Eric Watson: Gene dilemma as food gets low

Dairy cows grazing in a paddock near Hikurangi in Northland. Photo / Sarah Ivey

As a species we face a conundrum: we have become so good at survival that we face sustainability issues caused by our population and consumption.

We are yet to fully use the globe's agriculturally productive land but within a few decades we will face a global food shortage if we do not get our population under control or fail to develop better agricultural production practices.

It's easy to see why many countries, such as China, are buying land throughout the world to secure their food future.

Technological advances mean fewer people are required to grow food for the rest of the population.

Have we considered the risks of having food production in the hands of a small number of individuals and corporations? Do they have the population's best interests in mind or are they purely motivated by profit?

For the most part, these same companies hold rights to genetically modified organism (GMO) technologies and have a vested interest in seeing them adopted on a widespread scale.

If you listen to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, "biotechnology offers promise as a means of improving food security and reducing pressures on the environment.

"Genetically modified crop varieties -- resistant to drought, water-logging, soil acidity, salinity and extreme temperatures -- could help to sustain farming in marginal areas and to restore degraded lands to production."

What are the potential risks?

I don't share the fears of "genetic freaks". Interspecies transfer of genes, such as putting a frog gene into a tomato plant, poses little direct danger to consumers. For the most part DNA is DNA.

I'm also not anxious about interfering with nature.

We have manipulated genes in domesticated animals and plants for millennia using conventional breeding techniques.

A good example is the wolf and the creation of breeds such as the great dane and chihuahua.

Conventional breeding can be as powerful over time and GMOs accelerate the process.

The real issues are food safety and environmental concerns.

When you insert a gene or set of genes into a genome, not only do you get the trait the new gene is coded for, you can also change the way the other genes behave. This may be beneficial or detrimental.

For example, protecting wheat by inserting a gene that generates an insecticidal agent in its cells has clear benefits but that same gene may cause other genes to behave differently and produce wheat that is nutritionally inferior or even toxic.

The other issue is ecological -- DNA is very hard to contain. Every living thing on the planet is trying to spread its DNA.

There are real risks of genes from GMOs escaping into wild populations, which could upset the normal natural selection process.

Herbicide-resistant GMO crops could conceivably result in herbicide-resistant weed populations.

These legitimate risks must be addressed through improved testing.

It is unreasonable to look at biotech/GMOs as good or bad. It would be the same as looking at nuclear sciences as good or bad.

Nuclear weapons are capable of killing millions -- clearly bad -- yet radiology, x-rays and cancer treatment save lives.

GMO technologies should be looked at on a case-by-case basis and should continue to be an important tool in producing food.

The positive has been greater awareness about where food comes from and what's in it. Demand for local, organic, non-GMO, grass-fed food is exploding, as are opportunities to buy these products.

Is this the golden opportunity for New Zealand?

As the world's population grows, existing farming systems won't produce enough food for everyone, so regardless of what side of the fence you are on, difficult decisions are coming our way.

World Agriculture - Towards 2015/2030

What do you think? Email letters@hos.co.nz