FrankenYum
Nov 16, 2009
1 Comment
One thing you can say about the green movement is that in some ways, it has matured. Take the case of Stuart Brand, to some the patriarch of the environmental movement. Forty years ago, Brand, the author of the classic Whole Earth Catalog, preached we had to leave the cities and live off of the land. Well, now he’s back in the city, and there’s an understanding that high-density housing is better than scarring the earth with McMansions and big box stores. Big cities also have jobs . . . and while we don’t want to live in a slum, those slums house former peasants who are seeking a better life, better than the one of subsistence farming that also ruins the land.
I caught Brand on the radio about a month ago, when he was pitching his latest book, Whole Earth Discipline. Brand dropped another bombshell that would drive many greenies nuts: genetically modified crops make sense.
I was glad to hear that.
I never bought the anti-genetically engineered crops Kool-Aid. I always thought developing crops to withstand harsh weather, and reduce the needs for herbicides, and pesticides, was a good move. Yes, I admit I prefer organic when possible, and I grow crops in my backyard. But in feeding a growing population, it’s naïve to think that the entire global population will be able to feed itself by growing herbs on apartment balconies and potatoes around our offices. Furthermore, altering crops to thrive in difficult environments is nothing new . . . we’ve been doing this since the nineteenth century, and perhaps even beforehand. Agriculture may clash with nature, but this conflict has evolved for 10,000 years: I think humans and other critters will withstand this trend. And I’m glad heirloom fruits and vegetables are making a comeback . . . so let’s accept and embrace both Organic and Frankenstein.
Brand’s change in thought is timely. Today in Rome, the UN opened its World Food Summit, and the mood was bleak. We have another 2 billion coming to our planet since 2050, and if climate change wreaks havoc the way scientists say it will, we’re in for a rough ride. (And if the effort to avert this is led by a couple noted attendees, Robert Mugabe and Moammar Gadhafi—did he find a tent in Rome?—we’re really in for it!) The buzz surrounding next month’s Copenhagen talks do not bode well, so hopefully some sense of urgency will turn into action in Rome.
Absorbing another 2 billion people and feeding them is a worrisome task but it is certainly possible . . . and trends are showing that birthrates are falling in many developing nations.
So don’t freak out if you see genetically modified crop-based foods on your supermarket shelves. You don’t have to buy them, but there are several good reasons why they are there.
If you are adamantly against genetically-modified crops--or for them--we'd like to hear why. 
Hi Leon,
Just following up on my e-mailed thought – as I mentioned, I do agree with your (and Stewart Brand’s) point that genetically modified crops make sense in terms of a rapidly growing population that will further stress already stretched food resources.
However, the current method of implementation (particularly in the US) leaves a lot to be desired. GM crops often require more pesticide, sometimes even to initiate crop growth. The industry giants have successfully ruined several small farmers due to their patents on GM seeds. Their lobbying has resulted in tax subsidies for a few crops that have resulted in monocultures and extensive use of synthetic fertilizers. The food system in the US has been industrialized to the extent that we don’t know most of the ingredients in store-bought food anymore. Food safety is another big issue if GM crop effects are not well tested.
I am not adamantly against GM crops, however, I think the current (implementation) system has to be overhauled before the damage already done spreads even further both within and outside the US.