Feeding the world is an argument increasingly used to justify the continued development of GM. Monsanto has claimed that 'slowing its acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford'. But rather than asking how we can find a morally acceptable use for GM crops, we should be asking: what are the root causes of hunger? What is the best way to meet a growing population's food needs while preserving the environment on which we all ultimately depend? These questions lead to a very different conclusion.
Behind the argument that GM is vital to feed the world is an important assumption - that the cause of hunger is a combination of two things: too many people and too little crop yield. The truth is, although about a third of the world's children suffer malnutrition, nearly 80% of them live in countries with food surpluses.
The solution lies not in feeding the world but allowing the world the means to feed itself. Food security - the ability of a community to feed itself consistently on a diverse diet - is a complex problem that will not be solved overnight: it depends on people having access to land and money. GM can provide neither. GM crops pose the threat of irreversible harm to the environment and agricultural biodiversity - the real basis of food security. This technology and the system it maintains increase dependence on expensive chemical inputs, such as weedkillers, and single food crops, such as rice, which deny people a balanced diet. They also increase dependence on the companies and countries that supply the technology and the loans to pay for it. GM crops could speed a downward spiral of unsustainability.
