Sussex University

Monday, 12 July 1999
By Professor Michael Lipton


Genetically Modified Crops Already Diminishing Undernutrition


Sir, Dr Alok Bhargava (Financial Times, Letters, June 14) alleged that my "argument that (genetically) modified foods will reduce undernutrition is . . . premature". But GM staple foods are doing so already. The gains would be greater if they received more than the present 5-10 per cent of GM research. The Nuffield report on GM crops documents varieties that have improved yield and stability - often by better tolerance of fungi, viruses or soil poisons - for example, for rice in China, potatoes in Peru and sweet potatoes in Kenya.

Yes, GM foods need long-term health monitoring, though they have been grown commercially in the US since 1994, and on well over 1m hectares in China, with no reported health damage. The Nuffield report suggests that new aid should help developing countries to design and implement appropriate, open procedures to regulate, improve and monitor the health and environmental impact of specific GM varieties. However, as the World Health Organisation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation agree, a huge source of health damage is undernutrition and underemployment due to risky and unproductive varieties of staple food crops. Hence caution demands not only regulation and monitoring but also a big increase in the present dismally low share of GM research that tests or spreads improved varieties of food staples.

Finally, Dr Bhargava stated that my arguing for GM foods as a weapon against undernutrition "would even seem disingenuous to those who see it as a conspiracy to experiment with dangerous products on the most vulnerable". "Those who see it" that way are making groundless charges of disingenuousness and callousness. I see no ethical grounds for denying Vitamin A-enhanced GM rice to children at risk of eye damage but I accept the good faith of those who do. "Those who" unreasonably attack others' good faith, especially if also failing to address the substance of a controversy, merely demonstrate the weakness of their own case.


Michael Lipton,
professor of economics,
Poverty Research Unit,
Sussex University,
and member, working party on GM crops,
Nuffield Council on Bioethics,
Falmer, Brighton, Sussex BN1 9SJ

Copyright 1999 Sussex University All Rights Reserved
 
 
 

Monsanto in the UK | Biotech Primer | Knowledge Centre | Discussion
About Monsanto | Links | Comments & Questions | Home | News

Copyright Monsanto Company

 
Monsanto in the UK Discussion News Knowledge Centre Comments and Questions Home Links About Monsanto