Despite deep public hostility in Britain, the UK Government is stepping up its campaign in favour of genetically modified foods. Masquerading as champions of progress and prosperity, ministers want European Union controls on GM produce to be drastically relaxed.
According to the Environment Secretary’s public relations spin, once these anachronistic restrictions are abolished and public scepticism and anxieties are overcome, then we will enter a brave new world of abundance.
The propaganda being put out by the UK Government remains hopelessly unconvincing. Far-fetched assertions and hyperbolic claims won’t feed the world, or protect our health. The hollowness of the ministerial case has been exposed with scientific argument as opposed to the Government’s flimsy, if not ridiculous claims, why the world needs genetically-modified foods. Owen Paterson’s assertions are nothing more than to promote the corporate profitability of elite biotech companies.
Paterson comes across as an ill-briefed, rather hysterical mouthpiece for the GM industry. He has tried to argue that science was on his side, yet he can only back up his arguments with outrageous emotional blackmail.
Melodramatic is one word that springs to mind. At one stage he argued that, without the acceptance of GM crops, young people in Asia ‘will go to bed blind and some will die’. Does Mr Paterson regard genetic modification as some kind of miracle cure?
Many will assume that Owen Paterson has resorted to such nonsense precisely because his case is so pitifully weak. GM technology is no panacea for the world’s ills. Even after almost two decades of its intensive use in large parts of the world, particularly the United States, there is scant evidence that it increases crop yields, assists global development or combats disease. The exact opposite is true.
There is now a growing amount of research demonstrating that genetic modification has the potential to cause serious health problems and widespread environmental degradation. Remaining sceptical is surely the right approach as we cannot be sure that GM food is safe to eat. Despite the scientific sophistication, genetic engineering remains a rather crude technique of manipulating biology.
The process involves moving genetic material across species barriers, which undoubtedly carries the risk of triggering unpredictable and irreversible changes in DNA, proteins and biochemical composition. It is radically different from all previous methods of improving plants and breeds.
The notion that such an approach can be completely safe is either dangerous wishful thinking, or a denial of reality motivated by vested commercial and political interests.
It is the pro-GM lobby who are seeking for the public to make a leap of faith. But as time has moved on, the case against genetic engineering becomes more persuasive.
Just this month, for instance, a report from Flinders University in Australia revealed that genetically modified food given to pigs may lead to severe stomach inflammations and far heavier uteruses, which can be an indicator of serious disease.
Some farmers claim that stomach inflammations and irritations can also lead to pigs becoming more aggressive. Farmers have reported that, for as long as GM crops have been in the food supply of animals, they have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in their livestock.
What is especially worrying is not that most of us eat pork, but that the digestive system of pigs is similar to that of humans.
The Australian report backs up other evidence about the health risks of GM technology. Studies on laboratory animals show that GM food can cause allergies and be toxic. Rats fed GM tomatoes, for instance, have developed stomach lesions, while new research from New Zealand has found that one GM wheat variety has the potential to cause liver disease.
Human health may also be threatened by the damage that genetic engineering inflicts on the balance of the environment’s delicate ecosystems. One of the most insidious aspects of genetic modification is that, contrary to the claims of being environmentally friendly, it actually encourages the aggressive use of herbicides.
The top-selling weedkiller glyphosate is marketed by the giant biotechnology company Monsanto as ‘Roundup’. This company is a leading campaigner for the relaxation of EU controls on genetic modification.
Monsanto has also developed a range of crops that are genetically resistant to glyphosate. This supposedly means that farmers can spray the herbicide over their land and kill all the weeds without damaging their crops.
Yet there is a real risk that the environment and the consumers could be the losers. Studies have shown that glyphosate leaves a dangerous residue on food, as well as leaching into the groundwater. Glyphosate exposure has been associated with birth defects, hormone imbalances, Parkinson’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.
What is more, the excessive use of glyphosate appears to have promoted the evolution of a destructive breed of ‘superweeds’. No fewer than 24 glyphosate-resistant weed species have been identified since Roundup-tolerant GM crops were introduced in 1996. Tampering with nature is leading to unforeseen consequences.
The arguments put forward by the GM-lobby even falter on increases to production. Their promises of even-higher yields are unfounded. What usually happens with genetic modification is an initial series of good harvests, followed by a dramatic decline. A study published just last week showed that for the production of maize, soy beans, oil seed rape and cotton, European non-GM crops have significantly outperformed American GM crops.
Far from representing exciting modernity, the irony is that genetic modification is unworkable, bankrupt technology. There are far better ways of driving progress in agriculture.
Scientists at Britain’s National Institute of Agricultural Botany, for example, have used a non-GM, natural process involving pollen from wild grass to produce a stronger, and more productive form of wheat. Early studies show that the yield could go up by 30 per cent.
Other organic, non-GM success stories include drought-resistant maize, blight-resistant potatoes, and a new variety of African rice which is four times as productive as traditional types.
This is where the future should lie. Non-GM technology has real promise, whereas genetic engineering has brought only failure and frustration.
Arts, reviews & current affairs 