Eat up your GM crops.

Theyre good for you

Matt Ridley
June 23 2014
Genetically modified foods are cheaper to grow, need fewer pesticides and can be enriched with anti-
cancer agents
The news that Britain could soon grow genetically modified crops commercially is a victory for common
sense over irrational opportunism, and also for the environment over pollution.
Under pressure from the uropean Union!s health and consumer commissioner, Tonio Borg, and
Britain!s environment secretary, "wen #aterson, the U is on the brin$ of ceding control of the issue to
national governments. That suits countries such as %rance and &ustria, who are implacably opposed to
GM crops, and Britain, which is not.
't is now clear that the opposition to GM crops has been counter-productive for the environment as well
as harmful to the economy and the consumer. 't has left us more reliant on pesticides than other parts of
the world. %or instance, potatoes currently re(uire spraying with fungicides up to )* times a season. ach
spraying costs money, burns diesel, compacts soil and $ills innocent fungal bystanders. Breeding blight-
resistant potatoes the old fashioned way has proved difficult. By the time it is achieved, the blight is
already immune to the resistance.
+owever, doing it the GM way proved straightforward for the ,ainsbury -aboratory in .orwich, and
promises stronger and longer resistance, because it is possible to introduce a cassette of several resistance
genes. These come from wild plants in the same genus as the potato, which disposes of one source of
opposition / that it!s an unnatural cross. The new GM variety probably could have been developed years
earlier if the eco-vandals had not driven much of that $ind of ground-brea$ing research abroad.
'ncidentally, the very phrase 0genetic modification1 is getting harder to define. 't used to mean bringing
genes in from other species, but what about when genes are brought in from a species in the same genus
2as in the potato e3ample45 "r, as will increasingly be the case, when e3isting genes within the crop
species are edited rather than replaced5 &nd why do the comple3 regulations about GM not apply to
plants whose genes have been deliberately but randomly modified by gamma rays, as has happened to
many common 0non-GM1 and even organic varieties5
Remember, organic bean sprouts $illed *) people in one coli outbrea$ in Germany in 67)). GM food has
$illed nobody. There!s now simply no way to argue with a straight face, after billions of GM meals have
been eaten all round the world, that the technology is a threat to our health. The reverse is actually the
case.
#urple tomatoes, rich in anti-cancer agents, have been created in .orwich, but they will be grown and
sold in 8anada, because we in this country are still denied such health benefits than$s to green
campaigners.
The need for genetic modification is ever more urgent. The U, in thrall to the mad precautionary
principle / which argues for weighing the ris$s but not the benefits of innovation / is gradually
outlawing many effective agro-chemicals used against weeds such as blac$ grass, insects such as aphids
and fungi such as yellow rust, all of which threaten the yields of British wheat crops on a huge scale.
%armers are facing a galloping yellow-rust crisis as resistance spreads and the armoury of allowed
treatments shrin$s. GM rust-resistant varieties of wheat are still five years away, because that!s how long
it ta$es to get regulatory approval.
lsewhere in the world, where GM crops can be grown that are resistant to pests, the butterflies, bees and
birds are bac$ in the fields in bigger numbers. 9hen the pest resistance is inside the plant, only pests
encounter it. 2'ncidentally, the same applies to neonicotinoid insecticides, the banning of which, after a
year of increasing bee numbers, ma$es no sense: the alternatives are the more damaging, e3ternally
applied pyrethroids.4
,o this is a technology that is safe for human health, better for the environment, more effective than the
alternative and economically beneficial to consumers and farmers. -et the %rench ban it if they want to.
The opposition to GM crops was never really much about safety or environmental protection. 't was
always chiefly motivated by disli$e of corporate 0control1 of seeds, a bogeyman that suited the
environmental movement as a rallying cry with which to raise funds. 't was a meaningless slogan, since
companies also supply non-GM seeds, not to mention tractors and wellington boots. But the beauty of the
campaign, as far as the li$es of Greenpeace was concerned, was that it led directly to heavy-handed and
e3pensive compliance regimes, that meant that only large corporations could afford to apply for approval
for GM crops, which then appeared to prove the point. Rarely has an argument been more circular.
'ncidentally, any doubt that money is the principal concern of Greenpeace evaporated this month with the
news that a rogue trader in its currency trading division had lost ;*.6 million betting against the euro.
Good grief< This, remember, is the organisation that has done the most to bloc$ GM crops / including a
disgraceful campaign against the non-profit, humanitarian pro=ect in support of vitamin-&-rich 0golden1
rice. This rice could prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children each year from vitamin-&
deficiency diseases. &nd it!s gambling with charitable donations< 't ma$es Goldman ,achs loo$ li$e the
&ngel Gabriel.
'n &merica, the GM debate might superficially appear to be slipping slightly bac$wards. Two counties in
"regon have =ust banned GM crops, re(uiring all trace of them to be removed within a year. "nce again,
the reason turns out to be money. Those with an ear close to the ground say the big green philanthropic
bodies in the U,& are showing 0donor fatigue1 on the issue of climate change. >uic$ as ever to pic$ up on
such signs, 0Big Green1 has begun changing its message to push other buttons in its search for more
funds. The perennial concern of right-on people that 0they are doing things to our food1 is one of those
buttons.
'n short, the new campaign is based on no new science suggesting environmental or health ris$s. 't!s
simply a sign of a movement addicted to scaremongering and in need of new funds. %ortunately it will not
gain much traction. 9ith )? million farmers growing GM crops in 6@ countries, on )6 per cent of the
world!s arable land, this gene genie won!t go bac$ in the bottle.
,ample of comments
8raig Aing
&nti-corporatism will always sell well amongst the pampered in the west. They feel guilty about our success and so
wish to hold bac$ progress. %ilms li$e &vatar and lysium tap into this strange psychology but most fol$ on arth
want affordable food and energy and the chance for the good life we westerners lead.
%or e3ample Greenpeace attac$s the providers of food and energy but never the beneficiaries. 'n their insular B'Cm
alright Dac$B worlds they thin$ it is cool to restrict other less fortunate people access to what they ta$e for granted.
99, %", ,ierra 8lub and the li$e =ust wish to ma$e the world into one big national par$ that the tiny minority
they represent can en=oy while the rest have to be pushed bac$ to the margins.
These organiEations thin$ they are inconveniencing the corporate fat cats when in fact they are trampling over the
aspirations of the many, of ordinary people who have other priorities li$e food, energy and a better life.
.eal 9al$er
C,o this is a technology that is safe for human health, better for the environment, more effective than the alternative
and economically beneficial to consumers and farmersC - what rubbish. Fery selective research you do, if at all.
#lenty problems with GM. 'tCs very well covered up and one wouldnCt e3pect to hear about it in The Times.
#aul Bec$ett
G.eal 9al$er vidence please5 'nsistence on the e3istence of dar$ conspiracies and cover ups is hardly
(uantitative.
+enry ,hepherd
G.eal 9al$er 'f there are so many problems with GM, why donCt you list them5