Genetic Modification: just one of many tools for the future.

Image by: James Kennedy

The documentary "Bullshit! (GMO)," by PeÅ Holmquist and Suzanne Khardalian, covers a wide range of topics such as globalization, patents, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Bio-piracy, and Indigenous knowledge.  The hero of the film is Vandana Shiva, a rather intelligent hard-line environmentalist who is staunchly against much of what the industrialized world has to offer.  Though there is a lot that can be talked about, I'll focus on her opposition towards GMO crops.

First I'd like to define GMO.  That is, an organism that has been genetically modified through artificial means.  I say this mainly because the documentary fails to make a distinction between GMO and corporations such as Monsanto.  This seems to be a flaw in many discussions about GMOs; as if it is impossible for non-mega-corporations to splice genes and that the only two possible genes involve pesticides and herbicides.  In fact Vandana seems to have a very narrow definition of GMOs.  She states in the film that all GMOs had a virus as a primer and all GMOs have added antibiotic resistance markers.  Both these statements are simply not true.  There is more than one way to genetically modify an organism, and the genetics involved can include anything, not just antibiotic resistance.

 

 

There is a place for organic farming, and Vandana's pride and enthusiasm in organic farming is well founded.  However, I see a lot of hypocrisy in the pride she has in her carefully created genetic stock of seeds.  She brags about how this specific variety has been specially selected to use less water and to provide more nutrition.  How that variety has less gluten and low elasticity.  She has delicately and deliberately woven the genetics of her stock, and boasts how she plans to spread her genetics to the world.  And yet she turns around condemning those who do the same through technology.  Now it is easy to sympathize with her as the talk of GMOs get woven in Monsanto, corporate greed, and one sided global trade deals.  But Vandana has also railed against GMO's, such as Golden Rice, that were specially created to help people.  Golden rice has been heralded as a grain that can prevent 500,000 cases of blindness and 2 million deaths a year in impoverished areas.  The rice was specifically designed to grow in poor soils and to provide enhanced nutrition.  And yet the fearmongering from the anti-GMO crowd has also demonized this grain and the potential it has to prevent malnutrition.  Countless lives are lost while an existing solution is locked in debate.

A similar situation exists with the threats looming over the global rice crop.  Rice is the number one crop used by people worldwide.  However, the climate is changing, atmospheric carbon is rising and variability in precipitation and temperatures are increasingly unpredictable.  Because of this, plants with the Carbon-3 (C3) photosynthetic pathway such as rice are at a disadvantage in many regions.  There are predictions that increasing temperatures will lead to a collapse in rice production with massive famines to follow.  One solution, a solution that is currently being heavily researched, is to splice a more efficient photosynthetic pathway into rice.  Depending on the magnitude of the crisis this has the potential to save tens, perhaps hundreds of millions.  Research and implementation here does not need to be stalled and halted by those who don't understand the technology they fear.

Dying Rice Plants.  Photo: LSU Ag Center

My point is that genetic modification is a technology with a lot of potential.  Like all technology it can be abused.  Monsanto is very good at genetically modifying organisms.  They have been a bit too general in its patents, and they have been overly aggressive in protecting those patents.  Though much can be said there, it should not distract from the potential of the technology at hand.  The world is a changing place and genetic diversity and genetic variety are important.  A promising new variety of crop should be valued, just as Vandana values her specially selected genetic stock.  At the same time the specifics of those genetics should be valued, and if the need arises to spread those genetics, be it through hybridization, natural selection, or genetic modification, it should not be stopped simply out of fear of the latest technology.   

Should we fear these as well?