Monday 13 January 2014

Food Science V.S. Commercial Technology - A real look at GMO's


With the increasing interest in and politicking around GMO's and their labeling, it is important to understand the diversity of issues involved in the topic, the complexity inherent in these issues as well as the important ways they overlap with other current food issues.  The below link is a Podcast from the Food Sleuth Series by Melinda Carr Hemmelgarn.  In it she talks with Claire Hope Cummings (an environmental lawyer, activist, and the author of Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the future of Seeds) about the origins of our current genetically engineered seed and plant issues, and why they are so problematic.  They tease out an especially interesting issue that is rarely talked about in the pro/ anti- GM discussions, the commercial context that drove genetic modification and the push for the universal use of these products.  The argument for and against GMO can clearly not be simplified into flat issues of commercial vs. public, environmentally detrimental vs. symbiotic with nature, or the future of how we will feed the world vs. driving world hunger.  However, the ideas presented by Cummings clearly outline the reasons we have for continuing to question the acceptance of and increase of GMO seeds in our national food chain and in the world.


One of the paramount issues highlighted is not the damage potentially done by GMO’s, but rather the process by which the keys to life are being privatized by large companies and the use of patent laws.  Seed is not a banal commodity to be traded, nor is it some meaningless consumer product. Seeds grow into the things which are the fundamental building blocks of our society and our way of life; they become the food we eat, they filter the element in air which we breathe, they become the construction material for our homes, they fuel for our transportation, they produce fiber for our clothing, not to mention countless other things.  As the creations of large corporations/ agri-business and in the service of corporate profit, GMO’s privatize that which we need to live.  Thus the increasing pervasiveness of these products increases our dependence on an oligopoly of corporations for our continued existence. 

As Cummings points out, another dangerous issue which runs parallel to the corporate ownership of GMO’s is the way that genetically engineered plants threaten the world's seed supply and the future existence of plants.   The variety of seeds produced by these companies has shrunk drastically in the last decade alone.  In this way, GMO seeds threaten the agricultural diversity of our nation (and the world)  -  97% of 75 vegetables whose seeds were once available from the USDA are now extinct. Historically, the USDA has provided free seeds to farmers who then saved seeds from one harvest to another, eventually developing strains best suited to local or regional climates.  With the ongoing practice of suing farmers who try to save seeds, this organic process of developing strong, regionally appropriate strains is disappearing, and along with it entire strains of seeds.

These large companies see seeds as just another product to patent and make money off of, they do not concern themselves with their impact on personal or environmental health.  As Monsanto’s Phil Angell has explicitly stated “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of [its products]. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible.''  Buyer beware (and be informed, which we are not allowed to do.) As the group of companies involved in the seed market becomes smaller and smaller, their control over the market, and our seed supply tightens.  The below chart is an information graphic (by Philip H. Howard, Associate Professor at Michigan State University) depicts changes in ownership involving major seed companies and their subsidiaries, primarily occurring from 1996 to 2013. (The largest firms are represented as circles, with size proportional to global commercial seed market share.) It is easy to understand why we should be concerned about who owns our seeds, consolidation has increased in the international seed industry in recent decades, and the number of these companies is shrinking quickly. (Also of note is the fact that the majority of the larger seed companies were/ are also chemical producers.)


A final thought.  Although I am not personally against all forms of genetically modified crops, I have no interest in those seeds that have been modified only in the interest of withstanding various forms of herbicides and pesticides.  If the majority of GMO seeds were dedicated to the increased nutrition, improved taste, or resistance to climatic issues, then I would have a stronger belief in the necessity of these seeds.  However, the majority of genetically modified seeds are engineered to be resistant to chemical pesticides, herbicides, such as roundup and now 2, 4-D (one of the components in Agent Orange). Which in recent years has only served to increase the use of these chemicals in our fields and across the world.  In the first 15 years of their use (1996, the year of introduction, through 2011), genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds, according to an Environmental Sciences Europe report by Charles Benbrook. 

 The argument here is not that a GMO seed, in itself, presents a health or safety hazard, but that the use of such seeds creates situations which can and have resulted in health and environmental hazards - the increased use of chemicals in agriculture, the appearance of new super weeds and pests, the loss of crop diversity and the increased risk from crop disease, etc.  For these reasons, and many more, it is important that we as a global community continue to question the use and effects of GMO seeds on and in our environment.  Instead of assuming that because we can (and do)  produce something that we should, or that a technology that reduces labor it is ipso facto benificial on the whole, we should examine the picture on the whole and ask where it puts us an an worldwide community (and our food supply) in the generations to come.  I say this not as a call to halt all GMO production, but rather to suggest that we delve further into the issue and its ripple effects on us and the environment before we, and our government, continue to endorse the large-scale use of these products.

 Below are some additional resources:     

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)