Essay by Eric Worrall
Political ecologists worrying that the EU is embracing genetic engineering to protect food supplies from global warming.
Genetically modified crops aren’t a solution to climate change, despite what the biotech industry says
Published: December 16, 2023 1.09am AEDT
Anneleen Kenis Lecturer in Political Ecology and Environmental Justice, Brunel University London
Barbara Van Dyck Research Fellow in Political Agroecology, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)The European Commission launched a proposal in July 2023 to deregulate a large number of plants manufactured using new genetic techniques.
Despite extraordinary attempts by the Spanish presidency to force a breakthrough, EU members have not yet reached a consensus on this plan. But if the proposal were to be approved, these plants would be treated the same as conventional plants, eliminating the need for safety tests and the labelling of genetically modified food products.
…
So, where has this proposal come from? Biotech firms seem to have succeeded in convincing the European Commission that we need new genetically modified crops to tackle climate change. They argue that by enhancing crops’ resistance to drought or improving their ability to capture carbon, climate change may no longer seem such a daunting challenge.
If this seems too good to be true, unfortunately, it is. Biotech firms have taken advantage of growing concerns about climate change to influence the European Commission with an orchestrated lobbying campaign.
…
Although biotech firms are playing the climate card, only a small proportion of the genetically modified crops being developed deal with concerns related to the climate. In fact, the climate credentials of many of these crops are questionable. Modifications such as an increased shelf life, or being better able to withstand being transported are merely intended to smooth the operation of our unsustainable food system.
…
Ultimately, people and the planet will pay the price when untested genetically modified crops penetrate our environments and the food chain.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/genetically-modified-crops-arent-a-solution-to-climate-change-despite-what-the-biotech-industry-says-219637
The idea that GM is needed to protect crops in Europe from climate change is ridiculous. Crops are already grown in vastly different climates to Europe, and Europe itself embraces a significant range of climates. For example, if they need more drought resistant strains of wheat or whatever, they could buy some non-GM samples from Australia. Or perhaps from Spain.
Even stranger is the academic objection to GM as expressed in this article. They express concerns about monoculture crops and diversity loss creating a single point of failure, which seems fair enough, but they are also concerned GM might be used to increase food shelf life? Isn’t food waste one of the top issues greens usually complain about? Or do they want us to eat rotten food like our ancestors did, instead of genetically improved food which might retain its taste with less refrigeration and processing than traditional varieties?
There is no evidence after decades of use in the USA and elsewhere that GM is a significant health threat, so it is way past time the EU and other holdout nations retired their paranoia about GM. There is a low level risk which has to be tested with each modification, plant toxins are actually pretty toxic, so you need to make sure your new insect pest resistant wonder strain of tomatoes or whatever isn’t also poisonous to humans. However intensive cross breeding can also create similar issues – if you cross enough insect resistant strains, even without GM you run a risk of ending up with a crop variety which is too toxic for humans to eat. But decades of commercial use of GM supports the view that normal commercial testing and product liability law is enough to contain this risk, however the new commercial crop strain was created.
