It is a commonly held misconception that we need to pursue further advances within the field of genetically modified crops and livestock in order to come to terms with the problem of feeding an ever growing human population. Beside the obvious - we have no idea what the effects of these genetically modified organisms are on the local and global ecosystems - this argument fails to acknowledge the real problem, which is one of distribution of resources and, consequently, power.
Let me first state that the idea that we lack the resources to feed a growing human population is flat out wrong. World hunger is not caused by a global shortage of food. The problem is not that we do not have enough food, it is that the food is produced in and for the wealthy (and increasingly obese) "Western" market. There is an overproduction of dairy products as well as of meat. A lot of fertile soil is used to grow crops used for biomass, in a misguided attempt to create "eco friendly fuel" for "eco friendly cars", while the only "eco friendly" car is the car that is never built. Much like how the only "eco friendly" kilowatt hour is the one that is never produced. We need to cut back on our use and dependence of cars, as well as our rampantly escalating energy consumption.
But getting back to the genetically modified crops and livestock. Monsanto, one of the major actors in this field, produce a kind of genetically modified crop which is resistant to a particular brand of pesticide - unsurprisingly one which they themselves manufacture. The idea is that this allows for cost-effective intense farming, but what it results in tends to be "monoculture farming" (basically the farming of a single crop) which depletes the soil and severely hurts the local ecosystem. It also serves to kill off small-scale farming, since the initial investment is generally too high for those farmers, meaning a concentration of ownership of the fertile soil in the hands of a few wealthy farmers - or more commonly farming corporations.
Another example is that of the "golden rice", a genetically modified rice crop which was meant to address the vitamin A deficiency among primarily poor nations in Africa and South East Asia. While the thought behind this might have been good - vitamin A deficiency leads to blindness or vision impairment - there are severe ecological risks involved. For instance, we do not know what effect the higher levels of beta-carotene in this rice has on other organisms. There is another, more immediate objection to this "golden rice" however: the majority of people suffering from vitamin A deficiency are poor people, who cannot afford these GM crops in the first place, and who would benefit a lot more from an improved economic situation - something they might get through, for instance, development of local and sustainable small-scale agriculture.
Finally, there is the case of the "recombinant bovine growth hormone" used to stimulate milk production in cows. This is what was behind the outbreak of "mad cow disease" in the 90's, and it came about, basically, because someone thought it was a good idea to increase the milk production while we had a massive dairy product surplus. Of course, if we do not consider what we produce, or why, but rather focus on maximizing production itself - this is where we end up.
There are so many things wrong with the way we approach genetically modified crops and livestock, that I don't really know where to begin. I think the biggest issue I have is the one mentioned inititally - this does not address the fundamental problem: there is no global shortage of food. This means that we do not need to produce more food, we need to distribute it more evenly. But our current global economic system is not aimed at distributing resources equally - it is aimed at concentrating resources and ownership in as few hands as possible.
Also, this approach in fact only serves to maintain a status quo with regards to an equal distribution and more equal economy, as for instance the "golden rice" removes incentives to alleviate the poor economic situation of the people in need. If given the choice between improving their economic situation - which can only be done at the expense of those richer - or giving them vitamin A infused rice, I don't think the people with money will need to think twice. Especially since the "golden rice" is an income revenue in itself.
Genetically modified organisms only serve as an alibi to allow us to continue our business-as-usual approach, maintaining our unequal distribution of resources as well as a lifestyle which is fundamentally unsustainable.
At the heart of it, I suppose this is an issue related to that ever increasing economic growth called "progress". As long as our economy is fuelled by the twin engine of production-consumption I see no long-term winners. We are eating ourselves to death here, both individually and collectively, as our consumption is quickly escalating out of control.
Genetically modified organisms are supposed to make the world a better place, but better for whom? For the malnourished children of Cambodia, or for the rich executives of Monsanto? Because with the current state of affairs, there cannot be both.
All of the examples here are taken from Fritjof Capra's excellent and highly recommended book "Hidden Connections".
What a complete load of garbage. So when is this economic redistribution of wealth going to occur? Golden rice can be planted today (in fact could have been planted in 1999) but because a bunch of ignorant tools like you don't feel comfortable with the technology hundreds of millions of children have gone blind and many of them have died from Vitamin A deficiency. Just because you don't understand the science of crop breeding it doesn't mean it should be stopped. Yes food distribution is an issue but regardless there is going to be TWICE the demand on food resources in 40 years.... have a look at world grain stocks, have a look at the 2008 food crisis. Do some reading and inform yourself and stop being a tryhard Greenpeace spokesperson - ever consider that they might not be completely benevolent??
ReplyDeleteI do not feel "uncomfortable" with the technology - I think there are better ways of working for a solution. Many of the children going blind (or dying) from Vitamin A deficiency wouldn't be able to afford the rice in the first place. A better solution would be to address the underlying problem here - poverty. You say that because of "a bunch of ignorant tools" like myself, hundreds of millions of children have gone blind and many have died - I say because of a dysfunctional global economic system hundreds of millions of children have gone blind and many have died.
ReplyDeleteAlso, rice is a highly water-intensive crop which requires massive irrigation, often the building of dams. It would also mean large-scale mono agriculture, which is ecologically very unsound.
There is no correlation between world population density and hunger. There is, however, a strong correlation between poverty and hunger. While the 2008 food crisis was related to low grain reserves, the cause of this had more to do with economics (as well as over-production of meat products and biomass crops). GM crops wouldn't be of any help there.
My point is that GM crops are not a solution to the actual problem. In many cases they even exacerbate them. For the most part, they stand in the way of real progress, diverting resources from other, better, alternatives.
You ask when the economic redistribution is going to occur. Well, as long as a majority of people think like you do - not looking at the whole picture, defending an obviously faulty system - then it won't. Until there is a massive, global collapse of the entire system - but even then, I suspect what will replace the current system might be even worse.
(Btw, nice attitude you've got there.)
The overproduction of food is pretty easy to notice - go behind any supermarket and check out the trash. Unless they're locked of course, because the poor people tend to steal it and that's bad for business if they hang around everywhere.
ReplyDeleteFor example at least in Finland we throw away more food than food packeges and our biggest health risks are obesity and heart and blood diseases caused by overweight and excessive calories. Sad that we die because of too much food when at the same time many more dies because of too little of it.
Why are Anonymouses almost always obnoxious, as well as wrong?
ReplyDeleteMats, you're totally correct about 'golden rice', it is just another example of corporate monoculture creating a problem and then trying to sell people something to "solve" that problem.
The real answer to our growing food needs, as well as to growing unemployment and loss of livelihood, is biodiverse ecological farming and gardening, with high labour input instead of high capital and agrochemical inputs, as no less an authority than the UN Special Rapporteur on Food has pointed out.