Mis)information and the politicization of food security

Agricultural biotechnology, particularly the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops continues to be controversial more than two decades after they were introduced. For a technology that is now so widely adopted around the world, why is this so? Among the many explanations that have been offered, one focuses on the way that differing perspectives on new technology introductions become entrenched, whether or not they are warranted by the available evidence. Genetically modified crops have experienced a long tradition of entrenched and polarized views, commencing with an insalubrious exchange between Richard Dawkins and Prince Charles on the occasion of the latter’s 2000 Reith Lecture (Ruse and Castle, 2002). More recently in late 2016, the New York Times claimed it had conducted an “extensive examination” of GM crops and found their benefits to be lacking, a claim that was vociferously challenged by scientists and famers alike, some of whom wrote a pointed rebuttal (Hakim, 2016; Giddings, 2016). The rebuttal gives references to several reviews and analyses of the benefits—and it should be added, the limitations—of GM crops, particularly in the United States and Canada, and other GM crop adopting nations. No one has claimed that GM crop technologies are the “silver bullet” to effective yield gain and pesticide reduction (Scott, 2016), but the record of evidence suggests there have been substantial benefits for consumers, farmers, human health, the environment, and sustainable development. Despite research dating back 15 yr reporting the benefits of GM crops, and acknowledgment of their limitations, critics of GM crops (and biotechnology more generally) continue to dismiss this information and ignore the multitude of benefits resulting from their adoption. Critics go as far as insinuating that the biotechnology industry has co-opted academic researchers and is paying academics to mislead the public in the quantification of the benefits of biotech crops, as is evidenced by the US Right to Know campaign’s request for freedom-of-information access to the emails of more than 40 leading American academics (Kloor, 2015). These opponents suggest that the distribution of benefits is not equal (benefit distribution is not equal for any technology), causes farmers to commit suicide, and is polluting the land (Adams, 2014). Much of this misleading information was captured in the 2013 report released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) entitled, “Trade and Environmental Review 2013: Wake Up Before It Is Too Late” (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2013). While containing contributions from more than 60 experts, no single expert in biotechnology or GM crops was listed in the table of contents. On the contrary, many of the contributors listed have been longstanding critics of biotechnology and GM crops. The essential message of this lengthy report was that for food security to exist over the remainder of this century, agriculture in developing countries needs to return to largely organic, small-scale farming practices. Despite evidence to the contrary, deeply entrenched positions persist much as they have for the last two decades. In response, this article begins with a concise summary of the documented benefits from GM crops from around the world, before turning to a discussion of how environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) have developed a stance on GM crops that presents them with a dilemma: accept some of the evidence and lose political ground or hold the ground and deny all evidence. As that dilemma continues for eNGOs and there is no resolution in sight, we turn in the third section to discuss some of the avenues for continuing and improving communication about the benefits and risks of adopting GM crop technologies. Our conclusion is that the selective use of information or denial of the existence of evidence about the benefits of GM crops politicizes food security in ways that make many millions of hungry people vulnerable.