Diet for a Hot Planet, Chapter 9: The Biotech Ballyhoo

No fun quizzes for this chapter, sorry. I was originally planning on it, but then got wrapped up in the idea of riddling author Anna Lappe's argument with holes, until getting to the end of the chapter and being won over by her argument. And so I abandoned my attack mode and set to writing a summary of the chapter. It was while doing this that I discovered I had been HAD. Throughout the chapter, Lappe argues against genetically modified plants and any attempts to expand genetic modification when it comes to drought resistant crops for sub-Saharan Africa. And then at the end of the chapter, she explains how we don't need genetically modified plants because...we don't need chemical fertilizer? Wait, what? Although she does show compelling evidence that we don't need chemical fertilizer to be productive, (plots without chemical fertilizer and instead utilizing organic methods of fertlization had 129% higher yield than those with) her counter argument has nothing to do with her attack on GMOs. We all know GMOs are bad, but in this chapter Lappe merely spits up more information we already know in that category. However, I didn't figure this out until half-way through my summary, so for the rest of her fallacious arguments contained in this chapter, read on.

The reason for my reaction is based in the structure of the chapter. The whole thing is shaped as an argument, directed full force against the idea of genetically modified plants being able to help prevent hunger. She explains, at the beginning of the chapter, that the WEMA project (Water Efficient Maize for Africa) has been trying to engineer plants to be drought and flood resistant, to help survival in harsh sub-Saharan conditions. Her biggest arguments against this practice were: science is wrong and it will take too long.

I still do not like her first argument, but let me elaborate. She argues that the "Central Dogma" of genetic engineering, that "Particles--the genes--are decoded or expressed into proteins that are directly responsible for form and function", is wrong. To backup the BIG claim, she cites one college professor. Granted he is a professor of "microbial ecology and biotechnology", but the idea that one professor and author have the authority to debunk decades of scientific research is a little laughable.

Her second big argument, that these drought and flood resistant plants, IF they could be bred, wouldn't be ready for five-10-a zillion years, and so, basically, we shouldn't care about them. The argument was a little more refined than that, but you get the idea. Then she cited the regular arguments of lack of biodiversity, herbicide resistant weeds, etc. And after all of that, aside from the idea that science is wrong and therefore this task being impossible, I could not see a reasonable reason to give up developing these plants, even if they take a while, because at least that'd be something. Drought resistant GMOs still seem better than starving to death to me. But that's just a personal opinion.

By Alison