GM crops and genetic diversity in the food system

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have gotten a bad rep. The words spark fear of ingesting dangerous amounts of toxins, a global dependency on large-scale biotech corporations and of course, even more environmental repercussions. Being critical of the implications of GMO is of the utmost importance, and people have good reasons to be worried, but let’s take a look at both sides.

Humans have been interfering with the genetics of crops and animals for centuries, but for some reason the idea of this interference through the process of targeted genetic modification is considered a step too far. Selective breeding came about in the 18^th century in the British Agricultural Revolution, whereby plants and animals with desirable traits were deliberately bred together, or in much later years cloned, to improve harvests. Over many years, this process has led to a great reduction in the genetic diversity of the food we eat.

So we decided to make our food tastier, larger and aesthetically delectable, what could go wrong? Well, a lot. The lack of genetic diversity on our plates is a major cause for concern for modern day food security. When a crop-type is lacking in genetic diversity, or is simply genetically identical like the commercial cavendish banana, then all of these crops are likely susceptible to the same diseases and can be wiped out completely if aggressive pathogens spread, or unfavourable climate stress is experienced. This is an issue that modern agricultural scientists must overcome and is much bigger than the GM debate, but highly relevant!

How is GMO different to what we have been doing all this time? Before, we were simply observing desirable traits and experimenting with breeding. But now, we can sequence whole genomes and understand the underlying code that creates the traits and design cultivars with more precision.

The most common use of this technology is herbicide tolerance and pest resistance. These traits were supposed to have environmental benefits with the intention of lowering the application of agrochemicals, like herbicides and insecticides. At first, the intention proved fruitful, with herbicide tolerant crops requiring less herbicide application due to their own production of chemicals that acted as herbicides. Whilst pest resistant crops initially deterred pests, and were accredited with a lower use of insecticides. Eventually, herbicide resistant weeds developed and the success of herbicide tolerance declined. Similarly, we see nature catching up with biotechnology in the case of GM maize, with crops facing attack from rootworms resistant to the Bt toxin they produce.

The soybean is one of the most common genetically modified cultivars. Soy is very popular amongst the vegan community, and so you may think that improvement upon this crop is delightful. However, most of the cultivation is for high-protein animal feed, supporting the cruel and pollutive rearing of livestock.

Current use of GM technology is largely about sustaining staple crops. Staple crops are popular crops and the reason for sustaining them is geared towards financial interest. By continuously improving the crops that consumers already love, economic return is fairly secure. If we edit existing crops from a declining pool of genetic diversity, we are risking the continuous need to invest in further GM to stop our favourite foods from being vanquished by the development of resistant antagonists. And hang on a minute, aren’t we more concerned about creating a stable food system that benefits us all? This GM business seems like a never-ending nightmare of crop engineering, or a food-system groundhog day. But is that because there is something inherently wrong with the technology, or is it because we are operating in a broken system?

GM offers enormous potential when we evaluate it’s uses under the volition of creating a sustainable food system where no one goes hungry. With the help of GM technology, many traits that could aid the food system are possible and have already come into effect. GM can increase food yields relative to land-use, which could be crucial in curbing further deforestation to meet the growing demands of population increase. GM can also improve the nutritional value of food, as seen in the case of “golden rice”, which produces a precursor of vitamin A. Another example of GM’s enormous potential is to improve nutrient uptake from the soil and reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers that pollute water systems.

Ideally, we want to create a regenerative food system that sustains itself with a diminished need for biotechnological intervention. For food security to be ensured, increasing the genetic diversity of crops would act as a buffer that prevents serious harm when a crop-type comes under attack, as we wouldn’t be so reliant on so few crops with their vulnerably unvaried genomes. Hence, the continuation of reducing genetic diversity with GM would be unwise. At the same time, our climate is breaking down and we are failing to feed everyone as it is. For these highly significant reasons, we will probably need a lot of help from GM in order to reach the desired utopia of sustained food security. For now though, the wonderous potential of GM remains stunted by a system that values profit over sustainability.

Article written by Aisling Geraghty- United Kingdom