Leading  Issues  Journal  

October 2000  Issue No 2.

To view an interview with Dr Rosemary Stanton, please click here.

Genetically Modified Foods

By Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM

Throughout the world, there is a debate raging over genetically modified (GM)

foods. Are they safe? Should they be labelled? How might they affect future

health? What will they do to the environment? Are they necessary? Can

Australia afford to miss out on the benefits of growing GM crops? Who benefits

from these new technologies?

Reactions against GM foods range from the logical arguments of the Union of

Concerned Scientists to protesters in space suits ripping up trial fields of GM

crops in the United Kingdom. Some large food companies and major supermarket

chains in the United Kingdom and Europe have declared they will not stock the

foods, usually because they see the commercial advantages in taking such a

stand. Many, including consumer groups in most countries of the world, have

called for a moratorium on commercial growing of GM crops until their health,

environmental and ethical effects have been fully investigated by independent

researchers and appropriate committees.

On the other hand, companies marketing GM foods and some researchers react

angrily to anyone who questions their wholehearted support of the technology.

Researchers are often enthusiastic about potentially useful applications of the

technology, and also see many job opportunities. Organisations representing

large food companies are also in favour of GM foods, convinced that the public

concern is fuelled by ignorance and scaremongering on the part of 'green'

groups.

Where will it all lead, and what are the options?

Gene technology itself is not inherently bad and it undoubtedly has many

potential uses. Medical applications of gene technology, for example, are

vitally important and are well accepted because consumers see them as useful and

their production and use is contained.

Theoretically, GM crops could offer better nutrition to people in countries

where undernutrition is a major problem. The reality, however, is that GM crops

are being grown in countries where there is more than enough food and are sold

only to those who can pay for them. Many are being used for animal feeds - a

proven distortion of use of the world's resources and GM crops have not been

cheaper than regular crops and have not given the increased yields promised.

Over 80% of the world's farmers are subsistence farmers and for them, GM crops

will lead to a continued and worsening indebtedness to large agribusinesses.

Many consumers believe there has not been sufficient recognition of the

potential ecological problems of GM crops. The ethical aspects of large

companies owning the patents on seeds used for basic foodstuffs has also been

largely ignored as companies rush to secure their markets ahead of their

competitors. The influence agribusinesses exert on governments, the lack of

consultation with the public, the unwillingness to label GM products, the

attempts to marginalise those who enter the debate and the dismissal of valid

concerns as scaremongering do not engender confidence in those promoting GM

foods. Nor does the fact that those who stand to profit from the research are

its funders.

There are many examples where embracing new technologies before all the evidence

is to hand have proved disastrous. The problems of pesticides when used in

combination, the land degradation resulting from overenthusiastic clearing,

salinity from irrigation and mad cow disease from inappropriate animal feeds are

a few examples. We already have evidence that some forms of GM technology could

create future problems with weed control and disrupt ecological balance through

their effect on beneficial insect populations, so you might assume we would

accept the lessons of history and move slowly.

Even more importantly, we should be working out whether there are practical ways

this technology could benefit those who need it most instead of increasing the

coffers of those who want the right to own and patent genetic resources. The

disparity between rich and poor throughout the world is likely to accelerate

with ownership of GM food patents. Much more debate on this technology is

needed before we rush into accepting it.