The recent destruction of a crop of Genetically Modified (GM) wheat by Greenpeace has stirred up the debate around the value and safety of GM foods. Neil Perry, a prominent Aussie chef suggests that genetically modified wheat has no place on the menu. Personally I am not sure whether I am comfortable with GM foods. On one hand, their safety is far from being proven. On the other hand, humanity has been genetically modifying foods since we adopted agriculture 10,000+ years ago. How do you think we got seedless watermelons? By selective breeding. And what is selective breeding? A genetic manipulation of the watermelon. How else would you produce a seedless watermelon? I guess you could try talking him into it, but I don’t like your chances. So I really don’t get what freaks people out. But I am not here to debate GM foods. I am here to examine Neil Perry’s arguments.
Neil’s argument as a whole is that our diet has been – in recent time – become ever unhealthier. While I could not agree more with Mr. Perry, I question his sincerity. Jamie Oliver, for example, put his money where his mouth is and campaigned hard in the UK to change the menus offered at schools. He may have had ulterior motives but this effort surely was not a cakewalk. It would be nice is the Neilster did something similar. But hey, who could blame him? Designing the menu for Qantas First Class cabin is much more fun, not to mention more lucrative.
He then proceeds to focus on the safety issue – “Even more troubling is the fact that GM plants have never been proven safe to eat”. That is true, but in the same vein, over consumption of alcohol has been proved to be unsafe. I admit that I have never visited any of Neil Perry’s establishments but I suspect he would not refuse to sell a 3rd bottle of his overpriced wine to a table of 2 which has already downed a couple.
“Through trial and error over many thousands of years, we have found what we can eat for health and nourishment and what we must stay away from”. This is an interesting statement. It would seem that Mr. Perry is perfectly happy to benefit from the trials and errors of previous generations but is not willing to undertake the same process himself for the sake of future generations.
On to the evil corporations, “In a few generations our food and farming systems have been radically transformed. Once based around nature and human need, they are now controlled by corporations, from seed to supermarket, for the purpose of profit”. Is Mr. Perry really advocating we go back to treating food and eating only as a need? If we did, he would be out of business. And while we are on the topic of business, isn’t he a corporation selling food for profit? Or is Rockpool a sophisticated code for Soup Kitchen?
Mr. Perry then concludes by saying that “As leading chefs in Australia, we will stop using wheat products if GM becomes prevalent, or we will exclusively use certified organic wheat”. Knock yourself out Neil. I am sure you will roll over the additional expense onto your customers. So why don’t you do us a favour? Open up a chain of restaurants, in the suburbs, serving healthy, organic nutritional food at cost or donate your profits to family farms (Paul Newman donates his) or DO something which is consistent with your convictions. We really have enough chefs with inflated egos.
Miron, I listened to two sides of this argument over a three-day period about a month ago. The two speakers did not attend at the same time, so I had the luxury of asking each one about any research backing their side without their answers being argumentative or tainted by the other's input.
ReplyDeleteNow, I grow watermelons and squash that are non-hybrids and love the idea of growing something from a time past and enjoying what generations before me enjoyed. But I also grow hybrid tomatoes and corn (I have a *large* garden) because I have found some varieties that taste better than anything else I've tried and perform better in my unpredictable climate than most other strains.
The first speaker spoke against GM and made some strong claims in favor of heirloom seeds. By 'strong claims' I mean that she had strong opinions -- but no real research or data to back up anything she said. In fact, every single question I asked her relating to proof of her position resulted in her making vague, anecdotal references to things she had "read somewhere." Very disappointing, since I actually wanted a balanced view.
The second speaker works for a GM company in the US. He was very knowledgeable and answered every question honestly, even discussing the negative outcomes of some experiments. Of all the data he presented, nothing made more of an impact with me than when he said, "To those who feel that holding on to the plants of the past is somehow a noble commitment, why don't you go tell the tribe who couldn't grow corn last year -- because our environment's changed and evolution hasn't been able to keep up but now has a plant that can survive with less water or has become more disease or pest resistant because we engineered it to do so -- that they shouldn't be using a product that could save their way of life because that just wouldn't be right?"
I totally support the scientists and wish them the best in their goals.
Hi Infinitewell,
ReplyDeletethanks for your comment. I totally agree with you. My aim in my post was not to advocate in favour or against GM foods. It was to (indirectly) advocate for an evidence based holistic debate which looks at the science but at the legal, commercial and societal issues as well. The article I commented on was by a famous chef who used his celebrity status to preach from a moral high horse while at the same time doing nothing to put his money where his mouth is. I don't think this contributes to the debate.
Bonjour Miron
ReplyDeleteI love the subtle reference to Talking Heads in your first posting.
I fear for a GM world as it seems to contravene the natural order for Mother Earth (and there is the hidden challenge to get as many songtitles into the flow of the answer).
But then again, we ARE Mother Earth nad so perhaps GM is the (or a) natural beauty.