food matters aotearoa – an opportunity for real debate? or muddying the waters?

One of the big stories on my Facebook feed at the moment alerted me to Food Matters Aortearoa and its upcoming Wellington conference. The program for this conference has certainly generated a lot of interest among my friends.

The focus of that interest lies in the line-up of speakers & the agenda of their tour – something my friend & blog-buddy Grant has also written about. The blurb for the Christchurch event pretty much sets the scene: the speakers there (Seralini & Douzelet)

will reveal their experiences with the health problems that chemically grown food can generate

Er, ‘chemically grown food’??? All our food is comprised of chemicals! 

But what of the speakers? As Grant notes, Dr Gilles Seralini is perhaps best-known in scientific circles for a now infamous study on the toxicity both of the herbicide Roundup and of maize treated with it. The original paper was retracted but subsequently re-published (seemingly, without any further peer review), without any real attempt to address any of the issues that led to the retraction: the small sample size and the appalling lack of ethical treatment of the study animals (which were allowed to live with extremely large tumours rather than being euthanized at an early stage of tumour development), among others. 

Dr Vandana Shiva has done some admirable work around conservation and supporting women farmers in India. However, she has also made some highly questionable claims, including the incorrect but oft-quoted statement that the use of GM cotton led to a marked increase in suicides among Indian farmers. While people may oppose the use of GM technology for a variety of reasons, using demonstrably incorrect information doesn't bolster their case. There's an interesting article on Dr Shiva on the New Yorker website, and a discussion on ResearchGate links to a number of valuable resources that look at other claims (for example, the patenting of seeds pre-dates GM technology by some decades).

Similarly, the other major international speaker, Dr Huber, also opposes the use of GM technology & of genetically-modified organisms. I have to say that I continue to be puzzled to the opposition from some quarters to the use of modern genetic modification techniques, while the effects of other tools such as mutation breeding are ignored. Yet the first involves one to a few genes and is well-tested and highly regulated, while the second – which is not regulated in any way – is completely unpredictable and can affect a very large number of gene loci. (A 2008 study found that mutation breeding produced far more genetic change than did transgenesis, & concluded that "the safety assessment of improved plant varieties should be carried out on a case-by-case basis and not simply restricted to foods obtained through genetic engineering.")

On the face of it, this conference and the associated publicity could offer the opportunity to have some valuable discussion on issues such as the future of agriculture in a time of climbing global population and widespread environmental change, and the safety of GMOs and the various techniques used to produce them. However, since the conference appears to have a strong anti-GMO slant, I doubt this will happen – although I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised.





5 thoughts on “food matters aotearoa – an opportunity for real debate? or muddying the waters?”

  • Alison Campbell says:

    Sorry to hear about the (lack of) ease of commenting. Can you send me a screenshot of what you see (I don’t see that side of things) & I’ll take it up with the IT folks – acampbel(at)waikato(dot)ac(dot)nz

  • To the first poster, there is nothing about GMO that somehow prevents farmers and seed suppliers from producing non-GMO plants and seeing as there is so much widespread misinformation, there is certain to be a market for so called ‘natural non GMO plants’.
    Unfortunately anti-GMOers seem to be hellbent on banning it and eliminating what could and has already been (golden rice) a technology that has greatly improved society.

  • Alison Campbell says:

    I see that the ‘Arctic Apple’ has attracted a veritable storm of comments in the social media. From the ‘Popular Science’ FB page ( I give you this gem:
    “The food we eat is in a constant state of growth and attrition. If you make it harder to break down it will be harder for our bodies to assimilate the protein and amino acids. WTF?
    This will give you CANCER. I grow avocados, I sell them locally, when they are picked they have a two week shelf life. And they travel a MAXIMUM of 50kms.
    They will NOT give you cancer, EVER!”

  • As Alison was saying, there is ample nonsense said in the name of ‘concern’ about GMOs, including about the companies.
    Almost everyone points as Monsanto as their straw figure for evil, but actually there are many different companies of very different size. Monsanto is far from the largest in size. The company behind the Arctic Apple is tiny; I think the CEO has said it has four full-time employees. (I’m not entirely sure what to make of that!) Several GMOs are the work of non-profits – GMO papaya is one example if I recall correctly. (I believe this has been sold in the USA for 10 years now.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *