It is clear that the changing climate is already affecting food security, and will continue to do so as the population increases and agriculture continues to be affected by fluctuating temperatures, rainfall patterns and more extreme climatic events (FAO, 2008).
GM organisms can help us out
Some feel that 'excluding technological options that raise productivity will do more harm than good' (Juma et al., 2013:472). Juma further supports their argument by indicating that a GM crop does not have to be edible in order to help enhance food security, and that cash crops such as GM cotton can provide a more reliable yield in changing environmental conditions. This therefore means that the farmers have more income with which to purchase more nutritional food. However, I feel that this is clearly only a partial solution to the problem, as more food will still need to be grown overall to meet increasing demand, and extra income from GM cotton will only increase access to food which is currently able to be produced elsewhere.
GM organisms pose a risk and should be avoided
The negative effects and concerns about GM are well documented, and some argue that evidence of the above benefits of GMOs is lacking (Shiva et al., n.d.)
The impact that genes which escape may have on the wider environment, leading to hybridisation of wild and genetically engineered species is relatively unknown. If such a hybrid species were to be discovered it would require very careful monitoring (Dale et al., 2002).
There are concerns that breeding disease or pest resistant crops has actually lead to the development of weeds which are resistant to the chemicals needed to control them, and outbreaks can be hugely damaging to yields and become very expensive to control (Vencill et al., 2012).
Uncertainty in the field
An important factor to bear in mind when considering the potential role of GM is the uncertainty behind some of the predictions. Von der Lippe and Kowarik, 2007 explore the idea of the uncertainty we have regarding the impact of GMOs on the wider environment, noting that there is potential for containment issues at various points along the supply chain, and that if GM individuals were to mix with wild individuals in an uncontrolled environment it may lead to an unforeseen 'feral' population. This uncertainty complicates decision-making concerning GM crops.
Due to this uncertainty, several studies call for further study of the health and environmental impacts of genetically modified organisms, and seek further validation of whether they really will help us meet the our growing targets for food security. Several authors who feel that GM crops have a role to play and should be utilised also warn of the dangers of over reliance on them, and point out that they will not be able to solve food security issues alone. If they are to be used they should form part of a wider toolkit to help solve the problem (Ryan, 2002; Juma et al., 2013; Qaim, 2013).
 |
| Source |
Whilst using GMOs to mitigate famine and malnutrition in developing nations is an A+++++ use of them in my books, I feel that mitigation of climate change impacts steps onto more patchy ground. Similar to what we discussed in the seminar, it's the issue of treating the symptoms but not the cause. Obviously, developing nations should be entitled to this mitigation as they are largely not the blame for the impacts of climate change they are experiencing, but researchers should not neglect reducing carbon emissions etc. just because we can grow crops that can cope with 2 degree C climate change for example.
ReplyDeleteI think that's a really good point, that we're using them to treat the symptoms but it doesn't address the problem of climate change itself which has got us to this point in the first place. I wonder if, by engineering crops to fit these unfavourable conditions we've created through climate change, we might actually make the problem worse because it creates more leeway for damaging environmental practices to continue in the short term?
DeleteThat's exactly my concern! I don't think that this is a reason /not/ to continue GMO research, as it has some great benefits, but I think that it a path to complacency that we must make sure is avoided. As geographers, that is probably a key part of our role in the GM discussion :)
DeleteHi Holly - really interesting post, especially as GM crops is so topical at the moment with regards to climate change. I notice that you mentioned cotton in this post - I understand that one of the main issues with cotton is that it's so water intensive to grow, hence the drying up of the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan. Can GMO help these crops become more drought resistant and less water intensive?
ReplyDeleteAnother cracking blog which has opened my eyes to the important role GM potentially has in helping mitigate and adapt against climate change. Although the Paris Agreement paves the way for keeping temperature rise well below 2C, temperature increases of 1.5C will still be recorded by the end of century at best (we're already at 1C!. In my opinion, and as you say, the use of GM cannot allow complacency. However, at the same time without it, climate, coupled with population growth means problems of food insecurity are only likely going to grow. Neglecting GM and potentially closing this avenue of research seems unwise. Although dividing opinions, GM and geoengineering look like increasingly important tools for tackling and mitigating climate change.
ReplyDelete