“Man fears what he does not understand”. Yeats immortal words are an apt description of commonly held attitude towards genetically modified crops. The scientific community universally believes genetic modification to be a highly beneficial process, and little to no criticism exists on its merits in theory. While laypersons may find the ‘GMO’ term alien, most are familiar with its functional form, ‘selective breeding’.
The practice of artificial selection (or selective breeding) is probably as old as civilization itself. After all, humanity has cross-bred varieties of plants, birds, cattle and pets to develop desired physical and morphological traits (called phenotypes). Biologists’ favourite example is the domestication of wild wolf that thanks to careful selection led to the development of modern-day canine.
Virtually all modern grains and cereals were developed in a similar fashion, except agriculturists didn’t begin to fully appreciate the gene-based underpinnings of hereditary breeding until second half of nineteenth century.
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, arguably the most renowned scientist since Stephen Hawking, “practically every food human consume is genetically modified. Think of all the fruits and vegetables that are part of our daily diet. Their counterparts in the wild are not as large; not as sweet; not as juicy; and have way more seeds in it”.
Why then, are GMO crops so controversial if consensus exists in principle on its merits? Part of the answer is in science, but the rest is in economics and politics of special interests. Major GM crops such as cotton, maize, soyabean and canola were developed during 90s, with their gene structure altered to either act as pesticide producers such as Bt. Corn, or as herbicide resistors, such as Roundup Ready soy.
Bt. Corn, for example, is genetically modified to release a toxin poisonous to insect & pests that could otherwise cause billion-dollar in damage to maize crop annually. Upon harvest, the toxin makes its way to human gut directly or indirectly by entering the food chain. While biotech firms insist that these toxins pose no known risk to human health, critics argue that longitudinal studies observing such effects have been far and few and are often sponsored by same biotech firms, thus compromising the credibility of conclusions drawn.
But why adopt GM crops at all if its risks are yet unknown? Because the only alternate way to protect (mass-consumption) crops against pest attacks is to encourage use of chemical-based insecticides/pesticides that have been proven to be carcinogenic, lead to worsened neurological outcomes, and indicate strong evidence for causing birth defects and reduce fertility.
Then how have GMOs managed to make itself look worse than chemical germicides? Mostly thanks to diminished credibility of large bio-tech firms accredited with their development. Instead of earning recognition for innovation and contributing to planet’s food security, US-based firms such as DuPont and erstwhile Monsanto are vilified for using bribery and influence to secure licensing of their products in other regions. Part of the trust deficit is also explained by history. After all, Monsanto was a producer of Agent Orange that led to much suffering during Vietnam War.
Even more unsettling is the economics of opposition. Developing agri-based economies that refuse to adopt GMO seeds despite obvious gains in productivity are also motivated by rational self-interest and not hysteria. And that motivation is trade.
While GM crops such as corn, soyabean and canola dominate agriculture in USA, they remain widely unpopular in Western Europe countries led by stringent EU healthcare rules. As Europe refuses to import food products from countries that allowed GM crops, developing economies enjoy a shot at exporting their grains to EU countries. Which, by the way, offer a steep premium for non-GMO/organic certification?
Since grains such as corn cross-pollinate with wind, allowing cultivation of GM maize to even a small minority of farmers risks losing EU export markets altogether because there is virtually no way to separate GM from organic fields.
Thus, governments in developing world often face a Sophie’s choice between productivity gains and food security on one side, and export earnings on the other.
On ground, ever-evolving pests and worms invading cotton crop have shown to develop resistance to early generation GMOs. Prima facie, this is no different from superbugs developing immunity to antibiotics – the obvious response to which is ever increasing focus on constant innovation.
Except, since biotech firms own the patents to GM seeds, these seeds come at a high price and stringent licensing agreement. Meaning that buying next generation seeds can be an expensive business, and higher yields may mean that the return may not justify the investment. This has drawn critique from rights groups, which insist that GM seeds are only beneficial for large farmers that enjoy scale, and does little to uplift small or subsistence farmer, especially in developing countries.
Moreover, a typical licensing agreement includes clauses forbidding saving seeds for coming season or sharing them. As biotech firms often require farmers to share detailed crop data, even an unintentional breach of contract can lead to litigation.
While more of an optics problem than a serious challenge to GMO technology, this has earned bio firms a lot of notoriety as a result. Before Bayer acquired Monsanto globally, it insisted that it sees repairing Monsanto’s reputation as a major challenge. Instead, it ended up dropping latter’s name, finding it too ‘toxic’ to brand image. The irony.