FUTURE generations will thank us for attempting to save them from
industrialised agriculture and “genetic pollution”.
The idea that research is always good does not stand up to deeper scrutiny.
We live in a society where science funding is distorted by the interests of big
business. Scientific independence rests not only on how an experiment is done,
but also on who decides which experiments are being done. Industry exerts a
disproportionate influence, so that the development of unsustainable
technologies is often subsidised by taxpayers’ money.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the field trials of genetically modified
(GM) crops, where multinationals are allowed to grow crops that nobody wants and
to threaten the future of organic agriculture in the name of science. We already
know that contamination of other plants and crops by cross-pollination from
genetically modified crops is inevitable and irreversible. Somehow the field
trials are meant to show what level of contamination is acceptable. This is
despite overwhelming public rejection of any level of contamination, and a
ludicrous mismatch between the potential of the experiment and its claims.
Measuring the impact on wildlife in the field may provide some understanding,
but it won’t allow us to predict the long-term impact of widespread use of GM
crops on ecosystems. Such predictability, if achievable at all, will take many
decades of controlled laboratory studies, inspired theoretical leaps in
understanding and painstaking study of the natural world. Field-scale plantings
will teach us something only when it is too late for harm to be reversed.
Scientists should ask some penetrating questions of all “environmental”
research: Does the experiment itself damage the environment? Is it a major
commitment (financial, political or both) to a harmful activity? Has society had
a say on whether it should go ahead? Is research into alternatives being funded?
Is there any mechanism for saying “no” to expansion of the technology or
The field trials fail on all counts. For instance, the government is spending
a mere £2.2 million a year on research and development of the organic
sector. By contrast, it spends £125 million on R&D for industrial
farming, and £52 million on agricultural biotechnology.
The misuse of science to disguise controversial projects as innocent research is becoming
frighteningly common. Take the issue of nuclear waste. Many geologists spoke out
against Nirex’s plans to build the first stage of a nuclear waste dump at its
site in Cumbria. Many others, including the British Geological Survey, claimed
it was “just an experiment” to see if the site was suitable.
If the local authorities had only listened to these latter scientists the
objections would never have been heard and Nirex’s “Rock Characterisation
Facility” would now be under construction. Instead, an inquiry found that the
site was unsuitable and the science behind Nirex’s proposal “inadequate”.
What other profession would allow a leaking nuclear waste dump to be
constructed in its name? Who else, other than scientists, is willing to back
field after field of GM crops being planted across Britain?
When Britain has up to a hundred field trials running, as planned by next
year, any prospect of growing GM-free food could be lost. So-called
“experiments” will have propelled us down a course that the public does not want
to take. We must choose now between organic agriculture and more industrial and
GM farming. If there is no inquiry process—and there is not—then
direct action is the only option.
WHY did they burn witches in the Middle Ages? Easy. It was easier to kill
them than to find out if they really caused harm.
Greenpeace’s decision to disrupt trials of GM crops obeys the same appalling
logic. History will view it as an action born of fear—the fear that
objective evidence about genetically modified crops could become an impediment
to mindless opposition. In targeting the experiments that would allow a
dispassionate assessment of risks, the protestors have assumed they already know
the outcome of planting GM crops. Imagine the outrage if the British government
had leapt to the conclusion that such crops were safe and no longer required
special approval, as is the position in the US.
Greenpeace defends its actions by saying that “nobody wants” these crops.
This might be acceptable if the public had been involved in an informed debate,
rather than being subject to a stream of negative propaganda. But the concept
that if I indoctrinate you to believe something, your belief becomes truth, is
hardly a sound one.
Consider the belief that the trials are unethical because we already know
that GM crops are risky. Even if we assume they are, new varieties of
conventional crops are likely to be riskier—but there is no campaign to
destroy them. Conventional breeders cross crops with distant relatives to
produce new hybrids containing thousands of new genes. We know almost nothing
about these genes. Yet the crops do not become significantly more weedy or more
poisonous than they already are. And this despite the fact that the aim of
breeding is often to make the crops disease resistant and fitter. So why should
the very few genes that are introduced in genetic modification cause
Another belief is that the trials provide a back door for companies to
produce GM crops. But for what commercial gain? At the end of the trials, the
crops will be destroyed anyway. And remember, these trials were established to
see whether GM crops cause any more harm to the environment than traditional
varieties. If they do, they will not be commercialised. Destroying the trials
will also make it harder for the government should it want to block GM grains
from the US, because world trade rules require sound scientific reasons for
Greenpeace argues that GM crops “threaten the future of organic agriculture”
because food free of GM ingredients could no longer be produced if GM crops were
allowed. This is blatant lobbying for the Soil Association, which is only a part
of the organic food movement.
The Soil Association has decided that contamination by pesticides is
acceptable for organic food, but that the presence of a few pollen grains from
GM crops is not. This decision owes nothing to safety: if it did they would be
more concerned about pollen from deadly nightshade. It is a thinly disguised
attempt to impede development of a technology they do not like.
All agriculture harms biodiversity. A freshly ploughed organic field offers
no more food for herbivores than a field recently sprayed with herbicide.
Existing methods of food production can provide varied diets for no more than a
small proportion of the world’s people. And as developing countries become
wealthier they will demand greater variety in the food they eat.
Yes, we could stop the “risky” genetically modification programmes and hope
that even more risky traditional breeding will solve the problems. But surely it
is better to develop technologies embracing the best of organic practice and
biotechnology. It may be the only chance we get of creating a world where
wildlife and food production can coexist.