by – Des Moines Register, 15 December 2014
Francis Thicke (Photo: Special to the Register)
Belief systems and narratives matter, as was pointed out in a Nov. 23 opinion piece defending genetically modified organisms (GMOs) against growing public concerns (“Americans need to rethink our views of GMO vs organic crops”). We agree that a dramatic change in belief systems is needed if we’re to have enough healthful food for all, including the 9 billion or so people expected globally by 2050. However, American scientists and bureaucrats are the ones who need to examine their belief systems.
Scientists have a responsibility to be objective when assessing the validity of conflicting beliefs. Government bureaucrats are responsible for protecting public interests even under conditions of uncertainty. In reality, there is not yet clear or compelling evidence to either convict or acquit GMOs of the indictments reflecting growing public concerns. Scientists in much of the rest of the world are willing to admit this reality. Their government officials are taking a precautionary approach to protecting the environment and public health from potential risks posed by GMOs. Scientists and bureaucrats in the United States have few global allies in their beliefs, other than those with conflicts of interest through corporate connections.
Fred Kirschenmann (Photo: Special to the Register)
That said, compelling evidence was ignored in the opinion piece defending GMOs. First, potential human health risks associated with genetically engineered (GE) foods were never assessed. Government bureaucrats, under documented corporate pressures, simply ruled that crops modified by genetic engineering were “substantially equivalent” to crops selected through conventional plant breeding programs. This allowed GE food products to be classified “generally accepted as safe,” which exempted GE foods from extensive tests to ensure that new foods are safe for consumption.
Independent testsraise major concerns
The genetic engineering process is not as precise as its defenders suggest. Genetic engineering differs from traditional plant breeding in many important ways. There are many unanswered questions regarding the effects of GE on the modified organism – as well as those who consume GE foods. The few truly independent tests conducted on GE foods have raised significant public health concerns that have never been adequately addressed.
John Ikerd (Photo: Special to the Register)
Defenders consistently claim that further testing is not needed because American consumers have been eating GE foods for decades with no documented ill effects. But there have been no tests for long-term health effects of GE food, in spite of the fact that many diseases are on the increase. A recent study found that the increase of GE foods in our diets correlates highly with the increase of 22 diseases in the U.S. population. Correlations do not indicate causality; however, the absence of causation is essential to preclude the possibility of causality.
Promoters of GMOs suggest that any potential risks associated with GMOs are outweighed by the benefits of GE crops to protect the environment and provide food for a growing global population. Corporations that promote GMOs are not nonprofit or philanthropic organizations; their legal responsibility is to serve investors and enhance short-term economic value of their investments. If we could be assured that the environment and the hungry were well cared for in the process, perhaps the motives wouldn’t matter. But, that is not the case.
Pesticide use in the United States has not decreased, but increased while GE crops have gained dominance on U.S. farms. This is clearly documented by government statistics. Yields have not been higher for GE crops than for non-GE crops. The primary advantage of GE crops is simplification of pest management, allowing and eventually forcing farmers to farm more acres, resulting in larger and fewer farms. Perhaps the greatest concern is that corporate patenting of GE crops is bringing the American food system — including agricultural research — under corporate influence. The logical economic motive for promoting GMOs globally is not to provide food for hungry people but to extend corporate control and profit.
Those outside the U.S.recognize problems
Most of the rest of the world have not accepted GMOs as being without significant risks. Many people in “less developed” countries are rejecting GMOs because they see GE as the next wave of the Green Revolution, which in retrospect they see as a failure. They understand that while industrial agriculture can increase total production, it will provide food for those with money, not those who are hungry because they are poor. They also have seen that industrial agriculture is not sustainable, polluting their environment, degrading their land, and destroying their rural communities, cultures and economies.
Even if GMOs could produce more food, reputable agricultural scientists in other countries know we don’t need GMOs to provide food for a growing global population. Contrary to the claims of GMO promoters, numerous studies have confirmed that yields on well-managed organic farms can compete with conventional yields. Small farms around the world already provide food for more than 70 percent of the world’s population. International scientists, under the auspices of the United Nations, have consistently found that transitioning these small farms to organic and sustainable farming methods can increase yields by 100 to 200 percent, without expensive inputs, easily providing food for 9 billion people by 2050. Furthermore, in our current food system almost 40 percent of the food produced gets wasted, so solving the problem of waste is at least as important as producing more food.
It’s true; we Americans need a dramatic change in our beliefs if we’re to have enough food for all while leaving resources and opportunities for those of the future. We agree that belief systems are notoriously resistant to facts – apparently even the beliefs of scientists and bureaucrats. Diet/health statistics clearly indicate that we no longer have the world’s best food system, and that it is increasingly under the control of an agro-industrial food complex. We need to find the courage to challenge those in power to create the kind of food system that can feed everyone in a healthful and sustainable way.
THE AUTHORS:
JOHN IKERD is a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia. FRED KIRSCHENMANN is a fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. FRANCIS THICKE is a farmer from Fairfield and a former national program leader for soil science at the USDA-Extension Service. Contact: jeikerd@gmail.com.
No Comments to "Scientists need to rethink their beliefs about GMOs"