GM - Get More Modesty

The issue of Genetically Modified food ‘technology’ has rightly been raised again by H.R.H. Prince Charles. It is right that there should be a vigorous national debate, and it is not necessary to agree with everything that the Prince says to recognise that he does the country an important service by promoting this vital discussion. The disdainful responses to the Prince’s views from certain predictable quarters tell us a great deal about the GM proponents and the state of their minds, their morality and their money.

There are major risks with GM, and they do need to be talked about. Financial meltdowns pale into insignificance in comparison with the possible consequences of adverse and ill-considered human impact on the natural world
In learning with dismay, but not surprise, about the spread of GM crop contamination in England (the full extent of which is not known) it seems to me that not only has nothing been learnt from food production disasters such as BSE / CJD, but that the arrogant mindset that gives rise to such dire events has contaminated Whitehall and Westminster as well as the interested parties in commercial science and industry. In broad terms I take the view that our lords and masters (of you and me that is - not our environment) and all too many of their advisers, not to mention those with direct financial interest, are possessed of three dangerous delusions which, if they persist, could well one day lead to even greater disaster. These are:
The illusion of objectivity: the view that the natural world is an object to be manipulated and that we are not an integral part of it.
The illusion of knowledge: that in the making of crucial decisions we know all that needs knowing about natural systems.
The illusion of control: that we will be able to manage and channel the changes to natural systems.
What is so sadly lacking today and what is so desperately needed, is a bit more modesty and humility in the face of our own limitations and the stupendous complexity and interlinkage of the natural world. If, as we are now seeing, we can get into such deep trouble with a failure to grasp the purely human construction of financial markets, how can we possibly imagine that we can give assurances (no government guarantees possible here) about the safety and stability of genetic intrusion into the environment?
There needs to be a return to fundamental respect for nature and life. This simple but crucial value would have spared us from the money-driven and amoral decision to feed ruminants their own remains and the subsequent Treasury penny-pinching in the attempt to first hide and then clear up that mess which has devastated hundreds of lives. We have a similar mess-potential with GM foods and genetic tampering (a better description than the flattering term ‘engineering’). I am sure that most ordinary people would also take the view that less self-seeking attitudes in our behaviour within nature would not go amiss either. But I suspect that the Government is wedded to yet another ‘change’ in the industry of food. It is likely that these basic points will prove too demanding for our leaders, given their track record. So, in more specific terms, here are some observations on the current position and draft legislation.
Firstly we should ensure that the right of both farmers and consumers throughout England as well as Scotland and Wales (who as usual can act more independently) to choose to be GM-free is fully protected. Furthermore, and at the very least, any GM Food that is imported into the UK as a result of the use of GM technology abroad must be clearly labeled in order that British consumers are fully aware of what to avoid and what to purchase.
Secondly, the draft legislation sets far too high a threshold for permitted contamination from genetically modified food production. If the Government does insist on going down the track of genetic modification, the maximum threshold for GM presence allowed in both organic and conventional non-GM produce should not be 0.9% as the Government proposes, but an absolute limit of 0.1% or less. We should also insist that the liability for any contamination above this threshold, including all income lost - such as through the loss of organic certification - should fall on the biotechnology companies.
Thirdly the Government’s proposed ‘separation distances’ between genetically modified and conventional crops in England are inadequate to ensure that significant contamination does not occur. Communities should have the right to create GM-free zones and use organic and traditional farming methods for their contribution to biodiversity. Unfortunately, the Government’s obsession with GM crops risks undermining the organic movement.
Fourthly, a major concern about the way GM is used around the world is that the multinational companies who own the patents on genetically modified seeds can make low-income farmers dependent on them as monopoly suppliers. This is by so-called ‘terminator’ genes being inserted to prevent a crop naturally re-seeding for the following year. This means that for the next year’s crop farmers who may already be facing severe financial difficulty, have to buy another crop from the supplier, further increasing the profits that the multinational companies make at the expense of the farmers.
Fifthly, an argument advanced in favour of genetically modified crops is that they produce higher yields than natural crops. In fact it is by no means clear that using GM seeds always produces larger crops. And, quite apart from the environmental consequences, bearing in mind the ‘terminator’ technology, the argument does not in any case justify the introduction of GM seeds and crops.
Finally, there is the question of timescale. Returning to the thrust of the original argument, until much more is known, with unbiased confirmation, about the potential impact of these crops on the natural world and local economies, any use of genetically modified crops should be avoided.