John Hayward Posted: 17 April 2008
Keywords: Finance & the Economy, Government & Foreign Affairs, Science & Technology,
Spiralling food prices around the world have sparked riots in several countries, including Egypt and Haiti, where several people have been killed, and have necessitated emergency action by the World Bank, who have warned that hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of starvation and 100 million people in poor countries could be pushed deeper into poverty.
Rice and coffee prices are running at 10-year highs, prices for milk and meat in some countries have more than doubled, while the price of wheat has doubled in less than a year. All this is a consequence of unprecented growth in human population and increased appetites in countries experiencing economic growth, exacerbated by the loss of agricultural land for the development of so-called biofuels and, in some countries, poor weather that has ruined crops.
Given that world population is expected to increase by a further 2-3 billion over the next 50 years, and that the demand for food by developing economies such as China and India is only set to increase, the question is how we are going to deal with this ever-increasing demand. At the start of the year, former Royal Society Vice President and Foreign Secretary Sir Brian Heap alerted the Jubilee Centre of this impending crisis and warned that the world must be willing to embrace the use of genetically modified crops.
Read the transcript of his speech in our news and research pages or view our five-minute interview with him, in which he makes the same point, and then let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Recommended link: The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries, published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which concluded, "There is an ethical obligation to explore these potential benefits responsibly, in order to contribute to the reduction of poverty, and to improve food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries."
As I understand it, GM crops are patented, and the patents are controlled by companies who licence the right to use the crop for a single growing season. (If they didn't do that, they'd need a one-off fee, which would be too large for the farmer to pay.) If you want to use it the following season, you have to pay again.
However, once you have started using a GM crop, it's very hard to stop. All of your seed you are saving for the next year is GM, so you have to find an non-GM seed source to plant. Even then, if you grow GM seed by accident, you could get sued. This gives the seed "owners" a large level of control over the producers.
If Christians encourage producers in the developing world to move over to GM crops, are we not being complicit in putting those producers into bondage?
Gerv 25 April 2008
I completely agree. It is the same free-market philosophy which assumes that big corporations are essentially benevolent. Experience shows that this is just simply not the case.
GM technology is important to raising productivity- but should be part of integrated efforts to support agriculture, which benefit the poor.
Richard Clarke 27 April 2008
'To stop widespread starvation, we will either have to plough up the planet's last wild places to grow more food or improve crop yields. GM technology allows farmers to do the latter - without digging up rainforests. It is therefore perverse to rule out that technology for no good reason. Yet it still seems some people are willing to do so.' Last Sunday's Observer also argued As the world begins to starve it's time to take GM seriously, noting that it is not the technology itself that the environment movement opposes but its promotion and marketing by international conglomerates such as Monsanto a decade ago.
AMJ 30 April 2008
Thanks James - I agree. I think many Christians follow quite blindly what their leader / leading organization / source of secular reference might be and don't always look at the divine reference- the Word of God.
Unfortunately politics is very short sighted - politicians only do what will get them votes in the next election - not what will protect the earth in the long term - if people are hungry, they will give them food now at the expense of the long term. That's were we need sound logic and inter-generational morality - and here's were we often look up to the churches, so they really need to get their message right!
Best wishes,
Jack
>>> On 2008-05-20 at 06:55 AM, "James Moffett" wrote:
Hi Jack
Interesting and naïve. The crux rests in the final few words: "I think as Christians we need to make up our minds about GM crops and avoid the campaigns of misinformation."
The article is based on (mis)information gleaned from the pro gmo and anti lobbies and has nothing to do with being a Christian or thinking as a Christian would.
I would suggest ask the question "what would Jesus do?"
Simple maths would show that the money expended on present wars is way more than enough to feed the world, but there's no profit in this move. (Instead, for example, Monsanto has used their clout to force through legislation in Iraq forcing farmers there to use there seed.....)
Unfortunately one has to look at the big picture, as Jesus did when he was in the Middle East, and by ignoring the "misinformation" come to the correct decisions.
Most of the time it has come down to who makes the money and then the decisions are easy.....
Atb
James
Jack 20 May 2008
I think there are competing(?) issues that deserve some reflection in this discussion. The powerful argument that we need to feed the world is a very important one that ought to have prominenence, I think in working through these issues. One must also hold in tension the need to be carefull regarding the environmental concerns that some may have. The argument that some talk about that it is not "natural", therefore it must be bad is largely driven by a non-Christian understanding of things, though one should be very careful of thorough testing of GM products that may have unintended cosequences. In AUstralia, we have have some spectacular mistakes with "natural" solutions (Cactoblastus moth then Cane Toad solutions) along with some very good results. I understand the comment of James' which askes the question "What would Jesus do?" but I fear even that does not give a clear answer, though his love of people as the pinnacle of the created order is very clear. (I think "What DID Jesus do?" is a better question. The concerns regarding the large companies having patents that stop this type of technology being used to feed the world is a very different question, and the moral issues that arise out of this ought to be challenged, as the fundamental reason for developing these technological solutions seem to be based on the profit motive first and foremost. As one who believes that technology is a gift from God like all other good gifts, I think this type of technological solution CAN be used to further the Kingdom of God, but equally it can be used to do ther things.
Bill Rusin 25 May 2011