Does anyone now believe this state of affairs can continue? The sudden rise in the price of food must surely focus minds on how the world?s population can be fed in the future. Previously fertile areas will become desert, or disappear under the sea. At the same time, the remaining farmland will be expected to grow a greater range of crops. In just two centuries, mankind has managed to deplete the planet of reserves that took Nature hundreds of millions of years to lay down. We shall look to plants to produce not only fuel, but replacements for the plastics, fibres and pharmaceuticals that are at present also derived from oil. Meanwhile, the population of the world is expected to grow from the present 6.7 billion to nine billion. We shall need different kinds of plants - more productive, multi-tasking - and need them quickly.
Subscriptions
Genetic modification is a means of speeding up the process of selective breeding that's been practised for millennia. In a hungry world, the refusal of a rich and well-fed country such as Britain to exploit its agriculture to the full could soon be regarded as immoral. Elsewhere on the planet, pressure to adopt GM technology will become irresistible. Places where deeper and deeper boreholes have sucked the land dry will need drought-resistant crops, if they?re to grow any crops at all. Where too much water has been abstracted from aquifers, allowing seawater to seep in, there will be a demand for saline-tolerant plants. As GM crops are more widely adopted around the globe, British farmers will not be able to compete without them.
Once, the public might have turned a deaf ear to agriculture, while continuing to gobble up its products. Attitudes will change quickly when food becomes not merely dearer, but scarcer. Unfortunately, the appetite for GM in other countries is so great that agribusinesses aren't putting money into researching products suitable for Britain, when the regulatory climate and threat of direct action are against them.
Opposition to GMOs is led by the Green lobby - the self-same people who are most exercised by the need to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Paradoxically, an argument for GM crops is precisely that they will help farming reduce its carbon footprint. Roots that fix a greater proportion of nitrogen from the soil will require less fertiliser made using fossil fuels. We want to discourage farmers from ploughing the land because that releases carbon; it's possible to imagine the development of a perennial wheat that makes ploughing unnecessary.
This Easter weekend, we shall celebrate the rebirth and resurrection that is symbolised by spring. It provides a moment, perhaps, to contemplate the long-term future of the world, which looks far from bright. Wars could break out over water. Flooding and desertification could cause huge movements of people, on a par with those experienced during the Dark Ages. We're running short of oil; before long, we may find ourselves running short of metals, too. Our children and grandchildren will be hard pressed to meet the enormous challenges that face them. But GM technology has the potential to alleviate some of the dangers. Future generations will think us crazy, or criminal, not to embrace it.







Comments
Anonymous!!!!!!!!
September 30 23:38
Ingrid Khan
April 21 10:57
Shahrad I. /Niklas G. /Johannes S.
April 13 13:28
first of all I would stress that I have quite similar thoughts as you uttered in your editorial. I am also concerned about the increasing population in China and India and about the resulting threat of starvation.
However, we also have to think about possible risks of GM. You didn`t mention a single one. That`s bizarre and strangely biassed. We may be able to rescue lives in a short while with the help of GM, but we don`t know how we will fare the the long-run due to the yet unknown long term effects of GMO`s.
The threat by nature superweeds for example is serious and plenty of other hazards go hand in hand with this.
I think since there are ample disadvantages as well, your responsibility as human beings should be not to act too fast and find a middle way.
Thank you for this opportunity to post a comment
Inoculated Mind
April 04 23:09
Show the study. Not a single human has ever been harmed by a GE food, and had that confirmed. Even the guy who ran around videotaping himself being allergic to GE maize got tested and was found to have no reaction whatsoever.
There's a sore need for education in this area. Anti-GE activism has become like creationism in my country (USA). The same tired falsehoods are trumpeted around for political and social reasons, and big quotes are put around "Science" as if it was some sort of intangible thing. Science means basing conclusions off of evidence, not ideology.
BTW - Raw food won't feed the world. You get a lot more out of certain foods by cooking them.
Oliver Dowding
March 31 00:14
If you really want to know how we are to feed the future world, think raw food, wasting less of what we grow, consuming less (reducing obesity) etc. Not rocket science, just palin old logic!
shelby
March 28 16:31
Neill Vroom
March 24 18:25
Best Wishes
Neill Vroom
Woodstock Ontario Canada
James
March 20 16:25
In this article you raise very salients issues about GM crops. It's unfortunate that anybody who supports GM foods is branded an apologist for the biotech industry. Such charges, mainly from anti-biotech organizations like the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, only help to distract us from the real debate about GMO. This is an issue I have discussed repeatedly in my blog (http://www.gmoafrica.org.) It's high time that the world tells off merchants of fear and misinformation about GM foods. The only debate that we should condone is that grounded in science. Everything else should be treated with the contempt it deserves.