When “Do-Good” Companies Do Bad

Of the many items that can often be found on the “socially responsible company” checklist, avoiding genetically modified foods is a popular one. It’s not entirely clear how a product that enables larger crop yield (feeds more poor people) using less land (more open space, forests, etc.), less fertilizer (clean runoff), and less pesticide (friendly to the environment) became an environmental villain, but no doubt a scary sounding, complex process helped this result along. Oh, and it was being embraced by corporations, so evil forces must be at work.

In Saturday’s New York Times, however, John Tierney writes of Stewart Brand‘s embrace of genetic engineering. Brand makes a wonderful point when he states:

One area of biotech with huge promise and some drawbacks is genetic engineering, so far violently rejected by the environmental movement. That rejection is, I think, a mistake. Why was water fluoridization rejected by the political right and “frankenfood” by the political left? The answer, I suspect, is that fluoridization came from government and genetically modified (GM) crops from corporations. If the origins had been reversed—as they could have been—the positions would be reversed, too.

Ignore the origin and look at the technology on its own terms. (This will be easier with the emergence of “open source” genetic engineering, which could work around restrictive corporate patents.) What is its net effect on the environment? GM crops are more efficient, giving higher yield on less land with less use of pesticides and herbicides. That’s why the Amish, the most technology-suspicious group in America (and the best farmers), have enthusiastically adopted GM crops.

He goes on to say that most of the scary stories about “frankenfoods” are urban legends and notes “how robust wild ecologies are in defending against new genes.” He also makes an excellent point when he says that “the best way for doubters to control a questionable new technology is to embrace it.” The funny thing is that we’ve been genetically engineering plants (and animals) for centuries, we just call it breeding.

This whole debate (although opponents rarely enter into scientific debate on the issue) is reminiscent of the nuclear power debate some years ago. Environmentalists, who sowed visions of power plants disintegrating nearby communities in accidental nuclear blasts, won that battle, much to the country’s detriment today. Nuclear power plants are no longer built and we’re more dependent than ever on fossil fuels.

As environmentalists wonder if newly Green companies have truly changed or are just marketing, the same question must be asked of those companies that avoid genetically modified foods (while hoping for the opposite answer).  Perhaps a Peace Corps volunteer working with the poor in Africa could ask the CEO of Whole Foods if they really believe GM foods are bad, or is it just a marketing ploy.