Arguing about the methods used to grow our food is a luxury of people living in affluent nations.  There are one billion chronically undernourished people of low income in underdeveloped countries. They would find it appalling to reject a plate of food based on whether it was natural or genetically modified. Daily they face a life and death situation. So called “consensus based best practices” mean nothing to their struggle.

We need to put food production into its proper perspective.  Biotech or organically produced food inspires wildly opposing positions. But are they really so far apart?  The answer is “Yes!” if you hold the all or nothing position that natural is all good and artificial is all bad.

I have been part of conversations (usually after eating too much of a delicious meal) where the proposal from full stomachs is that the world would be a “better place”  if we in the west ate less meat and fewer calories so that people in developing countries would have more.  Pardon me.  But that is baloney! Appreciate what we have? Definitely. Believe that our restrictions can be fairly doled out by some imaginary balanced delivery system?  No way.

Do I dislike natural?  No.  But there are good reasons why most of us live longer than our natural farming forefathers. That reason is that some of the natural killers like e-coli and mould are not now taking their toll on our crops, our food and our years. I am also a realist and decided when my children were young to make it a mother-task to take classes in Materia Medica and Pharmacology. Like everyone, I am surrounded by naturals such as foxgloves, castor beans and lily of the valley that are all natural and all poisons that I keep away from my loved ones. Natural sugar, a not so obvious poison, is a particular sick-maker in our family. You won’t find me saying, “It’s natural so how much harm can it do?”  “Natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown” and “all natural” are the holy grail of anti-GMO law makers who seek to keep those terms off of genetically modified or genetically engineered crops. The label alone won’t make any difference if sustainable agriculture becomes impossible.

Natural does not mean harmless. Everything has a chemical makeup which can be studied and copied and or modified – hence Genetically Modified Organisms.  We are chemical beings.  The good and the bad are derived from the combinations not the source of the combinations!  So if you’re forewarned and realistic about natural, what is your position on modern technology?  If it’s new, shiny, computerised and different…. does it necessarily follow that there will be health risks?  We need to be responsible for the choices we make to nourish ourselves.

There has to be reasoned decision making.  For example in 2011 natural organic bean sprouts were the cause of fifty-three deaths and thousands suffered kidney failure in Germany. The bean sprouts from Egypt were infected by animal manure.  Closer to home, I have often marvelled at neighbouring organic farmers, who without bias use manure from their less enlightened neighbours to raise “all organic” food products that are then sold at a premium price.  Talk about a loaded pitchfork. Any natural organism can be infected by pollution from ALL sources around it. Like the people in Germany, consumers chose this food because they thought it was safer, healthier and natural.  The unfortunate conclusion.  There are many natural ways to get sick and die.

In the 60’s we were bombarded with warnings that, because of overpopulation, millions of people would soon starve and that there was absolutely nothing that could be done to prevent it.  Thankfully Paul Ehrlich’s “It’s already too late” warning in his book “Population Bomb” was proven to be wrong.  His advice to allow people in India to starve sooner rather than later also never became the solution to population growth.  Instead, Norman Borlaug, who did not succumb to this “truth”, was inspired to create the Green Revolution.  Malnutrition was cut dramatically and India became self sufficient.  Poverty and malnutrition continue to need addressing.  Today there are close to 800 million people who go to bed hungry each night.  They are the ones who need food that is safe to eat.

We are told that GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat.  If you accept that statement, there is nothing to be said to help you.  If twenty years of people consuming genetically modified corn, soy and other crops isn’t proof enough, nothing will be. In actual fact corn has been genetically modified since the first Europeans arrived in North America.  Imagine the trillions of meals consumed without a single substantiated case that GMOs have caused harm. Where do the naysayers place the documented cases of death from organic causes?  Organizations including the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Science believe GM foods pose no likely health risk.

Let’s turn to the potato for another example.  A blight-resistant potato was being developed by both the Sainsbury Lab and Teagasc, a publicly-funded institute in Ireland.  However the Irish Green Party was so adamantly opposed that they took court action against it. The attack was undertaken despite the fact that the blight-resistant potato would require 15 less fungicide sprays per season. Further pollen transfer was not an issue because potatoes are clonally propagated.  The offending gene came from a wild relative of the potato.  The case was won and for the second time in their history, the Irish suffered potato loss.  The first time a million or more died during the 19^th century famine. In the 21^st century they lost the opportunity to defeat blight.

There are emotional stories on both sides of the GMO issue.  It affects me personally and several members of my family. We would suffer if there was a total GMO ban. As a diabetic and two-time cancer survivor, I am really quite happy to keep chugging along with GMO insulin. Facing the issues with a balanced approach and trusting in the science makes an informed decision the healthiest one for me.

The issue is never about who is right and who is wrong.  It is about who is fed.  Who is healthy?  As discussed in today’s challenge is how we will manage to feed 9.5 billion people by 2050 (Read more: GMO’s Beyond Right and Wrong).  How can we do it on about the same land as we use today because we do suffer if natural areas are taken over by agriculture. How do we achieve this production using limited fertiliser, water and pesticides in the context of a rapidly changing climate?

Angry voices are raised by people who would not have their own children grow up to be farmers or grow food themselves.  They are angry about how the food is produced – despite the abundance. Yet in countries where growing your own food is the only option, these same voices insist that food production must be done in the slowest method possible. Sitting at a computer where you can “share” anti-GMO sentiments with the tap of a finger does nothing to provide for those with empty stomachs.  The image of natural works best when you have three meals a day!

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Today we face risks as food producers and consumers.  But the risk is definitely not who will be harmed by GM food but who will be denied enough food.  Yes the image of “natural” has appeal!  But only for the rich.  And that’s exactly what has me worried sick.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

There are some issues that polarize everybody and the debate over GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) does that.  People emphatically declare that the facts are black or white, wrong or right one way or the other.  If you’re on the wrong side, you are not only politically incorrect but you offend science, religion and the environment. This does not sound like the win-win situation that we are encouraged to seek in most areas of life.  Indeed when it comes to GMOs we are determined to prove only one thing… and that is that… the OTHER side is absolutely wrong.

GMOs Throw Dirt… Lose Ground

It’s a no win situation with both sides throwing dirt at each other in the press, on TV, in rallies, parades and even, resorting to boycotts and stand offs.  There’s an old saying that my grandmother (a mother of 10 and grandmother of 43) quoted effectively when rivalry escalated to harmful levels, “Whenever you throw dirt, you lose ground.” Today`s dirt throwing GMO war of the words has shifted the focus from the production of sustainable, healthy food to a challenge of the very character of the producers. Like anything, even when incorrect, if it is repeated often enough, it gains the perception of truth.  As a result consumers are beginning to bite the very hand that feeds them.

The Win-Sin Battle between Good and Evil

Emotions run high when you’re talking about the life-giving food required by every living thing. Add into the mix, the conspiracy theory that money will make food producers sell their souls and it becomes a battle between right and wrong, good and evil. At the other extreme, the equally evil fanaticist viewpoint is that farmers, unlike their apparently perfect forebears, are working fiendishly with big science or big companies to give you cancer, make you fatter and, generally, ruin your good health.

It`s Your Choice

The underlying fear of sickness, misinformation about food-raising processes and a desire for an absolute answer propels the attack on food producers.  If only it were that simple. A target allows us to lay the blame for sickness and obesity onto someone else.  But at the end of the day it isn’t some agricultural trickster but our own choices that are making us sick and fat. It’s the choices that are made that produce the results that raise alarms for the health of future generations. And choice is a fundamental part of the GMO or anti-GMO debate. People who are anti-GMO have the absolute right to choose what they eat.  People who produce food have the absolute right to choose what to grow. It’s hypocritical to limit the choice of either side.

Take off the Rose Colored Glasses

We often look to the past and assume it must have been better and healthier then.  We must not overlook the facts. There are reasons that the life expectancy for our farming forefathers was considerably less than today’s norms. Every early farmer practiced genetic selection to improve food production.  It’s even harder and more necessary to select for improvement today.  Try growing an organic garden in the city with all of the challenges – air pollution, lack of water and too much or not enough sunshine.  Imagine if your life depended on the results.  That’s farming!

Where Praise is Due

That’s were kudos go to the scientists who are creating seeds and foods that can withstand so many adversities.  Kudos to scientists and farmers who are taking responsibility for reducing chemical applications. With the advent of GMO crops there is significantly less usage of insecticides and herbicides.  With so few farmers providing for so many, subsistence farming is now obsolete.

Survival of the Fittest or “Who Controls Who?”

Whether you`re talking animal genetics or plant genetics, survival of the fittest has been nature`s way of modification. Weeds, like any other life form, adapt to survive. Weeds adapt to cultural practices as well as chemical. Growing food or crops in a “steel city”, as we do, is a challenge before a single chemical has been applied to the fields. One “strong” unrestrained monoculture that provides no edible benefits for man or animals is an ever present challenge.  Drive along any roadway and ask yourself what has happened to biodiversity? It’s not blame but “better” that we need to aim for.

Here at The Bullvine we raise the question of animal genetics and GMOs (Read more: Are You Ready For Genetically Modified Cattle? ).  Again ours is an industry with numerous regulations and scientific studies driving profitability and sustainability.  Again there are big guys, bad guys and concerns for safety and health issues of the food products we are producing.  And again, it isn’t blame but “better” that should be the driving mantra for the future. It will be too bad if we resort to, “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up”.

Two Different Paths … the Same Destination

Total agreement is not the goal.  Total vindication of one side or the other doesn`t serve any constructive purpose.  Regardless of absolute right or wrong there is one absolute truth,

The world must be fed.

During the next 40 years the world`s population is projected to reach more than nine billion people. Demand for food is expected to increase by 60 percent. The competition for land, water and food will escalate and is having a very real impact on food production and therefore on health, poverty and hunger. We must find a way to safely and sustainably support the world`s poorest and most vulnerable.

Without returning to everyone becoming a food producer, there is no way to feed the huge and growing demand. Yes! Small scale farmers feed 70% of the world…but they are subsistence farming to sustain their own family.  North American farmers are producing to provide for a growing population. Not every country can do this.  But imagine a scenario where everyone ate only locally grown, organic food.  Where does that leave metropolitan areas? We cannot turn back the clock on large cities.  In that scenario, what would become of Tokyo, New York, London or Rio de Janeiro?

The Bullvine Bottom Line

In every responsible home there is the desire to make better choices for the health of our families.  On the farm, we make those choices too with the added responsibility of providing for others.  There is a time and a place to hear the concerns of all sides of the debate. We farmers must defend and guarantee the food products we produce.  Don’t throw dirt but hold our ground. We must not be silent.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.