More on GM Vines
Further clarification on my last blog (and a comment section is coming soon, I promise). By Kate
Turns out, the record for responses to a Green & Blue blog posting is currently held by my last one. I won’t reveal what that number is as it will somewhat dampen the dramatic frisson from the statement – but a record is a record.
Let us just say that I have received a number of emails related to my last blog.
Luckily none were abusive as times are hard and I am feeling fragile, but there were a few that wanted clarification about my stance on GM vines and I feel I owe it to my dearly beloved, teeny tiny readership to answer that request as best I can.
At the outset I must say that I don’t really think I can remove the argument against GM vines from the greater argument concerning food security and what role genetic modification plays there. People not dying of hunger in the future is a rather more important consideration than whether or not one will continue to derive huge enjoyment from a properly complex glass of wine made without intervention, but that is not a central point of my argument.
I suppose I have one (very passionate) objection and one which is really more of a perplexed and exasperated question. I will start with the latter which is rhetorical as the answer is blindingly obvious: Profit.
Why on earth is it that vast amounts of time and money are spent on researching and developing GM plants and nothing like the same amount of energy is put into more natural techniques? I know I bang on endlessly about biodynamics but I do so because I have seen that it really works.
The central principles of that discipline, namely, working towards building soil and plant health and a vibrant ecosystem where everything is flourishing in harmony, have been shown time and again to result in plants more disease resistant, soils which retain more moisture and – incredibly important for a population remorselessly sucking the life out of the planet – a cycle of life which does not degrade the environment.
In a completely insane world where food is trucked and shipped thousands of miles and there seem to be increasing numbers of people who are either eating themselves to the point of illness (whether by obesity or something caused by bad food), or, at the other extreme, literally starving to death, surely the principles of natural, local and sustainable should enjoy more credence? And if so, would not the principles of biodynamic farming fit right in?
Of course I see that over population is a desperate problem (and no, I don’t really understand why they are still refusing to put it on the agenda at Copenhagen
My most passionate objection though is this: Call me cynical, but there are those who stand to make fortunes from the GM food industry beyond anything to which insanely avaricious bankers might aspire. This is a world where those that have paid for all the research and development will own a patent on those seeds and the very fact of that ownership is, to my mind, beyond the worst dystopian nightmare I can think of.
Still, the fact that the future cannot possibly be merely a planet inhabited by insatiable consumers generating profit does not seem to trouble those investing in GM technology: they are too captivated by the power of holding the rights to food production.Holiday destinations, Ipods and handbags may come and go with fashion and the financial tide but the need to eat is forever.
I simply cannot be moved to believe that any of the people making these plans are doing so for any reason at all other than profit. And if the last year has shown us anything at all, surely it is the fact that when huge profits stand to be made, all other considerations including the inherent dangers involved go straight out of the boardroom window.
I don’t want the future of food and of wine to be in those hands. I also believe that nature has more answers and is more intricately and exquisitely designed than anything human beings can possibly conceive. Why are we not working to understand that better?
Last but not least, having tasted wines that even in the most dire circumstances are able to lift and soothe the spirit and remind one, in small sips, of how glorious it is to be alive, I can’t begin to contemplate a world where all we have left of that experience is the slightly dulling effect of the alcohol after all the vitality and the flavours and the magic have been bred right out of the wine.
Of course such a bland future may never transpire. But we can’t be sure about that yet and frankly, based on everything we do know, I am not hopeful. I am not hopeful that a future glass of genetically modified Sauvignon Blanc (and it will be something like Sauvignon Blanc – who is going to pay to develop special strains of Menu Pineau?) is going to be even slightly the same experience.
Still, the fact that the future cannot possibly be merely a planet inhabited by insatiable consumers generating profit does not seem to trouble those investing in GM technology: they are too captivated by the power of holding the rights to food production.
