Food for thought on genetically-modified crops

AS the world debates a new climate-change treaty, drought continues in Kenya.
Maize plants wither, hitting poor rural families the hardest.
People are starving, and many of those who survive are grossly malnourished.
There is hope. Next year, the Kenyan authorities will begin testing maize varieties that they hope will provide high yields and prove more resistant to drought.
But why did farmers in Kenya and other African countries not have access to drought-resistant crop varieties before catastrophe struck?
One reason is that such crops rely on research tools used in molecular biology, including genetic engineering.
African governments have been told that genetic engineering is dangerous, with many Europeans and their national governments – as well as transnational NGOs such as Greenpeace – determined to stay away from it.
Unfortunately, Kenya’s government listened and did not permit their farmers to grow genetically-modified (GM) maize, even though it has been approved, sown, harvested and eaten by both humans and animals in South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, the US and other countries for many years.
Although Kenya has a well-functioning and well-funded agricultural research system, the government has not even permitted field tests of GM crop varieties.
Molecular biology has provided excellent tools to address health, environmental and food problems such as those seen in Kenya.
The question is whether decision-makers are prepared to use them.
Obviously, most EU countries’ governments are not. But, why are governments in developing countries dragging their feet?
Are the risks so high that they justify the suffering that could have been avoided?
GM foods have now been on the market in the US for more than 12 years.
Most of the food consumed by Americans is either genetically modified or exposed to genetic modification somewhere in the production process.
There is no evidence of even a single case of illness or death as a result – in the US or anywhere else where GM foods are consumed.
Similarly, GM feed has not resulted in any illness or death in animals. And, no environmental damage has been detected.
It is unusual that a new technology has no negative side effects.
Just think of all the deaths that the wheel has caused, not to mention the side effects of much of the medicine we take. What, then, is the danger of GM foods?
Opponents of genetic engineering in food and agriculture have several arguments, none of which appears to be valid.
First, “genetic engineering cannot solve the hunger and food insecurity problem”.
This is correct: GM foods cannot single-handedly solve the problem, but they can be an important part of the solution.
A second argument is that “we do not know enough about the effects and side effects”. Since some of the groups opposing GM organisms destroy the field trials that could give us more knowledge, a more pertinent argument might be that many opponents do not want us to know more.
Third, “we should not play God”. But, if God gave us brains, it was so that we should use them to ensure a balance between people and nature to help eliminate hunger and protect the environment.
Fourth, pollen from GM crops may “contaminate” organically produced food. – Project Syndicate
nPer Pinstrup-Andersen is professor of food, nutrition, and public policy at Cornell University and professor of development economics at Copenhagen University, Denmark.