The Risk of Technofixes

'They will increase our dependence on toxic chemicals and fossil fuels and pave the way for further corporate control of global food systems.'

Fifteen years ago, I stood on the banks of the Changuinola River in a Panama jungle and waved sadly to a neighbor coasting by in a dugout boat loaded with yuccas for his family. I was dejected because earlier that day two engineers had walked through my Peace Corps site with plans for a hydroelectric dam which would flood the river valley and rob thousands of Indigenous people of access to what was considered a sacred river. The dam was advertised as “clean technology” to bring “power to the people,” and came with promises of electricity, flush toilets, and construction jobs. But over time, it became clear that each engineered step created a new set of problems that either directly or indirectly, to the communities along the river and the environment.

When I visited my Peace Corps community again five years later, large swathes of jungle had been cleared for the dam and, as a result, there were swarms of homeless insects. To kill the insects, the engineers were spraying clouds of toxic pesticides, which was making people sick. Since many families had lost their land to the dam company, they could no longer farm. Unable to work and subsisting mostly on processed food brought in from outside, many of the villagers had become unhealthy and poor.

This was my first lesson in how so-called “technological progress” can actually deprive people of the very resources they need to thrive. It helped me understand that some technologies may cause irreparable harm and cut off our access to clean and healthy environments while delivering economic benefits to only a privileged few. And that is what led me, in a circuitous way, to the work I do today watchdogging the biotech industry and helping to ensure that all people have a say in how technologies are applied.

The same cautionary tales I learned from the Panama dam project are now playing out across our food system. A new generation of genetically engineered food products are entering the market. They promise to help “feed the world” and save the environment but will take us further away from the sustainable and just food systems we need in order to address systemic problems like climate change and food sovereignty. Instead, they will increase our dependence on toxic chemicals and fossil fuels and pave the way for further corporate control of global food systems.

Dana Perls, senior food and agriculture campaigner with Friends of the Earth.

As before, corporate promoters of this new generation of GMOs are weaving misleading narratives about the many benefits of these products with little acknowledgement of the risks they pose. Take, for instance, the Impossible Burger made with GM proteins and transgenic soy that’s supposed to help reduce meat consumption but is already helping perpetuate industrial-scale GM soy production. Or the fast-growing GM salmon that promises to provide affordable protein to consumers but could impact already threatened wild salmon populations should they escape from a fish-farming facility. And coming down the pipeline are a whole host of other GM animals being created to fit better into factory farm systems.

This new wave of genetic engineering can involve silencing, adding, or deleting genes. Regardless of the techniques used, initial studies are showing that they are causing surprise abnormalities in the cells of plants and animals and could have serious environmental and public health consequences. Not just that — often these technologies are being pursued for more nefarious aims, including for developing bioweapons.

For example, there are proposals to develop sterile female mosquitoes and rats using a gene editing technology called gene drive, which could eventually cause these animals to go extinct. While this idea is getting the most press for its potential to help eradicate diseases like malaria and Lyme, what is less well known is that the US military is among the top funders of research into this genetic extinction technology. Even scientists working on this technology are warning that it could cause unpredictable, permanent ecosystem devastation.

Biology is not a predictable engineering discipline, and new genetic engineering applications will likely only create more problems. Yet, despite this uncertainty, many of these products are entering the market and environment largely unassessed for risks.

When I think back to the Panama dam, the lives that were forever changed, and the precious natural resources forever lost, I am reminded again of why I do the work I do, and the urgent need to ensure that in this time of deregulation, we focus on truly sustainable agricultural solutions, and don’t allow applications of new technologies to push us further into a downward spiral of environmental, health, and social harms.