GMOs: A Different Debate part 2 of 2

GMOs: A DIFFERENT DEBATE

Part 2 of 2 

 

By: Jonathan Rhodes
Co-contributor: Green Communities Consulting

Please see GMOs:A Different Debate part 1

By Minouto via Wikimedia Commons

The GM topic continues to reach headline news and remains a topic of discussion for health.  GMOs are perceived in the western world as having serious potential health risks. To date the jury is still out on direct links between health issues and GM foods. However, like so many things in this world, health is only one face to this mammoth of an issue that is GM crops. A much larger focus should be placed on the effects of GM farming in developing nations - issues such as biodiversity and livelihoods should be of larger focus.

Biodiversity

By Christian Ziegler. via Wikimedia Commons

 Every healthy ecosystem is robust and diverse, and through species diversity comes resiliency towards both natural and anthropogenic disasters. Take plants for example, if disease reeks havoc on a healthy ecosystem, there is enough biodiversity for the system as a whole to bounce back. Minimal loss to plant life and animal life results from a large pool of genetic diversity. In other words, humans will continue to have an alternative food source when one crop is lost.  However, when one species dominates an ecosystem, there are system wide risks - species extinction, livelihoods, and food security to name a few.

 

This is where GMOs can have devastating consequences to the natural environment. GMOs are designed to out compete naturally occurring relatives. If and when they are released into the wild these advantages disrupt the biodiversity of a system. The research published by the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. shows how GM salmon would cross bread with wild trout in closed conditions. Their offspring out competed both GM salmon and wild trout. This effectively created a super species and posed risks to biodiversity.

By Christian Ziegler. via Wikimedia Commons

 Livelihoods

Throughout SE Asia, I have come across many development practitioners and farmers who are proponents of GM crop. Farmers who wish to use them argue the benefits to job creation and food security. By successfully growing GM crops business can expand and create new jobs. This will also increase food stores that could provide income for poorer regions. This is a win right?

There is a darker side to this. GM agriculture lends itself to mono-cropping. This in turn restricts competition and reduces job creation except through expansion. All those jobs created by micro farms are suddenly lost. Small farmers’ inability to compete means loss of sales, loss of land, and loss of jobs. Additionally, the cost of investment is out of reach for the majority of farmers. Those who can afford GM crops aren’t necessarily the same people concerned about creating them. An example of this problem is in Burma. A majority of farmers are unable to support the expenses of GM crops and associated fertilizers/pesticides needed. Those who could afford GM crops tend to be large business owners or government officials from the Junta regime.

In many developing nations biodiversity and livelihoods are related. Utilization of a diverse ecosystem helps fuel livelihoods creation; weavers with their harvested fibers or silks, craftsman using wood and bamboo, or farmers and fisherman selling a range of produce are all examples of this interconnectedness.

For GMOs to have a positive impact on developing countries they must first overcome these obstacles. Until GMOs minimize threat to biodiversity and livelihoods they will continue to be a false hope for development.