The transgenic plants grown today are cotton, soybean, corn, canola,
alfalfa, sugar beets and some squash and papaya. They contain mostly genes that
confer resistance against an herbicide, against insects or viruses. Newer
plants contain more than one additional gene, leading to a plant with more than
one resistance (‘stacked-traits’).
1. Could one of these plants be useful in Swiss agriculture?
Corn,
canola, alfalfa, sugar beets and squash are plants, which are commonly grown on
Swiss farming fields. All these plants would in transgenic form offer new
possibilities and promise higher crop yields.
Corn: Especially now that the western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) reached Swiss ground and occurs occasionally, it might seem tempting to cultivate BT-corn. This transgenic corn is (supposed to be) vermin- resistant and would therefore prevent the spread of the corn rootworm. But up to now, the corn rootworm has caused no damage in Switzerland, thanks to a well-managed crop rotation. This technique will not lose its effectiveness in the future, considering a wide spectrum of animal pests, and it is the best thing to do for soil fertility and structure anyway (managing the nutrients in the soil instead of using mineral fertilizers is also sustainable and climate friendly). Thus, there isn’t any necessity for Swiss BT- corn at present. What is more, in the USA the corn rootworm already starts to develop a BT- resistance so that even supporters of genetic engineering are now saying, that one should not only plant BT crops (listen broadcast).
Canola: Transgenic canola is usually
herbicide resistant (“roundup-ready”, meaning resistant to Roundup, which is
glyphosate, a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide) and often also modified in
other traits, namely in its components, for instance containing less trans-fats
and more omega-3 fatty acids. A lot of these qualities were also successfully
achieved by conventional breeding methods. Nevertheless, canola is still highly
susceptible to animal pests and diseases and a really strict crop rotation is
essential. In conventional farming herbicides, insecticides, fungicides etc.
are applied. In organic farming there is almost nothing that can be done to
protect canola crops apart from crop rotation. But also transgenic canola does
not solve this problem. There’s only the advantage that the applications of
herbicides can be reduced by using the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate
instead of specific herbicides, which ideally also reduces some of the costs.
Alfalfa: Roundup-ready alfalfa is also
resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup which therefore also
simplifies weed control in cultivations and may reduce herbicide applications
and costs. However, I do not see why a strict weed control is necessary for
this plant. Alfalfa is primarily grown in big fields as forage plant. Cattle or
other animals do not care if they feed on some other plants along with it. (The
inappropriate forage of cattle is another huge problem itself)
Sugar beet: Sugar
beet is a root crop which demands a good preparation of the soil. Deep
ploughing and a mechanical (and chemical) weed control are necessary
procedures. Here, cultivating glyphosate-resistant transgenic sugar beets would
be more convenient, too. Weed control could be easily done with the application
of glyphosate. But growing sugar beets has a long tradition in Switzerland and
I believe that the methods and equipment for weed control have been optimised
and crop yields cannot be increased significantly growing transgenic sugar beet.
Squash: Transgenic squash is resistant
to infections of two specific viruses. Since there is not much information
available on this subject, I am not sure, if the cultivation of transgenic
squash had really proved successful and if those viruses have actually caused
problems in Switzerland.
Considering
all species, I disagree with the introduction of transgenic plants. Genetic
engineering does not offer the right approach to solving the problems which,
from my point of view, arose from industrial monocultures and intensive
agriculture. In my opinion genetic engineering tries to combat the symptoms but
does not solve the real causes!
Furthermore,
with the widespread cultivation of Roundup- resistant Monsanto products the
development of similar resistances in some weed species is emerging as a
(costly) problem. The same is the case for BT crops as we hear in the broadcast.
And if we
eliminate one pest animal, the next one already starts to invade.
I also do
not believe that genetic engineering can solve the problem of hunger and the
global food crisis.
Transgenic canola:
Organic
canola cultivation:
Transgenic alfalfa:
Broadcast
on BT- resistant Corn Rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera):
Articles
on transgenic food and hunger:
2. Today, the safety of GM plants in not an issue in the public discussion anymore. Social, economic and ethical arguments are more important.
A lot of
the following arguments are also valid arguments against conventional
monoculture systems!
Social:
-
Dependency on multinational
companies such as Monsanto
-
Dependency on world market
-
Farmers have little to no
relation to the plants they grow and loose the knowledge about natural
interactions etc.
-
Do farmers in third world
countries have a real option or choice?
-
Higher production rates rarely
empower farmers of third world countries and do not guarantee a better life for
them (-> dependency). The distribution of food is the problem, not the
quantities that are produced worldwide. (Or as some see it, there are too many
people on this planet)
Pros:
-
Higher production rates
augment food security (?)
-
Higher salary for farmers (?)
-
Side-effect: According to the
NFP results BT-corn is healthier because it contains less mycotoxins.
Ethical:
Cons:
-
Modifying the gene of any
living organism is an interference that goes further than any breeding method
or selection that has been done so far. Genes of different organisms are mixed
up. The gene-cocktails we produce show how little respect we have towards life.
-
Are patents on plants (and
animals) or on DNA-sequences ethical?
-
The latest research showed
that plants are able to communicate and even to remember. Therefore we should
treat plants accordingly and even speak about and respect the dignity of plants.
-
Is the way pesticides function
and attack the metabolism of plants and animals and eradicate them at once
ethically correct? It is a tightrope walk how much influence humans should
exert. Alternative methods are crop rotation and biocontrol.
-
Weeds are living beings! Pest
animals are living beings! The web of life is very complex and we cannot
compensate the loss of species. Humans rely on the diversity of life!
Pros:
-
We bear responsibility for the
wellbeing of human beings we rely on. So food security in third world countries
should be increased or rather guaranteed (though really with GMO’s?)
-
Plants can be modified to
cover the needs of humans, e.g. golden rice. (-> Attempt to combat symptoms?
Will this ensure a balanced nutrition? Farmers should not only be producing for
the world market, but for a diverse self-supply)
Economic:
Cons:
-
According to the results of
the NFP 59 the acceptance of GMO’s is not given among the Swiss people. The
attitude is rather sceptical and seems to be durable. Therefore the farmers’
Union doesn’t see much potential for products from GMO’s at present.
-
The
results of the NFP also show, that a lot of costs would arise, if GMO’s were to
be cultivated in Switzerland next to conventional and organic crops.
Profitability is not given.
-
On an international
basis: Will the costs really drop? Will third world countries really be
on the winning side? (I assume multinational companies will make sure to
increase profits…)
Pros:
-
Lower costs due to fewer
applications of pesticides (but won’t the expenses stay high through the
dependency on products from those huge companies?)
-
Higher salary for farmers
thanks to higher crop yields (will farmers really be the ones that profit?)
Results
from the national research program NFP 59:
Opinion
of the farmer’s union:
The
rights of plants:
Ethics
and plants:
