Taking a stand on genetically modified crops
I've just finished the hopefully-close-to-final edits on my second chapter, which is a discussion of the Indian movement against genetically modified (GM) crops. Having just reread it more times than I feel is really healthy, I can tell you that it discusses an awful lot. It addresses the history of farmers' movement in India, the use of Gandhian frames in the movement, ecofeminism, the piracy of Bt cotton...
What I don't do at any point in the chapter is to actually take a stance on GM crops. In part, this is because it is not necessary. The chapter is meant to discuss the movement itself, how it works and how it contributes to global debates. It's not necessary to address the risks or benefits of GM crops in order to do so.
On the other hand, I'm arguing throughout the thesis that there is an urgent need for the movement(s) for globalisation-from-below. The importance of projects that aim to build a more sustainable, peaceful, and just form of globalisation has been highlighted by the recent global financial crisis and the ongoing threat of climate change. Given this, it seems like it would be useful to make some assessment of whether GM crops (and therefore movements against them) are likely to make the world better or worse.
So, after four (and a bit) years of grappling with the issue, after fieldwork and reading thick tomes and arguing with scientists in pubs, here's my evaluation:
a) I don't know, but
b) it seems like something of a waste of resources.
Why don't I know?
Firstly, this is because "GM crops" have few characteristics in common, apart from the process used to produce them. Even the evaluation of Bt cotton, which has been a flashpoint of debate in India, is complicated because the presence of the Bt toxin is only one characteristic. Bt cotton varieties have in common an additional resistance to bollworm, but they may need more or less water, may produce different boll sizes, may be more or less susceptible to heat, depending on the variety of cotton modified to contain the Bt gene. Trying to evaluate all GM crops ever, and all GM crops possible, seems... tough.
Secondly, many of the critiques of GM crops rest on the fact that the current wave of biotechnology research has been dominated by the private sector. This means that research has been skewed towards crops likely to be profitable, as in the case of Bt cotton. However, public sector research in biotechnology is starting to pick up, especially in China, which may mean a shift towards research focused on the needs of subsistence farmers. It may also mean a shift away from the commercialisation and patenting of biotechnology research.
Thirdly, the jury seems to be out on potential risks of GM crops. As noted in the first point, GM crops are varied. There doesn't seem to be any inherent reason why the process of genetic modification should lead to toxic or otherwise dangerous crops. On the other hand, there is research that seems to show harmful effects in some people from some crops. In other words, no-one really knows. The process of genetic modification may be perfectly safe, the outcomes may not be.
Why it may well be a waste of time
Firstly, the costs of research and development for GM crops are higher, at the moment, than costs for conventional plant breeding. Given the wide range of food crop varieties, it seems more sensible to invest in preserving and experimenting with existing agricultural biodiversity.
Secondly, and on a related note, it seems that much of what people are trying to achieve through genetic modified crops could be achieved just as well by using existing agricultural varieties or techniques. Rather than trying to produce 'nutritionally enhanced' crop varieties, for example, it might be possible to guarantee food security by providing support for mixed-crop agriculture.
Thirdly, gains from GM crops might end up being short-term and reproduce the problems they were meant to solve. For example, Bt cotton kills bollworm, but insects can develop resistance rapidly - as the most susceptible insects die, succeeding generations are those that are most resistant. One way to avoid this is through the use of 'insect refuges', areas of non-Bt cotton that preserve a population of non-resistant insects. However, for many small farmers, this is not an attractive or realistic option.
This is a very brief run-down of the issues and there are plenty of aspects of the debate that I've skimmed over or haven't included. However, I do think it's important to note that not everyone would agree that this kind of cost-benefit calculation of the benefits and risks is appropriate when it comes to genetic modification. For many people it doesn't matter what kind of outcome genetic modification might bring, it's simply wrong to meddle with the sanctity of life by changing DNA as if it was software. I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this argument, but it's worth considering it.
---------
Picture courtesy of nnic.