 |
| photo courtesy of Economist.com |
"This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory."
The invitation is to either agree or disagree with this statement. The opposing sides are being led by Pamela Ronald, Plant Pathology prof at UC Davis (representing the 'defending the statement' side) and Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the Organic Center (representing the 'against the motion' side).
The debate is open all the way till friday, and there is space for anyone to participate. This is a hot topic these days, considerably more so in light of the recent ordeal with 'roundup ready' sugar beets. Interestingly, the majority opinion has been moving back and forth a bit, starting out with almost 80% of people agreeing with the motion that biotech and sustainable agriculture are complimentary. Soon after, the opinion swayed and 60% of participants disagreed. Today it seems to be balancing out a little more.
I thought I might take the opportunity to add my 2 cents.
Recognizing that we, as a species, have been modifying the genetics of plants for thousands of years to our benefit, it seems like this next step may be just that, another step in the evolution of our relationship with plants. We have long selected the seeds from our crops that bear the healthiest, biggest products, and replanted them. This has long been the way for us to manipulate the plants we grow to better serve us as people.
Here is where I get to my stance on the issue. This is also where I see a crucial distinction in the debate. Biotechnology has for a long time served us. Currently, the way we use biotech has made me question who the manipulation really serves.
Possibly our most famous BioTech company is Monsanto, who has given us such wonder-substances as DDT (see Silent Spring
), rGBH, terminator seeds, 'RoundUp' (and the gmo plants to withstand the toxic effects of it), and more.
My question, or rather my contention here is about what biotech has become for agriculture. It seems to me that instead of engineering plants that are higher yielding, healthier, and support the farmers, they are creating ways to contribute to Monsanto's net income.
Terminator seeds, while protecting against the risk of the modified genes from spreading (which clearly hasn't worked all that well considering the amount of farmers being sued for having their crops pollinated by GMO plants), also creates a dependence on a single source for farmer's seeds. They've taken away the ability for farmers to inexpensively produce their own genetic stock for the following year.
The recent fiasco around sugar beets was specific to the Monsanto brand of 'roundup ready' seeds. These plants have been engineered to be able to withstand fatal levels of the herbicides glyphosate (aka RoundUp). What strikes me here is that farmers a) have to buy the seeds from the company, b) then have to buy the herbicide from the company as well, and c) since weeds are evolving resistances to this poison, farmers have to be continually applying more and more of this chemical to their lands. This seems suspiciously to me like a way to create a dependence on a company... especially considering the amount of farmers who are in debt to Monsanto, and who likely won't be able to pay off that debt in their lifetimes.
My basic point here is that biotech has been around for a long time. It is a TOOL we have used as a species to support our continued subsistence on this earth. Just like any tool, biotech can be used in ways that benefit the most people, or in ways that are destructive to some and highly beneficial to a choice few. The way we are using biotech today is in support of a petroleum-dependent form of agriculture which is not only unsustainable, but is already (after about 50 years) showing diminishing returns. Pests and weeds are developing resistances to the chemicals, yields aren't what they used to be, costs of chemicals are generally rising, and the food produced is shown to be inferior in taste and nutrition.
Biotech today is contradictory to sustainable agriculture. As long as the focus of biotech is on supporting the current chemical-based land management paradigm, it will continue to contradict a model of agriculture that would genuinely sustain us for generations to come.
Great blog! I fully support genetic splicing of plants to produce desired effects that take us away from chemically dependent ag. But, we must also sustain the heirloom open pollinated strains to maintain a source of food production post-apocalypse.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! Contrary to what some of these chem companies want us to believe, there is no silver bullet solution to the problems of the food system. Genetic modification alone will not solve all our problems. It is hugely important to maintain a stock of our original seeds, especially considering the lack of knowledge of long-term impacts of these GMOs. As one of humanities largest-scale experiments, we need to maintain a 'control' variable, both for comparison to the trial, and to ensure that we still have some food should the trial not work out! Thanks for reading!
ReplyDeleteCaleb, Thank you for presenting this in a way that honor's both sides of the story. I remember a conversation I had with a friend many years ago. I had just started to learn about GMO and Monsanto and was reactively hating this monster company that was owning our food. My friends reaction was: this is tool that could solve world hunger. Though, I now feel that this is not the tool that could solve such a complex problem. I do think it is a knowledge base we could build upon. That being said, it is a terrifying thought that a company -maybe a few companies- could be on their way to creating a monopoly. A monopoly in any industry is a power issue that can destroy markets, but one in the industry of food gives a that monopoly the power of life. That, to me, is very scary.
ReplyDeleteCaleb, thank you for a reasoned look at this issue. Like so many important topics, there is so much grey area and I think too often we tend to view the issue in black and white terms.
ReplyDeleteOne important distinction is separating the technology from how it's currently being used in society, which you've clearly done here. I have serious reservations about the power Monsanto has in our food system - but this is no reason to dismiss the technology outright. Golden Rice and Hawaiian Papaya are examples of how genetic modification can provide positive results.
That being said, a recent study showing that glyphosate causes defects in frog and chicken embryos at low doses is something that needs to be further investigated. More broadly, I think GE crops need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis for any potential safety issues.
Your blog is great by the way!
If your business is eco conscious, provides environmentally friendly products
ReplyDeleteand services such as Recycling and Waste products and does so in a responsible manner then you can list with Green Directory for free right now.