• Question: Will we ever have to resort to only gentically modified food as opposed to natural?

    Asked by emma101999 to Andy, Cathie, Jules, Les, Ricarda on 25 Jun 2012.
    • Photo: Andy Stirling

      Andy Stirling answered on 25 Jun 2012:


      For what it’s worth, I think the short answer to this interesting question is “no”!

      One of the most misleading – and dangerous – assertions in this area, is that “we have no alternative”. This is always the way in which advocates of particular positions try to scare others into agreement… or at least silence.

      As global societies and economies, we certainly do have choices. This is so, even for the different ways in which we can provide nutritious wholesome food in fairer ways for an increasing world population.

      The key point is, that the different choices are all – in different ways – political. Conventional GM offers one possible pathway that appeals under particular political views. But techniques like ecological farming – as well as marker assisted, participatory and open-source breeding – all offer highly viable alternatives. All these alternatives are massively enriched by science. All involve different notions of what exactly counts as ‘natural’.

      So, choice between all these alternatives is as much political as technical. In other words, it’s about what values and principles we want to prioritise and what sort of world we want to live in. These aspects are at least as important as the technical issues. And the discussions simply don’t boil down to whether one is ‘for’ or ‘against’ science in general.

      For that matter, the issues are also more complex than simply being ‘for’ or ‘against’ ‘nature’. What counts as ‘natural’ in the first place, is far from self-evident. Each of the non-GM alternatives involves a different idea of what counts as an appropriate balance between the ‘natural’ and the ‘technical. This is one of the most challenging questions that different groups will answer in different ways.

      But the bottom line is, that we have many more choices than simply ‘GM’ or ‘not GM’.

    • Photo: Julian Little

      Julian Little answered on 26 Jun 2012:


      Hi emma101999, I don’t see why that should happen any time soon, although I will challenge your assertion that there are two sorts of food – GM and “natural”. What is natural? Certainly not the wheat that goes into our bread or pasta – not potatoes, not sweetcorn, not most vegetables – the “natural” carrot isn’t even orange!! All of our food has been bred for our purpose (the carrot supposedly for William of Orange), usually to make it bigger (tomato, potato), shorter (wheat and barley) or yield more (potato, wheat, sweetcorn) or for longer (fruit trees, strawberries). And much of this breeding is very high tech even if it doesn’t involve GM – it might involve modifying individual cells, or mutation breeding, or crossing between plants in ways that would never happen in the wild. So natural eating is pretty much out of the running – sorry Emma

    • Photo: Les Firbank

      Les Firbank answered on 26 Jun 2012:


      I hope not – I hope there will always be choice available to people about the food they eat.

    • Photo: Ricarda Steinbrecher

      Ricarda Steinbrecher answered on 26 Jun 2012:


      The vast majority of global food production is free of GM, both in terms of land use but in particular also with regards to species and varieties.

      Despite efforts and plans to enter the food and seed markets of many continents (usually through genetic modification of staple crops), I cannot see what GM would have to offer that would justify turning our whole food basket into GM. Yes, we hear stories about so called break-throughs and silver bullets – but usually only to never hear of them again – or, as in the case of golden rice, nearly 15 years have passed and despite lots of funding and publicity it has never performed as envisioned. In the meantime research is showing that Vitamin A deficiency problems are largely being solved through other programs such as supplements or encouraging people to grow vitamin A rich vegetables around their houses. At the same time, other research is showing that too much vitamin A – and in particular its derivatives – are a health risk.
      The image of the silver bullet, the simple solution, reaches the press and fosters the illusion that the genetic modification of all our food crops is upon us and will provide an answer to everything that is wrong with our agriculture, our food, our nutrition, our health, or our capacity to cook or eat a balanced diet. I do not believe that this is in fact what the future holds. However, there are ways to address issues in agriculture, food production, health and diet that could benefit from more attention and support, but they are not silver bullets or quick fixes and they require commitment from scientists, policy-makers and the public. Diversity is not only at the heart of sustainability, but also of human health. Trying to insert all nutrients into one seed, fruit or vegetable is not an answer nor a solution, but a distraction. And the capacity of GM to create what ever is envisioned is highly over rated. Genetic engineering interferes with the plant’s own processes – thus GM might at times lead to a desired trait, but often it does not last (like pro-vitamin A levels in golden rice), or has side effects that make it untenable.

Comments