In a highly anticipated speech, the U.K.’s chief scientist, John Beddington recently told participants at the Oxford Farming Conference (OFC) that in order to deal with rising human population, the world and the U.K. must turn to genetically-modified (GM) crops and nanotechnology. In addition to decades of opposition to GM foods, activists in the U.K. have opposed nanotechnology in food, and the House of Lords recently issued a scathing report on food industry secrecy (see the January 22, 2008 LRNJ and the January 12, 2010 LRBJ – client registration required). The statements were nothing new from Beddington, but still highly controversial in a country where environmentalists such as Prince Charles have decried GM and nanotechnology because of, as the Guardian put it, ”the risk of upsetting delicate ecosystems in nature.”
Astute observers will note that upset ecosystems are precisely the reason that Beddington was calling for new food technologies. The ongoing debates over food, fuel, and climate are highly intertwined and show that there will inevitably be tradeoffs between environmental ideals. Despite organic foods’ ostensible wholesomeness, they cannot be produced in sufficient quantity to feed the world’s burgeoning population. Despite biofuels’ upward pressure on food prices, they can be an environmentally superior alternative to petroleum if they do not come from crops grown on former forest land. And despite environmentalist fretting about GM crops, these crops have never been shown to harm humans who consume them or the plants and animals in the environment. As the climate debate evolves post-Copenhagen, look for the role of biofuels and GM plants to shift to a more positive tenor as more thought-leaders and activists bow to these realities – much as, for instance, some environmental groups have swallowed their initial distaste to embrace nuclear power in the face of climate change worries.
facebook 
twitter 
email 
linkedin