TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Column: GM crops aren’t just about science – this is a political decision

Genetically modified crops aren’t just a matter for scientists – their use says something about big corporations and the rest of us, writes Fergal Anderson.

Fergal Anderson

THE RECENT DECISION to give the go-ahead to field trials GM potatoes in Carlow set off a little storm of debate over the scientific benefits (or not) of GM crop cultivation. However, the introduction of GMOs into the Irish environment is a bigger issue than just a question of ‘making the right decisions based on sound scientific research’.

GM crops are highly politicised, because they affect the relationship our society has with the production of food to feed its people – and for those of us here in Ireland and Europe lucky enough to eat three square meals a day, that means nearly everyone. An issue which affects our food system, our environment and the livelihoods of people working in our food and agriculture sectors is an issue for all of us. And that means it is political, and not just a question of good or bad science.

Citizens and farmers have expressed their opposition to GM agriculture. Consumers across Europe have reiterated their opposition in Eurostat polls and through direct action on GM crop fields in France, Belgium, Italy and Spain. In Europe and internationally La Via Campesina, the world’s largest movement of farmer’s organisations which counts on upwards of 300 million members, has repeatedly rejected GM technology. So if farmers – who produce our food – and consumers who eat it are opposed to GM food and the agricultural model it represents, who exactly is pro-GM?

Huge profits

The answer of course, is the companies which stand to make huge profits from any expansion of GM agriculture, transferring the control of seeds and food production from farmers and consumers to transnational corporations and industries and surrendering all public or community control over what kind of food we eat and who benefits from its production. This means not just seed companies, but fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide producers and international trading agencies. This process is already under way – 10 companies now control as much as 70 per cent of the seed market. It is a process which must be reversed, not facilitated by the Irish government and its agencies.

On top of this, GM crops are patented. They are the intellectual property of the companies which develop them, meaning farmers cannot save the seed from their own crop. In extreme cases (such as in Canada) farmers whose crops have been contaminated by GMOs have been forced to pay royalties on their contaminated seed. Even in Europe, the ‘polluter pays’ principle has been reversed, as organic farmers have been forced to pay to test their crops for GM contamination.

In Ireland unfortunately the debate seems to centre around the issue of ‘scientific progress’ as government and public figures appear to believe that the rejection of any new technology will make them seem conservative or lacking faith in scientific advancement. This position perhaps comes from a wider malaise in our society which seems to assume that science can do no wrong. Science has a vital role to play in our society, but it should focus on solving the cause of problems, not continuing to only try and mitigate their effects.

Social solutions

The problems we now encounter internationally – be they climatic instability, hunger, biodiversity loss or economic and financial crises – cannot necessarily be solved solely by science alone. Often what is required is the reorganisation of our society’s structures and systems so they place priority on sustainability and the common good as opposed to profit – and not the application of the latest techno-fix. GM crops are not necessary, and numerous viable alternatives exist.

Ireland is ideally placed to implement agro-ecological, input-free farming systems which can produce high quality as opposed to high quantity food for the Irish people. This means rejecting the paradigm of GM agriculture and embracing agricultural systems which work with as opposed to against nature.

Internationally (including in the Civil Society Mechanism of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the UN) the tide is shifting away from a heavily industrialised, input dependent model of agriculture. Instead the move is towards local, agro-ecological (low to zero-input) farming which supports food for people, not profits for private interests. Irish citizens – and our government – need to think long and hard about what social or economic benefits GM farming can provide in the short, medium and long term to our little island, let alone to our children and grandchildren.

A decision to grow GM crops – be they in a “controlled trial” or not – means Ireland turning its back on the idea of a future where farmers work with their environment and not against it, and where communities, citizens and farmers ensure that healthy food is produced for with and by the people who need it.

Our food and agricultural systems are too important to be left in the hands of transnational corporations. The food we eat and how our society produces it are issues we all need to be aware of. GM is no exception – it affects you too.

Fergal Anderson is a member of La Via Campesina.

Read next:

Comments (77 Comments)

  • Just like Monsanto and the ” terminator seeds” these seeds were given out free to some farmers in India, the grew the crop and what happens ??? No seeds on that crop so ya have to buy the seeds next time round, poorer countries will starve , as their income is their crop, vicious circle and another way of big business culling the human populous ( not a conspiracy theorist) GM foods in theory is a good idea, a crop,that is resistant to disease and blight etc etc but not a good idea when the fat cats have the monopoly on the seed.

    Reply
    • Sorry now but I fundamentally disagree with you that crops being resistant to disease is a good thing. Same story as overuse of antibiotics globally. Some day some massive virus / bug will become resistant to everything we place in their way and wreak havoc. The world and its produce is supposed to fit our existence and it does, why the need to constantly tamper with nature?

      Reply
    • Fair point diarmuid

      Reply
  • Great piece. I was amazed to hear we were even entertaining the notion of GM trials in Ireland. The one trusted product we have in Ireland is our food, naturally grown and of high quality and yet someone thinks throwing all this away so corporations can introduce their patented seeds etc in Cavan is a good idea? If anyone thinks GM is a good idea I’d advise you to watch some of the docs that have been done on how the Americans are getting on with industrialised food production and how it is affecting their agricultural industry, maybe start with Food Inc?

    Reply
  • It seems always about the scarcity of food. Look at the supermarkets they dump tons of food every week, we have enough green fields on this Island to grow shed loads of food. MONSANTO out please our be prepared to thrown out !!

    Reply
    • Food supply and production is a global issue not just about Ireland. One fifth of the worlds powdered baby milk is produced in Ireland but we import all our rice, soya, coffee, oranges etc..

      Reply
  • For anyone in any doubt as to how dangerous the GM industry is go and and look up The World According To Monsanto a full length documentary on youtube. Listen to the farmers tell how it really is. If this goes ahead Irelands agriculture will never be the same again. We should be promoting GM free, organic produce. We have prime farmland and loads of unused space that could be cultivated. That should be our way forward. I do want to eat vegetables that have human or animal DNA in them. In America cross over contamination into different species of crops is occurring and plant mutations are appearing imagine what mutations.could occur in human DNA over time. This is not scare mongering this is fact some basic searching on the internet will bring up loads of reports. I also dont want our farmers being held to ransom by corporations dictating what and how things are grown. Ireland is a small country the risk of contamination of organic crops by GM seeds is too great. The risk to organic farmers that their livelihoods could be destroyed is an obvious one. I am all in favour of scientific advancements where they do good but for our food and for Ireland this decision the wrong one.

    Reply
    • I hate to break it t you, but you already eat ‘human’ DNA (that is, genes that occur in the human genome) in essentially all the food you eat. Mother nature tends to reuse genes that work, and thus genes that occur in one species tend to reoccur in at least some others, either through a common ancestor, naturally occurring horizontal gene transfer between species or convergent evolution. On top of that, most of our food animals are mammals, and thus quite close to us. That’s why pig organs work in humans, and why insulin can be gathered from sheep. Even the humble banana shares 50% of it’s genome with humans (depending on how you measure similarity). After all, if all life on Earth didn’t share a common genetic library, then genetically modified organisms wouldn’t even be possible.

      Reply
  • Why try fix something that is not broken but thriving ? The fact these crops are made so they do not produce seed is enough for me , total control, total profit , turn off someone’s food supply in an instance. No thank you Monsanto !!

    Reply
    • True and this is often done under the banner of helping the third world

      Reply
    • And this is often done under the banner of helping the third world

      Reply
    • Hi Johnnathan – sorry, replying to you all over the place ;-) Seedless plants are not unique to GM crops – any cross breed that produces a triploid plant will be infertile – that how we get seedless grapes, water melons and so on. This actually occurs naturally all the time, but humans breed them sometimes as well. An example would be the common banana – a triploid developed almost 200 years ago. Opposing GM won’t stop triploid species I’m afraid… Though we could use GM techniques to get the similar benefits from species without also making them infertile ;-) In fact, the terminator gene is entire optional. If we could create a law to ban GMO’s, we could just as easily create one to ban the terminator gene (though there are good reasons why we might want a terminator gene)

      Reply
  • GM foods are inherently wrong. Do a bit of research before you start thinking things like the world is running out of space. Do you know how many stock piles of food are going to waste as it is? Government controlled food is wrong, they control too much. They made a political decision to poison our water with fluoride which causes cancer. What will they do to the food? I say look at america. Its bad enough the EU tells our farmers what to grow, but if you let a corporation control them things you get profit based production with little moral good. Look at pepsi’s use of aborted foetus cells to test flavours. We should demand that GM foods be banned . But this is Ireland, GM foods sounds interesting and cool. If it was called (as it should be) government controlled corporate food slavery. You wouldn’t be that quick to like it.

    Reply
  • Reply
  • Hang on a minute – the issue of patents in commercial farming isn’t related to GMO’s. The first patents on plant varieties, including control of seeds, cuttings, etc. are almost a century old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act
    Most of the commercial plants we grow, in Ireland, the US, and elsewhere, are heavily hybridized corporate produced crops, and laws already exist to control the use of their seeds, and farmers rights to replant. These seed laws are mostly from the 60′s, well before GMOs became available commercially: http://www.grain.org/article/entries/456-seed-laws-imposing-agricultural-apartheid
    While I’m not saying GMOs will have no impact on farming practices, by placing such emphasis on these issues in the above article you’re suggesting that these issues are somehow uniquely applicable to GM crops, when they’re clearly not. On top of that, the first GM crops will be out of patent in 2014 – patents don’t last forever, after all.
    I’m not going to get into the science of it, but it’s pretty clear that the ability to manipulate crops and organisms accurately (we have been doing it inaccurately for centuries) at the genetic level has tremendous potential in food production, environmental protection and medicine. That’s why controlled trials such as those in Carlow are necessary and to be lauded – regardless of which opinion you may have of GMO’s, more information on what the real benefits and pitfalls are (or aren’t) can only be helpful, right?

    Reply
  • We are already ingesting Monsanto poisons in potatoes grown here , the farmers ( guardians of the countryside!) spray a chemical on the stalks similar to roundup which obliterates the stalks before harvest , the potatoes suck nutrients from the stalks in the final stages of growth so anything sprayed on the stalks ends up in our spuds … Agent orange for dinner anyone ?
    No wonder we have so much cancer in Ireland …
    Check out ” the world according to Monsanto ” on YouTube

    Reply
  • I think banning the food as a concept based on what might happen with the implementation of policy would be silly. Cars are lethal, but far less so since we have laws and systems for their use along with standards of production.
    That said, I dont think anyone who has looked at and understood the concept of GM food believes it cant be safe but thats not the point Im interested in defending here.
    My reason for posting: Documentaries are not credible as facts in a debate of this sort. They are great as a thing to make you think but ultimately the only things anybody should be basing their facts on are peer reviewed articles (with meta analyses if available) and legal case histories. Anecdotal evidence is at worst dangerous and the people you are trying to convince will dismiss it as useless. The people who buy it were probably on the fence or in your corner already.
    The assertion of a few posts and indeed the article is that the majority of people are blindly following ‘science’ (science is not a process or an agenda, its a process, the most effective one we have so far discovered). The posts here and the green-red thumb ratio suggests that this is not necessarily the case (though its hard to tell from a small, possibly biased sample).
    I would like to see an article on the topic from a qualified and articulate person to counteract the easy soundbytes and over emotional arguments people can have when they aren’t bogged down by facts. Someone similar to The Guardians Ben Goldacre as a regular Journal contributor would be fantastic

    Reply
  • for our kids sake we shouldn’t let this happen . .we have the highest cancer rates in the world . .we should stay organic . .monsanto wants to take over the world seed supply to farmers. . . .

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_monsanto.htm

    all about gmo foods . . . .http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood.htm

    Reply
  • This is a terrible unbalanced article which uses emotional arguments and language to discuss scientific issues. There are many benefits to using GM and Anderson appears unaware of all them, or at least, doesn’t seem to want his readers to be aware of them. GM can reduce farming costs and the environmental damage caused by farming by producing crops which grow faster, which produce higher crop yields, which have increased resistance to disease, which need fewer pesticides, which can withstand extremes of weather and better protect themselves from predators and parasites. GM crops can also provide increased levels of human nutrients like iron + vitamins and open up entire new farming opportunities by growing organisms which produce products like plastics, vaccines etc which must otherwise be produced by energy-intensive chemical industries. And so on.

    It’s good that theJournal provides an opportunity for one side of the debate to air its views. I trust that the scientific side will be allowed to speak too.

    Reply
    • @robin all these benefits are just bull***, the end game robin is total control over our food supply by big corporations….now tell me Robin what massive problems do we have here with production ? It is our biggest export, it would be suicide to let these money grabbing sucmbags into this country. God gave us this world whay in the hell are we messing with god’s work ? Not good enough ? Bad job ?

      Reply
    • Ya cause food production and feeding your young etc is all about science! Food production is one of the most natural things on the planet and already we produce enough food in Ireland to feed 10 times our population. Why in the name of God would we need to increase yields or speed up crops tell me?

      Reply
    • What you are actucally saying is quite scary…….”growing organisms which produce products like plastics ” what ? this is a hellish thought..

      Reply
    • Robin, please do your homework before you make such comments. There is plenty evidence that all the advantages you’re mentioning are either not true, not scientific proven or so small that they make no real difference. You are also mixing up GM done in laboratories under controlled conditions with growing GM crops in an uncontrollable natural evironment. While the former has brought great progress in many applications the same cannot be said (yet) for the latter.
      There might be, in long term, a case for GM crops. But, and this is a BIG but, as we don’t know enough lets have a moratorium on growing GM crops to allow more time for research before we release something we can never call back.

      Reply
    • cany you provide case studies to your post please?

      Reply
    • Hi Johnnathan. Producing plastic products from plants isn’t actually that scary at all – you might just be thinking of plastics as ‘unnatural’ in some way, and therefore the idea of mixing that with plants seems wrong. However, you know all those biodegradable plastics that make up shopping bags, plastic forks, packaging peanuts, etc? They’re almost all produced from starch or naturally occurring oils in totally ‘normal’ non GM crops such as rape and potatoes. Plastics are just polymers; long chains of molecules that stick to each other in long chains – you can get them from loads of places.

      Reply
  • Norman Borlaug is spinning in his grave so fast at the all natural baloney you idiots are spouting.
    “However, the introduction of GMOs into the Irish environment is a bigger issue than just a question of ‘making the right decisions based on sound scientific research”
    Screw rational thought eh?

    Reply
  • ***Duh.
    Should have said science is not a MOVEMENTt or agenda its a process.

    Reply
  • Well Fergal ticks some good boxes there:

    Big Corporations – BAD
    Small plucky individuals – GOOD

    Fantastic.

    Only … erm … let’s just stick another lentil burger in the oven and thinks about this … well what about the old oil situation?

    I’m guessing:

    Fracking – BAD
    Sustainable biofuels – GOOD

    But for sustainable biofuels we need more grain, and we need more grain for food too so rising prices?

    Rising Grain Prices – BAD

    So we increase yields as we have for hundreds of years, by the interference of science and breeding better, hardier grains and then science says we can make it even better, even hardier, by applying science to the genetics, how about that?

    Oh no. You can’t do that, the only people who can afford the research into doing stuff like that are corporations and y’know:

    Big Corporations – BAD

    Oh dear.

    Reply
  • There have NEVER Been long term studies on the effects of GM products on the human species. Any tests which were done were done by corporations such as monsanto. NO independent studies were done in the US to get GM food pushed through the FDA. When studies were done in the UK and Russia top scientists in their field found after a very short time rats and i think Guinea pigs developed brain tumors and infirtility. GM food has also been linked to the high rates of cancers in the western world.
    Calafornia has pushed through the labelling of GMOs and are now trying to ban the growing of such crops in their state. Why the irish government is allowing the growing of GMOs even as a test trial makes me extremily angry. ireland is known for its agriculture worldwide. Such decisions will affect the business in the future. There are a million other reasons as to why they should be banned completly in ireland.. I challange anyone to give me one good reason as to why they should be grown anywhere in the first place.
    Please get onto the minister of agriculture and demand this to stop and ensure banning of these products in the future.
    Minister of agricultures private secretery is kevin galligan
    Email josephine.hourican@agriculture.gov.ie
    Ask for answers !!

    Reply
  • Its the same technology so no i dont agree with it. You change the DNA of the crop when you genetically modify it. This means the corn you eat is not actually corn, its something else. Our bodies believe this a poison as it does not recognise it. There needs to be long term studies done in labs where the crops cannot cross pollinate with other non GM crops. These have yet to be done and humans should not trust anything which is GM. Experts and scientists fighting against GM food believe at least another 20 years of testing needs to be done. All im asking is for safety and clarity in what we and our children eat.

    Reply
    • I’m sorry Sinead, that’s not quite what’s happening. The DNA of any particular plant is altered every time it’s cross bread, and to a lesser degree every time it reproduces. DNA copy errors also occur all the time and alter the DNA of an organism, but are usually so small that they have no real effect on the organism as a whole. This is why some dogs are larger or smaller than other dogs – there DNA was altered through selective to choose certain traits over other traits. They same is true for plants such as corn – it’s DNA has been vastly altered from it’s natural state through DNA alteration by selective breeding over thousand of years of human intervention. Natural corn probably originated in Mexcio around 7,000 years ago, is very small and like many varieties of wild corn possibly produced black kernels rather than the yellow ones we think of today. By altering it’s DNA through selective breeding we created what we think of today as corn.
      On top of this, every variety of corn, maize, barley, etc. has a distinct genome which makes it a different species – your body can’t actually tell what genome it’s eating. Rather than detecting the genes of the corn, or whatever, your body just processes the nutrients, etc. that those genes have caused to occur in the plant. Your body won’t treat GM corn made through direct genetic modification (as opposed to regular, selectively bred corn) any differently. It doesn’t, indeed couldn’t, ‘recognise’ this corn as being intrinsically different. It’s just a bunch of nutrients, chemicals, etc. as far as your body is concerned, and will be treated appropriately.
      This doesn’t mean that all GM is safe – indeed a lot of GM is specifically designed to make plants less safe for parasites and insects – but there is nothing intrinsically different about a GM plant containing X specific genes and a ‘natural’ plant containing the same genes. All plants are essentially defined by their genome, and HOW those genes got there doesn’t effect how the plant grows – only WHAT genes are there. Again, I concur that testing is needed, which is why I think the test in Oak Park is a pretty modest and appropriate proposal.

      Reply
  • Damocles 23/08/12 #

    People seem to be playing up the GM food aspect. But what about bio fuels?

    What if for bio fuels we use the GM wheat, with its higher yields and its non seeding crops?

    Then we get cheap biofuels. Or we could just get at the remaining oil by fracking. Keen on fracking are we? No?

    Reply
  • This article is so one sided. I predict we will have a global famine within 50 to 100 years. I really think we should be investing now in GM for grandchildren. There is limited land on this planet. Some people would rather we cut down all our rain forests to produce palm oil rather than grow GM crops on existing cultivated land.

    Reply
    • Global famine eh? If the corporations get control of the seed supply and we are still reliant on food being manufactured half way around the globe and being transported here by burning oil, yeah, you are probably right. Whereas if we stop covering the soil with concrete and cultivate the unused space, literally everywhere around us, then that is highly unlikely.

      Reply
    • If you think this is about feeding the worlds poor you are seriously deluded. Since when did the powers that be ever care about the needy and hungry, this is about control, power and money. People need to wake up to the era we are entering for humanity. As Karl Marx put it 150 years ago when technology catches up with human labour in a capitalist society humanity better watch out because we will be very expendable. We should follow France’s lead and ban this crap. A point to note that all GM seeds are alumnium resistant. People that know whats going on will understand that.

      Reply
  • Well the European Union has been influencing African nations to stear clear of American aid packages in the past fe years. The aid packages involved GM seeds which were genetically tailored to re resistant to drought and produce large amounts of food. However Europe has discouraged there use. If this is not a completely disgusting use of influence i dont kow what is. GM foods are better for you easier to grow and in the long run more efficient. This scare tactic farmer talk relates to the fear you might lose control.

    Reply
    • Where is the proof of increased yields with GM??? I think the well documented 2 – 4% on various crops are not worth taking all the risks associated with growing GM crops. Where are drought-resistant crops, please. Where is the proof that ” GM foods are better for you” ???? There is increasing evidence that the opposite is the case.
      Making sweeping statements is not helping the discussion!

      Reply
  • farmers have been growing crops be it potatoes,cabbage,pea,s or whatever for thousands of years sometime,s there,s a cross-pollination which results in a better/more viable plant.
    the end result can be used by the grower to get more via the seeds the plant produces but with GM seeds etc that is not the case you have to keep buying more from the the big multi-nationals whose only concern is $$$$ and not the consumers health no matter what you believe its all about $$$$$$$$$$.
    Ireland should stay free off these abominations.
    question ??
    is Irelands bailout depending on these german trials it is BASF that doing the trials isnt it .
    makes you wonder/think doesnt it .
    we dont need GM foodstuffs.
    CHRIST just how can a plant be drought resistant all plants including CACTI need water( H2O)
    if it looks like a duck walks like a duck quacks like a duck our gobdaw regional government of the eu(note the non use of capital letters)in the dail will try to convince you its a hamster

    Reply
  • All this take of food monopolies is a bit misdirected.
    Far as I know, Teagasc doesn’t develop varieties for patent, correct?

    Aren’t they responsible for breeding ‘Rooster’ potatoes, which accounts for about 60% of the Irish potato market. Presumably they aren’t getting royalties from everyone growing them.
    Surely any potato developed by Teagasc through these trials will be treated similarly

    Reply
  • Chris ; you may have seen this /Indie http://bit.ly/PvGgiT

    Reply
  • studies on rats for 10 days which were fed GM potatoes by a top scientist produced these results… pre cancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, smaller brains, livers and testicles and imune system damage… Only after 10 days ! Rats fed normal potatoes were fine.
    Are you also aware that to get GMOs approved by the FDA. Micheal taylor the person in charge of policy at the FDA was a monsanto former lawyer was put in that position as the bush admin was instructed to promote biotechnology. Come on ! Its pretty obvious GM food is dangerous to humans more testing needs to be done before they end up on our plate and we should have the right to decide if we want to eat them or not. I am scientist but the evidence is pretty clear to me.

    Reply
    • Meant to say i am Not a scientist

      Reply
    • Damocles 23/08/12 #

      “i am Not a scientist”

      Really?

      You’ve been referring to the work of Arpad Pusztai, the results and methodology of which are hotly disputed. Wide ranging tests by the EFSA have not supported his claims.

      Reply
    • I did read that study after you mentioned it earlier – it’s interesting, but not terribly compelling. For example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/13/gm-corn-leads-to-organ-failure-not-so-fast/
      The journal it was published in is a fairly small one with no impact factor, and did not peer review the paper. Further, in the words of the researchers themselves: “Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity”

      So I don’t think it’s conclusive, maybe even a little suspect. If those corns does cause organ failure, it would be important to find out why – again, the act of genetically modifying things itself doesn’t make them dangerous. We know this from centuries of doing exactly that. We’d need to, instead, look at which genes were causing the problem, if indeed it exists in this case. Which brings us around again to doing more studies.

      Reply
  • Yes i know who i have been quoting, he was also stripped of his title and a gag order was put on him because the results he gave were not what the american government wanted to hear. A bit severe for pointing out what he found ?Look there countless studies worldwide which show that GM food is not yet ready for human consumption. I dont see why we cant spend more time investigating the effects before they land on our plate.

    Reply

Add New Comment