|
Times ChangeQuarterly Political & Cultural Magazine |
| Genetic engineering: a cause for concern Sadhbh O’ Neill There is a saying that, ‘if you eat food, you are involved in agriculture’. With the arrival of genetic engineering into food production, it is fair to say that if you eat food, you are also involved in genetic engineering. Genetically engineered crops of soya and maize (corn) are already being grown commercially in the US, and research is well underway to develop engineered crops of other staples such as wheat, rice, potato and sugar. Already up to 80% of processed foods may be contaminated with genetically engineered soya and maize derivatives (e.g. corn starch). Most products do not require labelling, and so there is no way of knowing what effects these may be having on the health of consumers who eat them, because we don’t even know who is eating them. The process of genetic engineering is unpredictable, uncontrollable, and unnecessary. DNA is so complex that when interfering with these instructions for life, scientists cannot know what other changes might occur. Also, because new living things and organisms are being created, we cannot control genetically engineered crops. Unlike chemicals, genetically engineered crops reproduce and escape, and any problems flowing from them will do likewise. We won’t be able to recall them when things go wrong. Over time, genetically engineered crops will contaminate non-GE and organic crops through cross-pollination and horizontal gene transfer. This is basically a form of living pollution and once in the environment it cannot be recalled. Genetic Concern is opposed to the engineering of our food and agriculture. We believe that far from being a great step forward, it is closely related to the model of industrial farming and food production based on chemicals. This model has ravished our countryside rendering it a ‘green desert’ devoid of wildlife, it has polluted our rivers and lakes, and contaminated our food with pesticide residues. Industrial agriculture is shedding jobs and bankrupting small farmers at a phenomenal rate and genetic engineering can only serve to exacerbate this situation. Companies promoting genetically engineered crops claim that they benefit the environment since they require less chemicals. Fewer pesticides are needed on some genetically engineered crops, because they have been engineered to produce their own toxins. Effectively they don’t need to be sprayed because they spray themselves all day every day. Farmers are particularly concerned because of the risk of ‘super-bugs’ and ‘super-weeds’ becoming immune to the toxins, rendering the pesticide useless. Moreover there is no clear evidence to prove that the food is safe for human consumption as no testing is carried out on human volunteers. Other plants have been genetically engineered to withstand sprays of broad-spectrum herbicides, which normally would kill all green plants. Organic farmers manage weeds very effectively with other techniques which have been developed in recent years. Trials in Holland have resulted in 90% herbicide reduction and significantly higher crop yields using such methods. It is only now that we are discovering that some genetically engineered plants have a detrimental effect on beneficial insects such as ladybirds, lace-wings and bees, including the Monarch butterfly. Genetic engineering involves making crops become resistant to pesticides that actually kill wildlife. Consumer surveys in Ireland and across the EU have shown that the more aware they are, the more concerned people are about the negative impacts of the technology. Over 81% of the UK public want more organic food on our supermarket shelves instead of genetically engineered food, and in Ireland the acreage of land grown organically has risen by 200% in the past year. Demand for organic food is rising by 25% per annum across Europe, and is growing faster than the computer or telecommunications industry. So why are we investing in a technology that the public doesn’t want? At the recent Council of Environment Ministers, Ireland refused to join other countries who have agreed to block any further approvals of GM crops in the EU. In addition, Ireland abstained on a crucial vote for a common EU position on updating and improving the controversial GMO directive 90/220/EEC. We simply cannot understand why it could possibly be in the interests of the Irish economy to be backing a technology that damages the environment, small farms and which puts the entire food chain in the hands of powerful multinationals. Yet there is a huge obstacle at political level to bringing about change, which we find hard to fathom. After two years of campaigning, the parties in the Dáil only held its first debate on GM food early this year. It was poorly attended and the debate was largely unreported in the media. In contrast to the situation in the UK where there is a high level of political engagement with the issue, Irish politicians are for the most part silent, and are willing only to use the GM food issue as another stick to beat the government with following Fianna Fáil’s U-Turn on the issue. One TD has remarked that what is surprising is the degree of actual support amongst politicians of all the major parties for this technology. This is despite the fact that there has been hardly any political debate! Consumer and public concerns relating to the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment are not served well by scientists or indeed politicians who defend this technology by rubbishing the benefits of organic agriculture instead. At the botched public consultation exercise recently organised by the Department of the Environment, one of the most astonishing claims made by Professor Peter Whittaker of NUI Maynooth was that organic agriculture posed a greater threat to biodiversity than genetically engineered crops. Just to give one example of how imbalanced this argument is, over $1.6 billion is spent per annum on research into genetic engineering. While many comparative studies show that crop yields in organic agriculture are between 10-40% lower than industrial systems, organic systems are nowhere near their full yield potential because insufficient research, development, training or advice support has been given to the organic industry in the past. Teagasc, the Irish agricultural research body, has recently stopped its small research programme into the use of clover on grasslands - an essential soil nutrient for farmers who graze cattle organically. Little or no research is being conducted in Ireland on the devastating impacts of conventional farming on biodiversity, but it is safe to say, following experience in the UK, that native species of wildflower, beneficial insects, birds and mammals have gone into catastrophic decline in the last few decades thanks to pesticides, fertilisers, overgrazing, the destruction of hedgerows and the introduction of monoculture plantations. Poorly designed agricultural subsidies have focused purely on outputs, or ‘quantity over quality’, and have imposed industrial-style production systems on our rural landscape. Of course it still looks green and lush - thanks to the large quantities of artificial fertilisers heaped on Irish soil to sustain the monocultures of all-too-green ryegrass. Dr. Paul Dowding of the Botany Department in TCD has described the familiar Irish landscape as fast approaching a ‘green desert’, devoid of wildlife, colour, birdsong and biodiversity. Just to take one example, the case of the grey partridge, its numbers have now declined to just 23 or 24 in the Midlands area. Crucial to the survival of this species is diversity in crop type: According to Dr. Brendan Kavanagh, ‘these birds need kale and cereal crops to feed and hide in. A country which just provides grassland will not suffice.’ A project in the Midlands aimed at conserving this species is actually attempting to get farmers in the area to grow alternative crops. Otherwise the grey partridge will simply disappear. Genetically engineering crops will only exacerbate this destruction by encouraging more use of broad-spectrum herbicides such as glyphosate (RoundUp). The prospect of horizontal gene transfer and cross-pollination means that even organic crops will be contaminated by genetic pollution eventually, with unknown and potentially dangerous effects. Beneficial insects such as lacewings and pollinators (bees) are threatened by genetically engineered crop varieties which will lead to the disruption of delicate ecosystems and further decline in biodiversity. Equally destructive is the fragmentation of ecosystems that industrial farming imposes on the landscape, as vulnerable species become ghettoised and less resistant to changes in the ecosystem. More fundamentally, herbicide-tolerant crops perpetuate and even extend the chemical pesticide era and the human health and environmental burden imposed by it. Organic farming works with nature, not against it, and incorporates measures to specifically encourage wildlife and protect habitats. A recent US study published in the journal Nature on yields from organically grown maize showed that the long term benefits of organic farming include increased soil fertility, lower environmental impacts (such as leachate) and of course no pesticide residues in our food. To put this in perspective, Monsanto has recently received permits for a threefold increase in herbicide residues on genetically engineered soybeans in Europe and the US, up from 6 parts per million to 20 parts per million. This is because plants genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides will most likely have higher residues. Glyphosate has been linked with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer, and is the single highest cause of pesticide-related illness in California. Treating the land as farm ecosystems instead of as an instrument for agricultural production is where organic agriculture differs from both conventional farming and genetic engineering. Organic farming prioritises health: healthy soil, healthy food, and a healthy environment. It is also true that modern organic farming can match industrial farming in terms of genuine profitability and productivity. Unlike industrial farming it does not favour the overproduction of unwanted goods and does not destroy the soil upon which sustainable food production ultimately depends. Some countries have responded to consumer concerns by setting targets to increase the amount of land farmed organically. Germany and Sweden aim for 10% of their land to be organic in the next few years, while the Danish government aims to treble organic production over the next 5 years, and hopes that it will grow to 50% within the next ten years. Austria has already reached 10% with some sectors already 50% organic. Less than 1% of Irish agricultural land has organic certification and the Department of Agriculture has no organic targets, and no policy for organic production. As things stand, the vast majority of organic food available in Ireland is imported. This is despite the fact that the land under organic production here has doubled in the past few years and demand for organic food is rocketing. If the right supports were put in place to encourage organic production, Irish farmers could easily supply a greater share of this market in quality food produce, as well as exporting a genuine instead of synthetic ‘green’ image. If we are serious about protecting Ireland’s biological diversity as well as investing in rural development and job creation, a genuine commercial opportunity exists. But organic farming is the only way to go. Genetically engineered crops will certainly perpetuate industrial agriculture and pollute our genetic resources, including organic farms. For further information about genetic engineering, or to join Genetic Concern, please contact us at 01-4760360 or at 7 Upper Camden St., Dublin 2. Membership costs £20 (waged) or £10 (unwaged) and for this you will receive our quarterly newsletter and a free email news service.
|
|
| Contact Times Change
Revised: 09/02/99 |