or to grow with less water or to thrive in degraded soils.
4. We can do a lot more with current seeds that don't even require genetic engineering. Hallelujah! Read this paragraph!!! Finally! Someone gets it!!!!
In fact, many breeding experts believe that the fastest way to boost yields isn't by engineering new seeds but by exploiting the untapped potential of existing seeds. As Lamkey points out, the yields for corn and soybeans on America's top-performing farms are more than double the national average for those same crops. (In 2007, the top soybean farmer produced 154 bushels per acre, compared with the national average of around 41 bushels.) That means there is considerable room for improvement before these seeds are maxed out. These "top producers" aren't using different seeds; instead, they're benefiting from better soils, using better farming practices, and applying lots of water, fertilizer, and other chemicals-factors that GM technology won't influence anyway.
Here's one last fantastic quote I totally agree with:
And even if GM technology is shown to be safe, the industry needs to accept that many consumers may still choose not to eat genetically modified foods. That means no more lawsuits against food companies that market their food as "GM free." That also means no more lobbying against laws requiring that foods with GM ingredients be labeled as such. Consumers have a right to know what's in their food.
Amen to that! Yes, people have a right to know what's in their food. Plain and simple. Even if GMOs are safe, we have a right to know.
The last notable tidbit from this article... a clever pun. You've heard of the "Green Revolution" (a term that makes me feel sick to my stomach). The article speaks of a future "Gene Revolution." Great pun, scary thought. |
