September 2003
In the United Kingdom, the GM discussion goes on. A notable letter to one of the UK's news broadsheets has been pursued swiftly by another notable letter. Placed alongside each other, the two make compelling reading. Here is letter one, from Professor Emeritus Jack Pridham, located at Royal Holloway, University of London. The Professor Emeritus adds to his letter no declaration of lack of interest.
Your correspondents appear to be convinced that GM crops are not the answer to the world's hunger problems.
Genetic modification of crop plants will clearly play a part in solving these problems, with assistance from other technologies, including classical breeding methods and the agrochemical industry.
Britain has considerable expertise in this economically important area of science, but the contribution it could make is under serious threat from an anti-GM lobby that has provided little or no good evidence for its claims and expects the impossible -- that the technology should advance with no risk.
The debate concentrates almost entirely on the small number of prototype products of the industry, namely, the insect-resistant and the herbicide-resistant hybrids. As prototypes, we [sic: JBK] might expect them to have some imperfections, although the bulk of the scientific literature suggests that they are valuable, trouble-free products.
What is missing from the discussion is the future of GM, which we can glimpse in recent reports of the high-protein "potato", low-caffeine GM coffee and hypoallergenic ryegrass with a reduced potential to cause hay fever. The possibilities are endless.
We face a future with depleted fossil fuels when we shall [sic: JBK] need to rely on "clean" GM technology to produce many of our chemical requirements.
If necessary, these plants will be engineered to prevent cross-pollination and this, coupled with the appropriate husbandry, will provide environmental safety.
Regarding health and GM foods, nothing of substance connects the two except the expectancy of better health.
Letter two is from Mr Brian Shaw, who declares no academic or scientific status, and, also, adds to his letter no declaration of lack of interest.
Professor Pridham seems to forget that a high percentage of the British public are enthusiastic gardeners and horticulturists and will not be convinced by his GM arguments. There is not a world food shortage, but many are starving because of poverty, civil war and drought-induced crop failures. GM will not resolve those issues and may in fact make them far worse.
When it comes to feeding the world's poorest, pulses, not high-protein potatoes, are surely the solution. Over the centuries, hundreds of high-yield pulses have been developed for varying climates by conventional hybridisation.
With simple irrigation systems, even in poor soil, using seed saved from earlier crops, substantial subsistence crops can be obtained for zero capital outlay. The cross-fertilisation from neighbouring GM crop trials in parts of India has already led to cases of seed sterility and crop failure. The introduction of GM into such countries will make the rich wealthier and the poor destitute.
Monoculture was a key factor in the Irish potato famine and lies behind the present banana scare, so clearly it is a road to be avoided at all costs.
In a high-labour-cost country such as America, a herbicide-resistant soya may be commercially viable, maintaining crop yields with less labour. In poor countries, replacing direct labour with chemicals has obvious consequences. The environmental effect of the herbicides and insecticides used must also be evaluated and the long-term effects of upsetting the balance of nature considered.
Most field trials have revealed complications in these areas, so do we need GM crops? The rewards for any company that controls the supply of seeds, herbicides and insecticides for staple crops worldwide are immense; and that is the driving force for GM.
In his letter, Professor Emeritus Pridham states
If necessary, these plants will be engineered to prevent cross-pollination ...
The italics are mine. I think I have read as widely as most who follow the GM discussion, but not until now have I seen a reference to the possibility of engineering to prevent cross-pollination. If control of pollination has been achieved (which I question), what has been done to achieve it? And what could be the repercussions within the global commercial, environmental and horticultural systems of a plant -- any plant -- that refuses to cross-pollinate? Also, within this context, what, exactly and comprehensively, does cross-pollinate mean? Presuming that, inadvertently, some kind of cat has not been let out of some kind of bag, it is clear that we have more to learn.
