Entry 736, on 2008-04-07 at 19:46:01 (Rating 2, Politics)
Is genetic modification a good or a bad thing? Its both, of course, depending on what particular modification you are talking about, and how the use of the technology is managed. Experts at a recent biotechnology conference held in New Zealand are saying that the use of genetically modified pastures is inevitable. They think the public acceptance of GM is increasing and that using the technology is a way to increase production to meet global demands.
Of course, anti-GM groups completely disagree. The group GMFree New Zealand says using GM crops here would put our international reputation at risk. Currently there are no regulations against using genetically modified pastures here, but there are no approved crops currently planted either.
So who is right? Well both sides are and neither side is! So should we be using GM technology or not? Instead of trying to take a definitive stance one way or the other I think it would be better to look at individual cases and make a decision based on the facts pertaining to the specific technology in question.
For example, if we can use a well proven GM technology which allows less pesticide to be used on a crop then there is a net gain. OK, so the risk of the genetic modification causing an unwanted side effect is there, but the reduced risk because of the use of less chemical pesticide makes up for it.
What about our reputation? The problem with reputations is that they are based on perceptions rather than facts. But its up to the marketers of our products to manipulate those perceptions. For example, a GM crop which requires no pesticides could be advertised as being free of chemicals rather than being genetically modified. I often say that marketing people are professional liars, but at least they could use that skill for a positive purpose!
We don't need to be on the cutting edge of using GM technology here. We could easily wait for them to be proved effective in other countries, where the need for them is greater, and just use the ones which work out well. We could be cautious but we don't need the knee-jerk reaction that GM is inherently bad or that we should not use it no matter what.
The same applies to other "scary" technologies like nuclear power. Modern nuclear power plants are incredibly reliable, efficient, and safe. Rejecting the technology just because it contains the word "nuclear" is just another unthinking reaction to a technology many people don't understand. And the two most famous nuclear accidents: Three Mile Island (which was controlled before a disaster) and Chernobyl (which really was a disaster) would both be impossible with modern plants. Not only that, they were both caused by extremely incompetent management rather than technical faults.
Anyway, back to GM. One aspect of GM which does worry me is the exploitation by corporations. The cynical manipulation of the patent system by companies like Monsanto is worth considering. I would trust a genetically modified super organism going berserk or a nuclear reactor in full meltdown before I would trust a big corporation! But while that is an important consideration, its not a fault of the technology but of the political and business environment we work in.
So in answer to the question: GM or not GM? I say yes... and no.
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE