Niall O'Shea, head of responsible investment, Royal London Asset Management
A statement from concerned scientists laments that Europe has all but shut to genetically modified crops, which they say can help solve many of our environmental and food problems.
Then your social media stream shows a story about a genetically modified (GM) seed company up to evil tricks, or about a group of rats that were fed GM food and got sick. You could be forgiven for thinking 'a pox on all your houses!'
As sustainable investors, we took a deeper look into issues underlying the endless debate. After a lot of reading, consulting experts and weighing up the arguments, we give you our distilled and unvarnished verdict.
The full research is here: "Who's afraid of GM food?". We've got no conflict of interest, no big shareholdings in Monsanto. Indeed, they won't find this document totally comfortable reading. And neither will the NGOs who campaign against them.
Is GM food safe to eat?
The biggie, so let's get it out of the way. Short answer is 'yes, as far as we know.' Despite plenty of attempts, no study linking eating GM food to health problems has ever been backed up by the peer-reviewed science process.
Some will cry "conspiracy!", but that just doesn't wash. There is nothing different in the way your body deals with GM food, but, like some other foods they can cause allergies. This is why they are heavily regulated and tested, before reaching our plate.
Can it destroy other species?
There is a theoretical risk that GM varieties might cause other useful wild or native non-GM ones to die out. GM is used extensively in the Americas and increasingly in Asia and there's no evidence this has happened.
That said, it's very important that 'biodiversity' in seeds is stewarded carefully in seed banks. GM crops cannot be planted thoughtlessly without understanding the local environment/conditions. If we're worried about species extinction, look to deforestation, over-fishing and general pollution as the main culprits.
Can it help produce more food for the nine billion people we expect by 2050?
Yes, it can make a contribution in some crops. So far, GM crops have been successful at delivering benefits to large farmers. New varieties are aimed at allowing crops to grow more usable biomass and be more efficient at photosynthesis.
However, it's best to assume the more dramatic increases in the medium-term will come from a range of reforms; modernising farming in some parts of the world and improving infrastructure and reducing food waste.
What else has GM done for me lately?
Organic is good because it doesn't use loads of pesticides and herbicides, correct? The same is true of GM, though that takes a bit of explaining. GM 'traits' that are growing in fields right now are cutting down on the number and volume of sprays being used.
They do this because they are designed to withstand just one herbicide that kills all other weeds or because they express a gene that repels insects. This is way more efficient and environmentally friendly than blanket-bombing crops with sprays.
It's not all GM roses, though. Like anything, where it has been used too much the bugs and weeds got clever and adapted.
I read GM can help with climate change - sounds far-fetched
GM crops usually don't need the soil to be tilled. This is good as it traps CO2. There are other innovations in the pipeline that are all about making plants better at getting nitrogen from the soil. This matters because making and applying fertilizers is greenhouse gas intensive. Other varieties being trialled by companies and universities aim to grow in regions that are water-scarce or suffer flooding.
Isn't all this run by corporations trying to control the food system?
We agree that too much intellectual property that has huge public interest value is locked up in private hands. However, it doesn't have to stay that way. Companies can be pressured into allowing poorer countries to use their intellectual property for free to create varieties that address local needs, not the corn farmers of the US.
Governments need to step in too, and provide the funding and governance to revive what was known as the first 'Green Revolution', when, through plant-breeding, public-funded science literally saved hundreds of millions from the threat of starvation.
If GM food is such a good thing, why is it promoted by such controversial companies?
We'll concede that this is exasperating. Suing farmers who save back seed doesn't make for good PR even if it is to protect all the money they poured into creating them. But it's the big farmers, not the small poor ones that seed companies seek to do business with. Although David and Goliath-style dramatisations of battles between small farmers and large corporations makes for interesting reading, the reality is a more boring than this.
Isn't GM playing God?
We can't answer the moral question for you except to say that, right or wrong, we've been doing just that for 10,000 years. There's not much genetically pure about the food we eat. Did you know that red grapefruit is red because, a long time ago, someone just irradiated the original seeds and hoped for the best? No one is calling for red grapefruit to be banned. The point is we need to be informed and consistent in how we treat risk and regulation.
In conclusion: back it or sack it?
Companies say that GM is fine because it's 'substantially equivalent'. The end product looks like a regular duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, ergo it's a duck. Critics say that we don't yet fully understand the way it's made and its effects.
We are not persuaded by the evidence for harm but with every innovation there are risks. All the pro-GM scientists we know agree it should be regulated; but not to death.
In a world distinctly short on options to combat environmental degradation while feeding more mouths, GM deserves a chance to show its full potential. GM is not ‘the answer'. It is just part of the answer.
For more information about our sustainable investing proposition, please contact Niall on 01625 605295 or email [email protected]
Important information - for professional investors and advisors only. Issued by Royal London Asset Management, December 2014. Information correct at that date unless otherwise stated.
Royal London Asset Management Limited provides investment management services, registered in England and Wales number 2244297; Royal London Unit Trust Managers Limited manages collective investment schemes, registered in England and Wales number 2372439. RLUM (CIS) Limited, registered in England and Wales number 2369965. All of these companies are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Royal London Pooled Pensions Company Limited provides pension services, authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, registered in Scotland number SC048729.
All of these companies are subsidiaries of The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited, registered in England and Wales number 99064. Registered Office: 55 Gracechurch Street, London, EC3V 0RL. The marketing brand also includes Royal London Asset Management Bond Funds Plc, an umbrella company with segregated liability between sub-funds, authorised and regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland, registered in Ireland number 364259. Registered office: 70 Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2, Ireland. Our reference: 990-PRO-12/2014-CH.
