The development of genetically-modified foods (GMO’s) hasn’t increased food prod
ID: 107264 • Letter: T
Question
The development of genetically-modified foods (GMO’s) hasn’t increased food production, but has increased some aspects of profitability. Like all advances, farmers are compelled to adopt them because of market forces. Growing non-GMO crops for a global market simply isn’t a viable living.
GMO crops require licensed seed stocks, along with compatible herbicides and pesticides. By these means, corporations are positioning themselves to control (and profit from) most aspects of food production. Comment on the implications for putting corporations in charge of our food supply. Is this a good thing?
Explanation / Answer
From our fields to our forks, huge corporations have an overwhelming amount of power over our food supply every step of the way. When so much power is concentrated in so few hands, it creates some tremendous dangers. The globalization of food production in recent decades supported by unfair trade agreements has led to corporate food monopolies.
A small number of companies now dominate the supply of seeds, agricultural chemicals, processing, logistics and food production. Because the social and environmental impacts of this concentration of power are devastating. The corporate food system, heavily dependent on chemicals and fossil fuels, alongside cheap raw materials, makes a massive contribution to climate change, it is responsible for up to half of global greenhouse gas emissions. This cannot continue if we are to reduce greenhouse gases to safe levels for future generations.
Small-scale farmers and small food companies worldwide are driven out of business, while multinational companies drive a race to the bottom: their unsustainable production practices lead to the overexploitation and collapse of biodiversity and ecosystems. These market-dominating corporations routinely pay farmers below their costs of production; bully them into unfair contracts and can reject whole fields of produce at a whim whenever the price is not right for them. Some of the companies are key players in the push for even more corporate control and for trade agreements which would undermine food safety and standards.
Although no decisions will be taken against them for the future of food and farming, a lot of resources have been used to give credibility to an industrial food system, based on monocultures, hybrid seeds, and chemical pesticides and fertilizers. This food system is promoted heavily by agribusinesses and some governments as the best way to feed the world, while in reality it benefits multinational corporations at the expense of people and planet.
Conversely, it is small-scale food producers that are feeding the majority of the world today, especially the most marginalized peoples. They produce over 70% of the world’s food supply, and have developed the model of 'agro-ecology' which is emerging as the best way to feed the world. Agro-ecology is a set of farming practices and a political movement that makes food production work in harmony with the natural world, and creates new models of food societies and economies for example by bringing farmers and consumers closer together.
The real challenge to feed the world is finding more ways to support sustainable, regenerative decentralized farming systems. We need more short supply chains, more local markets, and more systems that improve the well-being of small-scale farmers. We need more biodiversity of seeds, crops and animals, to make food production resilient to a changing and unpredictable climate. This means transferring power from companies and financial institutions to devolved democratic bodies like local food councils that give local people and communities a say. People should be in control of the food system, not corporations. There are many grassroots practical examples showing that this is possible. We produce enough food to feed the world’s population today and in the future. What we need urgently is fairer distribution of resources and access to food dictated by need and not just by wealth and profit.