Genetically modifying our food: Part three

November 10, 1999 - Thousands of years of traditional plant breeding by farmers and scientists has created the food supply that we rely on today. Now, some scientists and corporations say that they can make our food even better through genetic engineering.

In parts one and two of this series on genetically modified (GM) foods, I discussed the known and unknown risks associated with using these novel organisms. But do we have a choice? Some argue that we need to engineer our food in order to keep up with world food demands. If we don't, they say, we'll be faced with food shortages and even starvation.

Right now 40,000 children are dying every day from disease related to malnutrition. That's appalling, but will GM food really help these children? Probably not. Many nations that are seriously affected by hunger are actually exporting food to developed nations. In fact, most food shortages are caused by political and social issues, not an overall lack of food production capacity.

What's more, the novel traits that are currently being engineered into food won't benefit the poor or the hungry at all. Biotechnology companies, looking for a profit, have concentrated on engineering crops that are used in processed foods and in livestock feed, resulting in products that will be eaten almost exclusively by people in wealthy nations.

Sometimes, the industry says it is just meeting consumer demand - that customers want better food products and the industry is filling a need. But are they? Last year the journal Science reported that a British survey found 77 per cent of respondents want GM food banned outright, and 61 per cent won't eat food if they know it's been genetically modified.

This kind of backlash has infuriated farmers who were promised big returns by the biotechnology industry. While some GM crops have produced higher yields (at least temporarily), others like soybeans are actually producing lower yields than conventional varieties. And demand for some GM products has plummeted, leaving farmers with a surplus harvest. Some are now even planning class-action lawsuits against the biotechnology companies for misrepresenting their products.

So, genetic modification poses unknown risks to ecosystems and human health. The benefits to many farmers are not being realized. There are no clear benefits to consumers who, when asked, don't seem to want the products anyway, and GM crops won't solve world food shortages. Then what is the point of investing so much energy, money and other resources in this technology? Profit. Biotechnology companies have spent billions of dollars on researching these new life forms and they want to see that investment returned, with interest.

What should be done? Well, we need better and more systematic testing of these organisms before releasing them into nature, and we need mandatory product labelling. We need to slow down and take a hard look at what is motivating us to leap ahead with revolutionary, uncertain and largely unnecessary technology. But that doesn't mean research shouldn't continue. If humans continue to change the climate and otherwise degrade the resources of this planet as we currently are, sadly there may be a day when the need, for example, for a drought-resistant crop or a more nutritious rice, may outweigh the risk. We should be ready.

But until then we should really be asking ourselves why there is such a rush to engineer new crops and push for another "Green Revolution". The last revolution did increase agricultural productivity, but at a terrible cost in terms of soil erosion, water pollution, a loss of biodiversity and the exacerbation of food inequities. Now, in the profit-inspired rush to unleash exciting new technologies, we've forgotten that there may be better alternatives that don't carry substantial risks. If we really want to address world hunger, we need to look at its underlying causes. We're fooling ourselves if we think we can solve social and political problems with technological fixes.