Island views

I originally wrote the piece below in response to an outrageous piece of GM propaganda published by the Guardian. You can read the original article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/01/gm-crops-technology

At least 175 regional governments, 3,500 local authorities and 1,000 smaller areas across 22 EU member states (+ Switzerland) have declared themselves GM Free zones. Opponents of GM crops include independent scientists, MEPs, farmers and people from all walks of life. To describe opponents of GM crops as “eco-warriors” is simply ludicrous. The only countries that widely use GM technolody are the US and Argentina, who happen to be the world largest producers of GM crops, representing about 70% of the World GM production.
Calling GM a “valuable technology” is somewhat of a moot point to say the least. What makes it valuable? Certainly not increased yields anyway: In April 2008, a Soil Association report showed that GM crops do not yield more, and sometimes yield less, than conventional crops.
Activists who oppose GM technology don’t need to look very far to find proof that GM crops damage the environment. There are numerous documented cases of contamination of conventional crops by GM material, traditional varieties of Mexican corn being the most notorious. Even the European Commission, Environment DG finally admitted on 11 December 2008 that wind-born pollen from GM crops can contaminate other plants. Indeed, a recent test in Germany showed that 11 out of 24 honeys were contaminated with GM pollen A Friend of the Earth report published in 2008 also shows that growing GM crops increases pesticide use quite substantially.
The rise in the price of grain, and particularly corn, is due mostly to the biofuel boom, and to the fact that the US, which is the world’s largest producer of corn, is heavily subsidizing the production of corn ethanol. Growing GM corn (and generally speaking, GM crops) won’t lead to cheaper prices, because the use of GM technology will not increase yields. Furthermore, GM crops are likely to be more expensive, not less, than conventional varieties, because they need more inputs (they use more pesticides) and because the seeds, which are patented, cost more and can’t be saved for sowing the following season.
One could also question the sustainability and morality of feeding corn and soya to animals (who are then slaughtered to feed the rich), while there are food riots in Mexico (where corn is a staple food). Traditionally, animals grazed land that was considered unsuitable for other agricultural purposes. Now a third of the grain world’s production goes to feeding animals. This grain (and soya) often travels long distances, contributing further to global warming. The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization has recently issued a report on global warming in which it states that livestock production is responsible for more climate change gasses than all the motor vehicles in the world.
Plants that resist attacks from pests and viruses can be produced by conventional breeding programs, and have been for a long time, and that there’s absolutely no need for GM technology there.
There’s much documented evidence of the harmful effects of GM crops. GM maize has been proven to reduces fertility in mice, to disturb the immune system of mice and to produce kidney, pancreas and liver damage in rats or lambs. So hinting at the supposed “health benefits” of GM crops is downright cynical. We don’t need genetically modified tomatoes to supply anti-oxidants in our diet, or GM rice to supply carrotene — there are many other, safer ways.
Although I vehemently oppose the use of GM crops. I don’t consider myself to be part of a “privileged elite who think there will be no problem feeding tomorrow’s growing population”. In fact, I firmly believe that there is a major food crisis looming.
This is not only because of a growing world population, but also because the effect of global warming on agriculture is likely to lead to decreased yields in the near future, and because fossil fuel depletion will deprive industrial agriculture of two of its most important inputs: labour (in the form of diesel to power it’s machinery) and artificial fertiliser (made mostly from natural gas). Another unfortunate side effect of  fossil fuel depletion has been the diversion of some food crops into biofuel production. Finally, changing dietary habits (increased meat consumption in both the developed and developing worlds) are having disastrous effects, because, basically, raising animals for their meat is a very wasteful way of producing food.
A major study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) concludes that organic farming (which bans GM crops completely) provides answers to feeding Africa.
Evidenlty, the solution to the looming food crisis is not, as the biotech industry would have us believe, to grow more GM crops. It is to change our diet, to eat less or no meat, and to eat only locally grown (preferably organic) food.

Christophe