GM crops: let’s stick to the facts
The GM trials researchers referred to in the article stressed that “the differences they found do not arise because the crops were genetically modified.
"They arise because these GM crops give farmers new options for weed control”. The researchers also “believe that the differences in wildlife could be similar to those found if a farmer changed from growing one crop to another”.
Press comment makes an inherent assumption that weeds are desirable in crops. From an agriculture and food production point of view, this is incorrect.
A farmer using a transgenic crop only remains a “tied customer of the chemical company” so long as he uses the transgenic seed. The farmer is not forced to purchase transgenic seed or use the company’s weedkiller.
Farmers have a choice. And they exercise it annually based on economics and market demand.
Where is the evidence that most European consumers don’t want to eat GM foods? Was there an official survey conducted in the 15 EU member states?
Most people who don’t belong to pro- or anti-GMO groups will confess that they don’t know enough about GM food to make a balanced decision either way.
This would suggest there is a need for greater knowledge and awareness among ordinary citizens. With reference to developing countries, any balanced evaluation would conclude that GM crops alone will not feed the world.
That argument is too simplistic, yet it is more often referred to not by representatives of the biotechnology industry, but by politicians, pro- and anti-GM lobbyists and journalists.
GM crops, if properly researched, developed and applied, can make a significant contribution to improving food security and increase production in areas where diseases, pests and adverse soil and climatic conditions stop farmers from producing enough food for themselves, their families and the local population.
Contrary to what was suggested in Mr Warner’s article, official statistics show that the area of transgenic crops grown in Canada has steadily increased from 0.1 million hectares in 1996 to 3.5 million hectares in 2002.
This would hardly suggest that Canadian farmers have found that their input costs have increased while crop yields have dropped. It would indicate the exact opposite.
Despite what is regularly insinuated by reporters in articles covering these issues, farmers are not stupid.
It is simplistic in the extreme to suggest that through technological developments, “food production will be controlled by six giant corporations”.
Control ultimately rests with the consumer who chooses what to buy and the farmer who responds to the market demand and chooses what to produce.
I agree with Dick Warner when he asserts that it is irritating when interpretations of results and findings by all interested parties do little to help ordinary citizens make up their minds about GMOs.
It is also irritating when inaccurate reporting and generalised opinion and comment do little to address this situation. Maybe it would help if we were to write articles about, and report on, the facts and then discuss and debate the issues raised.
John Geraghty,
Agriculture Consultant,
42, Ardnacassa Avenue,
Longford.
