GM Food Fight

In the debate over genetically modified food, one thing is clear: we can't agree. And not only do we disagree but we disagree passionately and intransigently. Statistics are hurled back and forth, each one seemingly contradicting the last, until everyone has pie in their face and no one knows what's fact and what's fallacy.

Change.org member Dawn Gifford noted the intensity of the debate in a recent comment: "this issue is more divisive than almost any other international issue, barring war."

So what's a thinking person to do? Many people I talk to feel a sense of unease with GM foods, but don’t have a clearly defined opinion and don’t know which information to trust.

Unfortunately finding answers is not as simple as turning to the experts. A quick perusal of the New York Times opinion roundtable, released earlier this week, reveals that there are as many opinions as there are commentators (6), ranging from staunch support of GM foods to total rejection of them.

While the discussion doesn't provide us one clear answer, it is refreshing to hear a panoply of thoughtful opinions on the subject. So much of the discourse has become overheated and irrational. As Jonathan Foley, director of the new Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, writes in his entry in the Times article: "Genuine discourse has broken down: You’re either with Michael Pollan or you’re with Monsanto."

As if to illustrate this point, Paul Collier, an Oxford University economist, uses his turn in the roundtable to espouse Monsanto's viewpoint: "The debate over genetically modified crops and food has been contaminated by political and aesthetic prejudices: hostility to U.S. corporations, fear of big science and romanticism about local, organic production."

Alternately, however, one could say that the discussion has been contaminated by agribusiness dollars, blind faith in science's ability to cure all ills and categorical dismissal of the power of simple, low-tech and nature-based solutions. Hello, Michael Pollan!

Could it be that the solution lies somewhere in the middle? Could we apply the best of biotech with surgical precision while still, as Vandana Shiva wisely puts it, focusing on “biodiversity intensification, not chemical intensification . . . work[ing] with nature’s nutrient cycles and hydrological cycle, not against them”?

What about a holistic vision that acknowledges the dire problem facing us, accounts openly for all the options on the table and uses the best elements of each in the most targeted way possible? Such a solution will take discussion, cooperation, openness and, most importantly, political will. Tall order, but not impossible.

Jonathan Foley's vision is closest of all the commentators' to this idea:

Rather than voting for just one solution, we need a third way to solve the crisis. Let’s take ideas from both sides, creating new, hybrid solutions that boost production, conserve resources and build a more sustainable and scalable agriculture. There are many promising avenues to pursue: precision agriculture, mixed with high-output composting and organic soil remedies; drip irrigation, plus buffer strips to reduce erosion and pollution; and new crop varieties that reduce water and fertilizer demand.

I would add to that list all manner of low-tech innovations, like the Kickstart Super MoneyMaker Pump, that target the “bottom of the pyramid” market and provide affordable solutions to basic agricultural problems.

The World Summit on Food Security is coming up; world leaders will meet in Rome on November 16 to discuss the best ways to invest in agriculture in developing countries and thereby reduce hunger. Let's hope, at the very least, for an open and honest discussion among the Monsantos and Michael Pollans of this world.

Photo of the Tomatina Festival courtesy of revolution cycle via flickr