GM crops ‘leave a huge chemical footprint’

IN his article headlined ‘Future could be GM and nuclear power’ (June 2), Brian O’Mahony puts forward certain arguments that need further analysis.

I agree the cost of food continues to be a global concern. Combine this with an increasing global population and the challenge becomes huge.

However, it is also true that agriculture cannot continue its business-as-usual approach and indications from Brussels reflect this view.

As the GM debate continues to rage in Europe, it is worth taking a look at the experience of GM crop production from the US where the technology originated and where they have had the most consistent production of this type of technology.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has significant data and research compiled on GM crops through collaboration with the farmers who grow them and the companies involved in the supply of the technology.

After years of growing them in the US, the economic benefits are far from clear and in the majority of cases have resulted in increased costs for the farmers who are producing them and indeed also for farmers producing conventional or organic crops.

The 2009 report by Charles Benbrook of the Organic Centre in the US explored the impact of the adoption of GM corn, soyabean and cotton with regard to pesticide use.

Data from the US Department of Agriculture was the principal source of material and his findings conclude that “GE crops have been responsible for the increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the US over the first 13 years of commercial use”.

The report goes on to conclude that this increase in herbicide use swamps the decrease in its use attributed to corn and cotton-making, and the overall chemical footprint of GE crops is decidedly negative.

The report also identifies and discusses in detail the primary cause of the increase – herbicide-resistant weeds. The major benefactors of this type of food production are not the farmers or consumers but the multinationals who own this technology.

If GM cultivation became widespread, then these multinationals would own a greater share of global food production which would impact heavily on food production in the rest of the world which has rejected GM food.

GM food is costly to produce and therefore will be costly for consumers to purchase and is likely to lead to overall increases in the cost of all food to the consumer.

Farmers need to produce food that the consumer wants to eat and, overwhelmingly, consumers want food that is free from pesticides and has been produced in a manner that does not compromise natural resources.

Pragmatic organic farmers are doing just that and consumers are supporting them throughout the country.

Grace Maher

Development Officer

Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association

Newtownforbes

Co Longford