Editorial

Citation

Wilson, H.C. (2002), "Editorial", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 11 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm.2002.07311caa.001

Editorial

Much attention by the media over the past couple of years has been directed towards the advances in bio-engineering and as a rational scientist I find the situation very confusing and worrying.

Are genetically modified (GM) food crops safe? Are they going to be made available at a reasonable local cost to the developing nations; or are they going to be restricted on an economic basis to the developed world which can absorb the high cost of the GM seeds?

The questions are even more confounding in that many of the traits that are being engineered into GM products have been derived from the developing nations with often little financial profit to that nation. The economic and political power that the major agricultural companies wield is enormous, sometimes even outstripping the gross national product of the countries where they obtain the variant seeds and plants that they use to produce these disease resistant crops.

That there is little profit to be made out of Africa for this type of modified crop is true. The under-developed nations do not have the financial resources or the political clout to benefit from these products. Yet, if they are going to be used to benefit the peoples of the world, that is where they should be used.

Many of the people in these countries live on the sharp edge of humanitarian disaster. A drought or a flood will result in deprivation, starvation and diseases related to these factors. Genetic modification can be extended to produce drought resistant crops which would greatly benefit the people of those nations and remove, or at least alleviate, their dependence on food aid.

But, before we take that step we have to be absolutely sure that the GM food stuffs do not adversely affect the health of those who will derive a large portion of their nutrition from these crops. Yet, as the developed nations increasingly resist the testing of GM food crops within their own lands, the GM companies are yet again returning to the under-developed nations, this time to test out their products.

The notion of profit before safety has always worried me on a local scale – whether a rail or airline puts profit before passenger safety – and it one of those concerns that developed nations, quite rightly, abhor. Yet, we seem to be unconcerned about testing GM products in countries that cannot afford to refuse the temptation of a source of hard currency. We, in the developed nations of the world, have this insatiable need for increased profitability to satisfy the stock exchanges and investors, and humanitarian safety concerns seem to come very low on the list of priorities.

Also, the science of GM testing does not appear to be exact, whether it is in the potential for cross-pollination, or whether these products are safe to use as a long-term, world-wide source of nutrition, their safety is not proven. Perhaps it never will, or can be, proven.

Therefore my question is: are we building up the potential for a humanitarian disaster of a magnitude not ever seen before?

Henry C. Wilson