GM Foods May Save Land But They'll Cost Us The Earth

Are genetically-modified crops the answer to global food problems, and the only way to prevent millions of hectares carbon-munching forests and range-land being turned into arable land? You may agree with the statement "without innovation in agriculture the world will run out of food" but that needn't lead to the subsequent conclusion "biotechnology has the potential to address this problem."

Quite simply, increasing crop yield isn't enough. When that land has reached its new high yield, we'll have to destroy more land anyway to grow the supposed higher yield foods. And that's not forgetting all the land we're destroying to produce palm oil for biofuels. Bottom line: We needs to reach a sustainable level of consumption.

The COSMOS article contains the extraordinary premise that "true sustainability can come only from an enlightened philosophy that promotes the development of resource-enhancing technologies." They're forgetting one tried and tested method of sustainable farming: Traditional, small farms that have for thousands of years proved their sustainability. (And I love that the insinuation is that anyone who disagrees lacks an "enlightened philosophy.")

Of course, this isn't a situation where we must choose either small farms or mega-corporation and their GM seeds. We can lend expertise to small-farmers, invest in projects that keep money in the countries, and not set up vast GM megafarms that do little to satisfy world hunger, and for the most part simply provide more food for the rich. The problem is much bigger than "Grow More Food, Problem Goes Away."

[Photo credit: Paul L Nettles]