By Carol St. Angelo

What’s wrong with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the foods that come from them? In principle, nothing.

Humans have been manipulating the genomes of our domesticated plants and animals for thousands of years. Modern techniques just allow more precision in the types of changes that can be made. We ingest many copies of DNA from harmless bacteria in the produce we eat without any ill effect and so placing a small amount of bacterial DNA into apples cells to make them easier to grow or disease resistant presents no additional hazards.

One could imagine scenarios where genes that code for toxic proteins could be moved into some crop, but conspiracy theories about poisonous tomatoes miss the real problem, which is more economic than ecological.

Press releases from agribusiness conglomerates like Monsanto, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Aventis and DuPont promise that GMOs will make their own fertilizer, grow without irrigation, and will provide more nutrition than their “natural” counterparts. Yet what modified plants are currently under cultivation? Soybeans, cotton and rapeseed (used for canola) that have been engineered to grow in the presence of large quantities of the weedkiller Roundup. This weedkiller is so toxic that only a small quantity can be used on non-modified plants.

Who developed these “Roundup Ready” crops?  Monsanto, the company that sells Roundup. It’s like Microsoft selling programs that only work with their own operating system. For the consumer, it means potentially larger quantities of the herbicide chemicals in the final product. In addition, a USDA report released in January indicated that Roundup Ready soybeans are actually more susceptible to other plant diseases than non-modified soybeans

What kinds of genetically modified crops would really make life better?  Plants that could fix their own nitrogen (or attract the bacteria that do) wouldn’t need fertilizer and thus the barrels of petroleum that are needed to produce it; plants that are drought resistant; or plants resistant to diseases. Farmers need plants that are easier to grow and bring to market, not ones designed to ensure that they must purchase more products from the company that developed the plants. In addition, plants that can absorb toxins from the ground could be used to clean up polluted areas. A fern that absorbs lead has been discovered. Genetic engineering could maximize its utility.

An additional issue is that patented seeds are strictly guarded, so farmers cannot engage in that most basic of agricultural practices: saving seed from one year to plant the next. The promise from these companies is better yield, but at higher and higher cost to farmers. This is not new. The enticement previously was for newer and more expensive machines. GMO seeds are simply the latest money trap.

There are useful genes in nature that we need to know about and exploit. Many of them might be found in the wild relatives of the crops we grow, relatives that are fast disappearing as American agribusiness pushes monoculture like McDonald’s pushes Big Macs. Genetic engineering should be used to increase genetic diversity of our most common crops, by engineering genes that make crops more suitable for local weather conditions and more resistant to local diseases. Genetic engineering would help us utilize diversity much more efficiently than conventional breeding methods, helping farmers around the world to reestablish sustainable agriculture.

But where is the profit in this sort of research? There may be some, but not much. Therefore we can’t expect agribusiness to fund it. They are, after all, more responsible to their shareholders than to humanity in general. Then will such research languish?  It shouldn’t. Much of the research being done in these areas is currently funded by various governmental agencies. Privatization is not likely to help here.

Companies want profit, and the real promise in genetic engineering is to make food easier and cheaper for farmers to grow, so they can keep more of the proceeds from the sale of their crops. When we realize that agriculture is not the same as agribusiness we will invest enough to help the true promise of genetic engineering come to pass. If the government or non-profit agencies hold the patents to these discoveries, they can be available to all who are willing to try them. Instead of paying farmers to not grow crops, let’s invest in technology that makes the crops we grow tailored to the environment.