Natural farming and genetically modified (“GM”)crops are fundamentally incompatible. The promotion of natural farming methods, which prioritise ecological balance and biodiversity, cannot coexist with the widespread cultivation of GM crops.
Natural farming emphasises cooperation with nature, whereas GM crops rely on technological intervention and manipulation of biological systems. These differing philosophies are incompatible and cannot be reconciled.
Natural farming aims to promote ecological balance and minimize harm to the environment. GM crops, on the other hand, have been linked to negative environmental and health impacts, including reduced biodiversity, increased pesticide use and potential harm to human health.
Natural farming relies on diverse, open-pollinated seeds, whereas GM crops are often proprietary and controlled by multinational corporations. This shift in seed ownership and control undermines farmers’ autonomy and sovereignty over their agricultural practices.
And there are serious health implications for humans and animals as well. With genetic engineering, familiar foods could become dangerous or even toxic. it could also upset complex biochemical networks and create new bioactive compounds or change the concentrations of those normally present. In addition, the properties of proteins may change in a new chemical environment because they may fold in new ways.
Natural Farming Cannot Co-exist with GM Crops
By Bharat Dogra
Some countries are taking up the promotion of natural farming crops which is very welcome. However, a big problem and constraint arises when they say at the same time that they will spread genetically modified (“GM”) crops, forgetting that natural farming cannot co-exist with GM crops. Apart from the high risk of contamination, there is the wider reality that GM crops involve very high environment, safety and health risks
We should look carefully at what the most senior scientists known also for their commitment to the public interest have been saying. Surely the opinion of such scientists should get preference over those who have been working with multinational corporations known to be very exploitative towards farmers and known also for their attempts of trying to dominate the farm and food systems of developing countries. If according to reviews by very reputed scientists it can be shown that GM crops have been a disaster, then this view should get adequate importance.
Here we may note that GM crops and the herbicides accompanying them have been in court cases in some countries; generally, courts have been sympathetic to the victims of these crops and the agro-chemicals accompanying them. A case which attracted worldwide attention relates to the award of huge compensation to Johnson, a school groundskeeper, by a California jury on account of his health being damaged severely by a herbicide glyphosate which this groundskeeper had to use regularly, resulting in very painful and life-threatening blood-cell cancer. There was widespread sympathy for this victim and [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], nephew of former President John Kennedy, (he is now a Presidential candidate in the USA) was among the team of lawyers who argued this case.
For people involved in food safety issues, this case had an additional significance. The herbicide in question is produced most prominently by a multinational company which is also at the forefront of the spread of GM crops. It has been involved in providing packages in which the company’s GM seeds are closely tied to the marketing of the disputed herbicide whose serious health hazards had been the subject of much debate earlier also. In the course of the hearings of this case, however, it became increasingly clear that the so-called scientific evidence of the safety of its products by which the giant multinational company had been swearing had many holes in it and at times its own findings were being passed off as the opinion of reputed scientists.