GM rice may help save children from death. But most “GM foods” only promote agriculture that is harmful to the environment.
It may help fight malnutrition. “Golden rice” (right) provides more vitamin A than regular rice (left). Photo: Eric de Castro/Reuters
The ‘golden rice’ produced through genetic engineering is a smart development. The plant provides much more vitamin A than regular rice. In this way, it can help prevent blindness and death due to malnutrition in developing and emerging countries. The health risks claimed have not yet been proven. It is a genetically modified plant, but it is still useful.
Unfortunately, this does not apply to the vast majority of genetically modified crops worldwide. Most of these do not protect children from blindness, but rather promote environmentally damaging farming practices with monocultures and high pesticide use. This can be seen in the list of some 350 genetically modified plants approved for import into the EU, according to the European Commission. These plants are mostly resistant to herbicides such as glyphosate, and some consistently produce toxins against certain pests. This allows farmers to use more pesticides, for example, or to grow corn in the same field every year.
Farmers can avoid using genetically modified varieties if they regularly change the plant species in their fields, because then diseases and pests will not spread as quickly. This increases biodiversity in the fields and nature, and the water will not be heavily polluted by chemicals.
Approved genetically engineered varieties are also generally protected by patents. Breeders can only further develop patented seeds with the permission of the property owner. This hinders the progress of breeding. Ultimately, plants will adapt to climate change more slowly rather than more quickly. Most commercially available plants that have been modified using new genetic engineering methods such as Crispr also have all of these drawbacks.
EU Commission wants to abolish freedom of choice
Therefore, the EU Commission should abandon its current plan to eliminate labelling requirements for foods containing new genetically engineered plants, because then the majority of consumers will no longer be able to decide whether to put environmentally harmful “genetic foods” on their plates. Not everyone can afford to buy more expensive organic products, which require continued bans on genetically modified varieties.
Against this backdrop, it seems unfair that some advocates of genetic engineering are digging up golden rice that is over 20 years old in order to improve the overall image of agricultural technology. In the end, they are using rice as a Trojan horse to take away consumer choice. The federal government should also oppose this in EU-level negotiations.
