Debate over GM continues

In comments published in today’s Guardian, Clare Oxborrow reinforces the position held by Friends of The Earth. She correctly points to the fact that GM remains dominated by only a few global representatives and that little has been achieved in the area of productivity benefits or further reassurance regarding long-term environmental outcomes. After 30 years of research, we are looking at small numbers of commodity crops which are mostly used for stock feed. Despite the early claims, pesticide use has increased as a consequence of GM technologies and there is greater likelihood of GM contamination in a significant number of important food resources.

A recent concern raised by GM Freeze is the UK government’s apparent rush to support further development of biofuels. This may occur despite world grain reserves approaching their lowest point for 50 years. GM Freeze’s campaign director, Pete Riley, is also skeptical of claims that the biotech approach will deliver seeds which are suitable for cropping under adverse conditions of environmental stress. Given unpredictable weather patterns in many regions, it is unreasonable to expect growers to anticipate future conditions.

In terms of government policy, what measures must be taken to preserve the integrity of our agricultural and related primary resource industries? Most opponents of GM agree that it should promote safe and sustainable farming methods locally and abroad. This will include further public education regarding the principles and methods of organic and biodynamic farming and the essential importance of maintaining genetic diversity in our plant and animal stocks.

Ultimately, it is the availability of genetic diversity which enables living species, wild or cultivated, to adapt to changing environmental conditions.