Home page image courtesy Irargerich
This article was taken from the February issue of Wired UK magazine. Be the first to read Wired's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content bysubscribing online.
The European Union, on my behalf, recently turned back a ship from Canada. It did so at my expense (European labs tested the cargo using public money), in the teeth of the World Trade Organisation's rulings and in the full knowledge that this would raise the price of my food. What is more, it knew that there is absolutely no risk to me, even a theoretical one, from the Canadian cargo. Thanks a bunch. The ship in question was carrying linseed flax seed for use in bakeries or cattle feed. None of it was genetically modified. But in testing it, the EU's scientists found tiny traces of the genes that were put into genetically modified linseed flax in Canada in the 90s. It is not clear how they got there because that crop has not been grown commercially since 2001. The EU has a trade-protection policy thinly disguised as a zero-tolerance policy on most GM crops, so back went the Canadian ship.
As with all protectionism, it is the consumer who suffers most. British groceries rose in price over the past few years while American groceries fell in price. A big reason is that British food producers are not allowed to use most genetically modified crops, which are now much cheaper on world markets. Since virtually all soya beans are now genetically modified, and soya beans are the best feed for livestock, it is increasingly difficult for British farmers to find cheap feed for their livestock. Several ships that have carried GM soya or maize in the past have been turned back just for having residual dust in their holds. Unsurprisingly, shippers are demanding high premiums to ship old-fashioned crops to picky Europeans in spick-and-span ships.
What exactly is the risk that we are being protected against? More than a trillion GM meals have been eaten worldwide and nobody is known to have had a tummy upset as a result. Genetic modification is a technique, not a product. To say it carries risks is like saying cooking carries risks so you should ban cooking. The older alternative to genetic modification - gamma irradiation of crops - is neither banned nor its products subject even to safety testing. Its products are used by the organic movement without a murmur.
Nor is there a risk to the environment from genetic modification: indeed, the reverse. GM crops are proving to be unambiguously, spectacularly good for wildlife. Insect resistant crops mean half as much insecticide is used: all over China, India, South Africa, the birds, bees and butterflies are coming back into cotton crops. Higher yields save wilderness. Even the "spiritual" (or "yuck factor") arguments have been exploded. Geneticists now know that genes cross species barriers in nature too.
And this is just the first generation of GM crops. In the pipeline are ones that use less nitrogen; hoard water better; have added nutrients making them better as feed for pigs or salmon; and have omega-3 fatty acids in them, giving us all health benefits. North America, South America, China, India, Australia and increasingly large parts of Africa are now growing these crops and are delighted at the impact on yield, price and wildlife. Only Europe and some African countries that Europe has managed to bully are digging in their Luddite heels.
Americans merrily eat not only 100 percent pure GM seeds in their food, but also the animals that eat these seeds. Yet we in Europe are not allowed to eat 0.01 percent GM food. This is not just ludicrous; it is scandalous. The bully boys of the environmental movement, whose chief interest in the subject was that it enabled them to get on the TV news for a while, have found common cause with the Eurocrats who love enforcing rules so they can justify trousering more of your money doing so.
I recently walked out of a restaurant because its menu boasts of not serving GM ingredients. I support a technology that gives cheaper food and cuts down on insecticide use and the destruction of virgin forest.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
