Food and its production have been a perennial concern for mankind since the dawn of time. Our main sources of food are derived primarily from the land. Of all the world’s land mass, a mere 18 per cent is used for agricultural production. As this fraction cannot be substantially expanded it is crucial that the yield per unit of land has to increase in step with the population explosion evidenced in the last 100 years.
World population has grown from 1.6 billion in 1900 to a present estimate of 6.8 billion people. To boot, this number will steadily grow to reach nine billion by 2040. As more land is gobbled up due to the growth of cities and other non-agricultural use (70,000 square kilometres of land a year) the need for more sophisticated and advanced methodologies of food production becomes evident and obvious. Beyond the mechanical and technological aspects in the mass industrialisation of food making, science is increasingly pushing the frontiers in squeezing the last ounce out of each crop to sustain an ever-growing demand for food both for human consumption and animal feed. Interestingly, did you know it takes seven kilos of feed grain to produce a single kilo of beef? At the forefront of this scientific revolution is the research and development of what is known as biotech crop production.
A much more popular term for the latter would be the production of genetically modified foods. Instantly this brings to mind the heated controversies that are raised when the introduction of such crops into the human food chain is proposed.
The recent squabbling raised in Brussels and beyond after European Commissioner John Dalli’s controversial decision to allow the first genetically modified potato made me delve into the subject of GMOs and the fierce controversies that surround it.
After having read the opposing camps’ views on the risks and advantages of GMOs, as a layperson I have to sadly admit I am none the wiser.
Firstly, those in favour and those against GMOs have consistently diametrically opposing views. Predictably, global corporation giants like Monsanto, Syngenta and Novartis extol the virtues of these production methods. Frustrated by years of research and giant sums of money spent on studies and experimentation, these corporations are keen on opening the lucrative European Union market that has so far consistently refused to introduce the cultivation of GMOs within its borders. It is interesting to note that the value of agricultural trade between the US and Europe amounts to $57 billion and the value of production and sale of seeds globally runs into billions of dollars.
Environmental groups such as Greenpeace and consumer protection groups vehemently oppose the introduction of any GMOs whatsoever, both as human staple or as feed into the animal chain. They cite a myriad of reasons for this with safety being one of the major issues. The anti-GMO lobby persistently queries the effects of pest- and herbicide-resistant crops on the ecosystem and the impact on biodiversity. They insist that not enough research has been carried out regarding the presence of toxins, allergens and nutrients that are present in GMOs and the risks of second-generation crops produced. Contamination with organically grown food is another concern. These groups have gone to the extent of defining GMOs as “Frankenstein food”!
Clearly, the issue is far from resolved. Presently, the EU allows about 39 genetically modified foods to be imported. For 13 years, the EU has strongly resisted any form of GMO production. The ban was total and evidently much pressure was exerted by both sides of the campaign for and against GMOs.
Mr Dalli’s decision to allow the Amflora potato to be produced in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic for apparently industrial purposes has opened the controversy wide open.
The reaction of the anti-GMO lobby was swift and vehement citing the decision as “a recipe for disaster” and “a shocking move”. Mr Dalli has been singled out as having betrayed the principles of the anti-GMO stand held for so long within the European institution.
On the other hand, the EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner is resolute and believes there is no reasonable cause for alarm and that the risks are minimal. Incidentally, Malta had voted against the authorisation of this product on the market.
Evidently, the jury is out on the eventual progress on this matter. GMOs have been produced and consumed in the US and South America for years. One way or the other, many products exported around the world have some GMO in them. Although some studies have attempted to demonise the science, so far there have been no apparent side effects as such. The relative novelty of these methods does not guarantee or preclude the eventual discovery of some collateral damage in consuming these products.
Who are we to believe?
info@carolinegalea.com