Genetically modified or sustainable agriculture?

There are serious problems with genetically modified (GM) crops, notably health and environmental risks and growing corporate control of our food chain by a handful of companies. Despite this, and major public opposition, there is strong support for GM agriculture in the European Commission. Greenpeace campaigns to end GM agriculture in favour of better support for sustainable farming, the only genuine solution to food security and climate challenges.

GM crops – a bitter harvest

GM crops come with a stack of problems for farmers, consumers and society in general.

-They are inseparable from large-scale intensive farming and reliant on the heavy use of expensive chemicals and machinery. GM agriculture exacerbates food insecurity by degrading soils, polluting water and fuelling climate change.

-Despite decades of hype, no drought or flood-resistant GM crops have been brought to market. Instead, GM agriculture is characterised by monocultures of genetically identical plants that are the most vulnerable to climate and pest stresses.

-Poor farmers in developing countries can ill afford expensive GM agriculture and are vulnerable to falling into cycles of debt. On the other side of the coin, just six companies control almost all GM crops: Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF and Dupont. Together they also control three quarters of the agrochemical market, a massive degree of control over the food chain. Monsanto enforces its patents through a force of private investigators, suing farmers on the slightest suspicion.

-GM crops require pesticides that lead to the emergence of so-called ‘superweeds’ and ‘superpests’. Millions of American farms now have to use greater quantities and stronger chemicals to control these pests in a vicious circle. Besides this problem, intensive agriculture is by definition less biodiverse and pesticide-producing GM crops harm pests and beneficial insects alike.

-Perhaps most worrying, we do not know if GM crops are safe to eat. Independent long-term studies are severely lacking and GM companies have undue influence over research establishments which get much of their funding from corporations. The fact is genetic engineering is a random and imprecise technique. Scientists still understand little about how engineered genes interact and unexpected side effects are frequent. Once grown in the open environment, GM genes spread in an uncontrollable way.

 

GM technology poses a host of health risks, yet long-term safety testing is shunned.

The European picture

In March 2010, the European Commission broke a 12 year hiatus by approving the cultivation of antibiotic-resistant GM potato Amflora. More than 20 other GM crops are pending authorisation. According to official EU polls, 61 percent of Europeans are against the development of GM food in a trend of rejection that has continued to grow. Some countries have fought against further authorisations, in part because the European authorisation process is flawed, especially the risk assessment of GM crops carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In December 2008, all 27 environment ministers unanimously stated that risk assessment for GM crops must be strengthened. EFSA’s risk assessment remains insufficient. Instead, in July 2010, the Commission proposed giving governments a new right to ban cultivation of GM crops from their territory.

The latest updates

 

Testimonies of Contamination

Publication | October 15, 2009 at 14:52

A critique of the European Food Safety Authority’s opinion on genetically modified...

Publication | July 29, 2009 at 0:00

The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) opinion on the environmental and human effects of the cultivation of the genetically modified (GM) maize variety MON810 is woefully inadequate and ignores the social consequences of production.

Evaluation of Czech EU Presidency

Publication | June 29, 2009 at 15:53

In January 2009, Greenpeace set out its expectations for the Czech Republic’s EU Presidency, with a special focus on climate and energy issues. With the Czech Presidency coming to a close, we are now assessing its performance in these priority areas.

Yellow card! 2009 Swedish EU Presidency checklist

Publication | June 25, 2009 at 0:00

The boots are on and the referee is about to blow the whistle: the Swedish Presidency is almost underway. But before the game has even started, Greenpeace has ranked the Swedish government for its performance in the lead up to this crucial moment...

OFF TARGET: European Commission 2004-2009 environmental progress report & lessons for...

Publication | June 10, 2009 at 0:00

The Green 10 coalition of environmental organisations has a track record of producing European Commission scorecards. This latest publication presents the final grades for the 2004-2009 Barroso Commission, assessing its performance in a number of...

41 - 45 of 107 results.

Categories