Seven Questions on Genetically Modified (GM) Crops

From the Heartland, Margot McMillen writes: In the UK, The Campaign for Real Farming has been asking questions about genetic manipulation of agricultural crops. Their answers, written by Colin Tudge, are long and elegant, and I’ll put the link to their answers on this blog. My answers are shorter, but, then, I’m closer to the problem and, looking at the GM fields that surround my farm, I don’t have as much time. The seven questions: 1. Their Question: After 30 years of intense effort and huge investment, can the genetically modified crop (GM) advocates offer any examples of GM food crops that have brought unequivocal benefit to humanity or to the world at large? My Answer: No. Food is not cheaper and farmers are not better off. Pests like weeds and worms have evolved to resist the most benign chemicals, so industry has to invent solutions that are worse for the environment. 2. Their Question: Assuming that the advocates of GM food can demonstrate unequivocal benefits, can they also show that those benefits could not have been achieved just as easily, at the same cost, in the same time, and without collateral damage by traditional means? My Answer: No. For centuries, farmers have solved problems one at a time, improving crops year by year by selecting good varieties and fighting pests as they came up. As fields have gotten bigger, stewardship and experimentation have declined. Farmers were persuaded that GM crops offered solutions, but it turns out that the solutions are temporary and just create more problems. 3. Their Question: Putting points 1 and 2 together, can the GM advocates demonstrate that the research on GM has been cost-effective? If the same amount of research effort and resource had been put into other approaches, could we not have achieved far more? My Answer: the problem is in the words “cost-effective.” It’s definitely cost-effective for the research corporations who have taken over the ecosystem and bent the patent laws to make their patented ownership of all plant life bullet-proof! 4. Their Question: Can we really be sure that GM crops are safe for our fellow creatures in the environment at large; or for consumers whether livestock or people? My Answer: No. In fact, they are not safe for the environment and we don’t know anything about safety for livestock or people. 5. Their Question: Taken all in all, do the advantages of GM really outweigh the perceived disadvantages and the conceivable risks? My Answer: For the corporations, yes. They have manipulated the patent laws so that they can sue farmers that save seeds. Even scientists that want to test the safety of seeds can be sued. 6. Their Question: Can we trust the GM advocates? Can we trust scientists who depend on commercial sponsorship? My Answer: Who’s we? If “we” are the industrial system, making money or gaining power, of course we trust them! If “we” are losing the fight for money or power, of course we can’t trust them. 7. Their Question: What is the real motive behind GM? My Answer: These agricultural experiments benefit major corporations. They exist to increase the power of corporations over the food system and, thus, farmers and the environment.