Part three puts forward the main points of debate between supporters and critics of GM.
The debate over the environmental impact of GM is one of the most polarised of modern times.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Campaigning organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, not to mention numerous smaller groups and websites that focus solely on GM, believe that GM represents a threat to global bio-diversity and that the benefits have been over-egged by the GM industry.
Proponents of GM dub this view as Luddite. They believe GM technology not only to be benign but a force for good, taking plant breeding to a new level to meet the daunting challenge of sustainably feeding a growing population.
GM is therefore at the centre of a global debate over how the world will meet the dual challenge of guaranteeing global food security while minimising climate change and other negative impacts. As such, genetic technology is a key feature in the sustainable intensification approach to agricultural development.
GM sceptics tend to favour agro-ecological approaches to meeting the food security challenge. While such approaches place a significant emphasis on organic methods, proponents stress that the agro-ecological approach is not solely about organic.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataAdvocates for the biotech sector believe campaigners play on what they characterise as uninformed and irrational fears and the media appetite for feeding that unease, which exploits and adds to the ‘Frankenfood’ mythology, rather than focusing on the science. In turn, the extremely well-financed biotech industry spends huge amounts of money to communicate what it believes to be the truth about GM and lobby in its favour, and is often maligned as a result.
Not only can biotech companies draw on their own research, which is their stock in trade, but many academics are researching the subject, and while some remain sceptical, the majority view appears to be supportive of the development of GM. This appears to be reflected in the prevailing regulatory position in the EU of acceptance conditional on continuous testing and evaluation and appropriate safeguards.
Environmental questions
With the numerous applications of GM across different agricultural sectors, distilling the environmental campaign view down to a few key elements is not straightforward. UK GM campaigner GeneWatch UK puts the environmental hazards posed by GM crops into four categories:
Genetic contamination
Other crops and wild plants may become contaminated with the foreign genes added to the GM crop. Genewatch UK says that GM maize imported into Mexico has already contaminated native varieties.
The evolution of ‘super-weeds’
The use of GM crops may lead to new ‘super-weeds’ evolving which will be difficult or even impossible to eradicate. In Canada, where GM oilseed rape has been grown for six years, super-weeds that are resistant to three herbicides have already become a problem for farmers, the campaigner states.
Increased pollution
GM crop cultivation may lead to an increase in the use of harmful chemicals. The biotech industry has claimed that GM crops allow farmers to use fewer chemical weedkillers and insecticides. However, Genewatch UK states that in North America the use of weedkillers has not been reduced.
Harm to wildlife
Wildlife may be harmed by new toxins in the environment or changes in agricultural practices.
The industry response
Herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops and plants account for in excess of 95% of GM crops currently being cultivated, according to Europabio, which states that both forms of GM crops contribute to a reduction in farmer application of plant protection products.
It states that a number of major studies in the US found lower herbicide use, reduced by between 25% and 33%, for herbicide resistant GM crops, namely oilseed rape, cotton, maize and soybean, in comparison with conventional crops. The results have been published in a comprehensive article by Kleter, et al., cited in a Europabio report.
Europabio also refers to research in France which found that the 22,000 ha of Bt maize cultivated in 2007 had saved up to 8,800 litres of insecticide spraying. In Spain, farmers growing Bt maize applied almost three times less agrochemical treatments per year compared to conventional maize farmers, Europabio adds.
The biotech industry also points to experience in Spain in support of the idea that GM, conventional and organic crops can co-exist.
“In Europe, over ten years of experience with Bt maize in Spain has shown that farmers can and do manage coexistence in practice,” Europabio states. The organisation adds that precautionary measures, such as sufficient isolation, varying flowering dates, the cleaning of equipment, traceability and testing all contribute to minimising genetic contamination risks.
Europabio also says there is “mounting evidence” that GM crops have no significant adverse effects on non-target organisms. Studies have confirmed that Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is more specific and has fewer side effects than conventional pesticides, underlined by the fact that it is used in organic farming. Indeed, it is seen as “highly selective and environmentally friendly” according to Europabio.
Two meta-analysis studies in Science and Nature Genetics magazines respectively, cited by Europabio, conclude that “non-target organisms are generally more abundant in Bt maize fields than in non-transgenic fields managed with insecticides”. The additional benefit of Bt maize over maize sprayed with organic and synthetic insecticides is that GM Bt maize crops give insect protection without spraying and thereby reduce traffic on the farm and emission levels.
Professor Anthony Trewavas of the Institute of Molecular Plant Science at Edinburgh University, a supporter of GM and vocal critic of organic methods, believes this important benefit should not be underestimated. “Herbicide resistant crops have seen the large-scale introduction of no till agriculture in the US,” says Professor Trewavas. “Emissions from a no-till farm are one third that of organic farms and there are enormous benefits to the wildlife in and above the soil.” How much the use of GM crops can lower climate change impacts from agriculture is clearly critical in weighing up GM’s potential contribution to sustainably meeting the global food security challenge.
Conclusion
Proponents of GM naturally play down many of the fears expressed by campaigners both on environmental and food safety grounds, citing field trials and extensive testing as evidence in defence of GM. But above all, they refer to the absence of negative impacts from GM crops that have already been introduced into the food chain.
As Europabio states: “Globally, more than 2 trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been eaten over the last 15 years by hundreds of millions of people without one health incident having been identified.” It alludes to a report from the French Academies of Medicine, Pharmacy and Sciences which stated: “No evidence of health problems exists in the countries where GMOs have been widely eaten for several years.” Other established independent scientific organisations, such as the Royal Society in the UK, have also been supportive of GM.
Some outspoken critics of the anti-GM position have gone considerably further. Professor Trewavas believes the science behind anti-GM campaigners’ claims is not sufficiently robust.
“The people who give out statements on GM crops from these [campaign] organisations are not qualified, informed or scientific,” he tells just-food. “Safety and use of GM crops can only be based on properly conducted evidence; these groups don’t understand the necessity of providing balanced assessments because all of them are political organisations and some with views of mankind’s future I find frankly contemptible.”
Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, rejects the characterisation of GM-scepticism as unscientific or anti-science. “I think it’s about being pro-science but asking what science do we want, what are the broader implications of these choices, and who is going to be in control of science,” Wallace states.
Wallace also raises the practical question about what GM technology has really delivered in return for the significant investment made over the past 20 years or so and the political support it has received. Certainly to date GM has proved more effective at addressing herbicide and pest resistance than some of the more complex but extremely pressing challenges related to stress resistance, notably to drought and salinity.
While the fierce public debates continue over food safety and environmental concerns, it could be that the biotech industry may increasingly have to answer searching questions about the solutions that the technology has so far failed to deliver, particularly if it is to be considered a key element in sustainably securing global food security.
Click here to read the rest of the briefing.
