For example, lets take GMOs -- I want to build on Andy's excellent post from yesterday.
GMOs have been been a "Great Satan" of the environmental movement for some time now. And its not the goal of this post to say that GMOs are by any means universally necessary or desireable. But I do want to talk about the ways in which many environmentalists are oversimplifying a complex issue -- and hurting our credibility with the people who are aware of those complexities.
While GMOs have several theoretical downsides, they also have many quite well established environmental benefits -- benefits well known to many environmental scientists and agronomists but infrequently acknowledged by green groups. And of course, we've been genetically modifying plants since the beginning of agriculture.
For example, the planting of some GM crops has reduced reliance on pesticides, improving the health of both farmer and the environment. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown substantially less pesticide use (and pesticide toxicity exposure) where GM crops have been planted.
In addition, many GM crops have been shown to increase yields, which has the general effect of reducing demand for farmland, and thus deforestation. The relationship between agricultural technologies and deforestation is situation-dependent and not the sort of thing given to quick summaries, but the book "Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation" (PDF), edited by Angelsen and Kaimowitz, is generally considered an extremely balanced, state-of-the-art academic treatment of the subject. While not all new technologies will impede deforestation, the authors argue for the continuing validity of the Borlaug hypothesis: that increased agricultural productivity through new technologies is essential for long-term conservation of forests.
Many GM technologies currently being explored would allow plants to grow in saltier soil that is currently "wasteland"; other technologies would allow plants to bloom at more favorable times of year, and others would allow plants ot become more drought tolerant. These approaches have dramatically lower risk profiles than GM plants that release pesticides and (opponents worry) create an "arms race" between plants and pests. But when environmentalists decry GM plants, they seldom bother to mention any difference between the pesticide-herbicide approach and these other approaches. Often, in my experience, they are not even aware of them.
In addition, these higher yielding, lower cost GM varieties put more money in the pockets of farmers, who make up a disproportionate number of the rural poor. Because these seed packets require little infrastructure, they are often easier for relatively-poor farmers to utilize.
Of course, there are many valid environmental reasons for opposing GM plants. Some environmentalists worry about risks to human health; others, as Andy noted, worry about a loss of biodiversity, though it's perhaps worthy of note that Calestous Juma, a mentor of mine and the former head of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, is a GM proponent.
Other environmentalists worry that it's just "unnatural" to put genes from one species into an entirely different species. Again, to me that is an entirely reasonable objection. Finally, many environmentalists do not trust ADM or Monsanto making choices about what they eat. I don't necessarily want them making those choices either. But that's no reason to lump "Roundup ready" plants in with plants that have merely been bred to grow better in poor quality soils.
I personally have mixed feelings on the GMO issue -- I would support some applications and oppose others. But even from an environmental angle (ignoring the potential human welfare gains), GMOs bring many clearly documented benefits. GMOs have environmental risks as well, though these have been less clearly manifested at this point. I can understand why many environmentalists oppose GMOs. But when we don't acknowledge the environmental complexities of the GMO issue, or when we lump all types of GMOs together, we sound uninformed and ignorant. We lose the respect of a lot of scientists. And we may well be harming, not helping, the environment.
Comments
View as Flat
abbdrb Posted 6:48 am
17 Jun 2005
If you take a US-centric view [I will bow out of the GMOs-can-feed-all-the-hungry-people-in-the-world argument, admitting that I do not know whether they are truly helping to feed the world, or keeping the world from feeding itself] our farms do not lack for productivity. This actually may be one of the reasons farmers are so "poor": food is so plentiful that it drives the price down. I must point out that I found lots of literature on the Web that refutes the assumption that the American farmer is "poor," and even goes so far as to say farmers average a somewhat higher annual income than most people. I have not researched those sources thoroughly so I can't pass judgement either way, and my own exposure to farming came from living in Southern Illinois as a kid: the farmers weren't rich, but hardly anybody else was, either. So using GMOs to increase yield, at least on American farms, is not an argument I'd buy, either.
I do thank you for pointing out that there are different types of GMOs, and that is a point definitely worth studying. I personally feel there is a difference between speeding up hybridization that maybe could have been accomplished "naturally" through cross-breeding over many years, and making pesticides or herbicides part of the plant itself.
Probably the biggest problem I have with GMOs though is the lack of labeling. If they are so wonderful, why won't they tell me which foods have them so I can make up my own mind? The public has a right to be suspicious since as a rule, if a large corporation is trying to force something on a market that doesn't want it (or they won't even give the market a chance to see if they want it), they usually don't have the consumer's best interest in mind.
Permalink
biopolitical Posted 9:01 am
17 Jun 2005
I have more comments here.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 1:57 pm
17 Jun 2005
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:30 am
18 Jun 2005
Your methods are unsound Jeremy. The horror, the horror!
GMOs designed to resist certain pesticides and herbicides that kill everything else actually reduce pesticide use?
The only thing that will reduce herbicide and pesticide use is restoring the natural balance in the eco-system. Jeremy have you heard about the death of the main pollinator of crops? the honeybee? It's a disaster for agriculture.
GMOs designed to grow on saltwater "wasteland" actually reduce the area of land under cultivation?
Sorry Jeremy the only thing that will reduce land under cultivation is worldwide reproductive rights for women that will eliminate the exponential growth of humankind and restore balance to spaceship earth.
Koyaaniaquatsi mr sophist. Meditate on that instead of industry friendly talking points. Auuum.
Permalink
mikee Posted 6:03 pm
18 Jun 2005
Personally, I hold both science and business degrees and am fascinated both by "natural technology" (ie how nature works) and by "human-developed technology" (ie either natural technology adapted by humans or 'new' technology 'created' by humans". I see nothing wrong with the latter at all, as long as it is used respectfully and with intelligence. The problem is that some corporations do not use it respectfully and/or with intelligence, but this does not mean that all do. And, of course, GM is one of those cases (like man-induced climate change) where one disrespectful and/or unintelligent party can ruin things for every human and the whole planet ecosystem.
On to the specifics of your piece, living in the UK I have a different perspective on the balance issue, due to different reporting here. 2 key points are the reality of "pesticide free" and the costs of seeds.
From reports I have seen I thought that Monsanto GM crops may initially have required less cides but over a period of time required the same as or more than the non-GMs they replaced. Is this accurate?
Re seeds, my understanding is that GM firms legally require that farmers using their seeds purchase new seed from the GM-manufacturers every year (or 2 years, or 3 years - something like that). This, of course, is a marked change from the old "commons" approach where no-one "owned" the DNA of most plants and so farmers simply kept seed from one year to use the next. While I understand that any "for profit" organisation must do exactly that, I find this form of "rent" on the essentials of life itself (if correct) highly objectionable. Does anyone know whether this is the procedure GM manufacturers follow please?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:01 am
19 Jun 2005
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:31 pm
19 Jun 2005
My objections to GMOs are not mystical, but to the circumstances under which they are developed. Theoretically, some GMOs could be a positive step, HOWEVER:
The developoment and marketing of GMOs is a collaborative effort between large corporations like Monsanto and large bureaucracies like national governments. Consequently the goals of these efforts are profit and consolidation of power.
Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, one of the founders of the Green Revolution in India recounted that he got the go-ahead from Indira Gandhi, for reasons of state. "Indira Gandhi was a strong nationalist," he recalls. `She wanted an independent foreign policy, and food was a political weapon.' Gandhi bluntly asked him how India could be free of imports and gave Swaminathan a free hand to organize a new agricultural program."
Time profile
In this dynamic, decisions are not made on the basis of ecological health or "feeding the hungry." As one commentator said, GMOs are mainly going to make it easier to raise luxury foods in the Third World for the First World.
Decisions are made first, Then comes the propaganda campaign to win acceptance for the decisions.
In contrast, the motives of individual researchers are probably a combination of intellectural curiosity, career advancement and idealism. (One disturbing phenomenon is the pressure applied to scientists who dare to question GMOs.)
GMOs are the latest development in industrialized agriculture, in which large corporations fight to monopolize the supply of equipment to farmers (fertilizers and seeds), and the packaging and distribution of agricultural goods. Some large farmers are able to make it under these conditions, but most farmers are squeezed and many are forced off the land. This was one of the criticisms of the Green Revolution.
This brings up the question of whether industrial, global agriculture is a wise strategy when we know that petroleum prices are going to rise (and thus the prices of fertilizers, running machinery and transport).
In the field of ecology, when you make a mistake (like introducing rabbits to Australia), you have made a huge mistake that may be impossible to remedy. Our current civilization has not proved itself to be a wise manager of the environment, especially when driven by profit with inadequate supervision.
There are some technical dangers to GMOs which are too complicated to get into here. Suffice it to say that GMOs are NOT like the sort of genetic manipulation that people have been doing for millenia via breeding and selection. It is a quantum leap upwards, mixing genes from different species.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:03 pm
20 Jun 2005
Permalink
CowsEatGrass Posted 2:51 am
21 Jun 2005
Based on the science alone, I find it hard to make a decision. However, it is easy to see that the "problems" GMOs are designed to solve are in fact only symptoms of a the real problem--the loss of good farming done by good farmers. Overuse of pesticides, low yeilds, habitat loss, and poorly-adapted varieties can be solved be a revitilation a real culture of agriculture.
Pests thrive in monocultures--GMOs are designed to be planted in monoculture--thus they will, in the long-term, not reduce the use of pesticides. Furthermore, any variety developed in a lab is designed to grow best under lab conditions, not any real set of conditions that exist on a farm. When something is designed to work "fine" in the most situations possible, it cannot possibly work "best" in ANY situation. Each speck of soil in each field is different, and only a good farmer can develop the best variety for that field and his or her practices. Yeilds will go up when locally-adapted varieties are used wiesly instead of seed company varieties that are designed for centralization of power and ease of nationwide distribution.
Furthermore, a well-farmed piece of land is excellent habitat for all kinds of wildlife--I would argue that it's better than most parks we have. And if we really restructured to local food systems, maybe some of that moat of monoculture we call "lawns" will turn into backyard gardens and farms. This is creating microhabitats, not destroying macrohabitats like farming has a history of doing.
The real point is that GMOs are not necessary--and maybe a little scary. We can do better with a little hard work and observation. And how many billinons of dollars have been poured into researching the GMO crops? I can think of a few better uses for that cash.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:09 am
24 Jul 2007
(1) In your opinion, which single chemical used for conventional agriculture is the most harmful for humans and/or the environment?
(2) In your opinion, which single feature of GMOs is most harmful for humans and/or the environment?
(3) In your opinion, which single chemical used for organic agriculture is most harmful for humans and/or the environment?
Feel free to send an email if you don't wish to post a public comment.
Forward!
Permalink