Are GM Crops the Answer to the Global Food Crisis?

As the news of a global food crisis keeps flowing, more commentators are engaging with the debate around genetically modified (GM) crops, suggesting that they might be the key to producing more food. Last Sunday the Times quoted Giles Oldroyd, of the John Innes Centre, saying:

“Until now there has been the sense that we can do without GM methods. But with rising food prices, we will appreciate that if this is a way to increase yields and keep prices down, it is worth pursuing.” (Times)

This theme was picked up by Robin McKie, writing in the Observer this weekend under the headline
As the world begins to starve it’s time to take GM seriously. McKie suggests that in order to feed the world’s population, we are faced with a choice. McKie quotes Professor Chris Pollack of the University of Wales:

“To stop widespread starvation, we will either have to plough up the planet’s last wild places to grow more food or improve crop yields. GM technology allows farmers to do the latter – without digging up rainforests. It is therefore perverse to rule out that technology for no good reason.” (Observer)

McKie argues that just because GM technology may have been “misused by biotechnology conglomerates” that is not reason to rule out its use altogther, and calls for the introduction of GM drought and disease resistant crops. He describes the crucial issue as whether or not society is willing to change its attitude to GM crops, having cited Bill McKelvey, principal of the Scottish Agricultural College here in Edinburgh at length to establish the purported benefits of GM crops. McKie quotes McKelvey as follows:

“Britain and Europe have isolated themselves from the rest of the world over transgenic crops … We have decided the technology, for no good reason, is dangerous. The rest of the world doesn’t thinks so and has got on with using it. For example, GM soya is grown throughout America and Asia. It doesn’t worry people there for the simple reason that no one has ever died of eating GM food. On the other hand, a lot of people could soon die because they have no food of any kind.” (Observer)

Yet McKie’s article seems out of step with much published evidence. Two elements of his argument stand out as problematic, first, the assertion that GM crops will increase yields, and second, the understanding of hunger and poverty.

1. Will GM crops really deliver higher yields?

McKie quotes Chris Pollack: “GM technology allows farmers to do [improve crop yields]“. (Observer) Yet much research seems to disagree. Indeed, the Independent reported just last Sunday on a new study from the University of Kansas which suggests that genetic modification can cut the productivity of crops. The 10-year study found that GM soya produces about 10% less food than its conventional equivalent. The Soil Association recently summarised the latest research on GM crops in this press release, which concludes that

“The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.”

Similar conclusions are reached by a recent report from Friends of the Earth and published on the Center for Food Safety website. The report also states that “The most widely planted GM crops are associated with rapidly growing use of pesticides, while their yield effects are either negative or uncertain.” (Report, p. 41)

The idea that all is well in North American GM production is thrown into question by the Seeds of Doubt report, available from the Soil Association website. McKie quotes McKelvey:

“GM soya is grown throughout America and Asia. It doesn’t worry people there for the simple reason that no one has ever died of eating GM food. On the other hand, a lot of people could soon die because they have no food of any kind.” (Observer)

The Seeds of Doubt report examines the effects on farming, the contamination, the economic impacts and the legal issues which have arisen from the expansion of GM crops in North America. The Farming Impacts section observes that:

• projections of increased yields have not been realised,
• profitability for farmers has decreased,
• reliance on herbicides has increased,
• new weed problems have emerged,
• farmers have a dramatically reduced level of choice of crop and seed options.

2. What is at stake? How should we approach hunger and poverty.

McKie suggests that there are many hungry people in the world, and that there will be more hungry people in future, and that in response, we need to grow more food. Yet this seems to me a very simplistic understanding of hunger and response to hunger, rooted in a similar understanding of poverty. McKie does acknowledge that transgenic crops alone will not “save the world from starvation”, and that improvements in transport and greater political stability are needed. But look back at the list of conclusions about the impacts on farmers from the Seeds of Doubt report above. If eliminating hunger is about more than just giving people more food, GM crops certainly do not have a good record so far.