Commentary | The Rights of Plants in a Hungry World

In a report that is already creating much discussion and mockery in the blogosphere, the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology argues that plants have “inherent worth” and thus must have moral protection. But while the report, entitled the “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants” is causing guffaws on the web, it might be a more serious issue than it at first appears (although not in the way the authors intended). By arguing that “there is nothing to contradict the idea of dignity of living beings in the genetic modification of plants, as long as their independence, i.e. reproductive ability and adaptive ability are ensured,” the committee has drawn a vague conclusion that, if taken seriously, may impose serious limits on the development and use of biotechnology in agriculture. This report comes out at an especially inopportune time, as high food prices and food riots rock many communities around the world. Regardless of the committee’s intentions, weaving a moral code around plants which will necessitate moral calculations before deciding what to do with a bush or tree would extract a serious opportunity cost in time – time that is not available for millions who are worrying about their next meal. We need to focus on producing more food faster, not the “independence” of corn stalks and orange trees.

In my view, genetically modified food (GM) is an essential tool for increasing world food production. Happily there is some positive news on this front. This report from the World Politics Review highlights recent Chilean advancements in genetically modified rice. The modified rice only needs a fourth of the water used to make normal rice. This innovation certainly will not solve the global food crisis on its own, but it is a positive sign for the future. If developed countries are going to continue diverting crops to biofuel production (which judging from this year’s farm bill seems to be the case), then genetically modified food may be essential to pick up the slack. But in light of the Swiss report, one wonders whether Westerners, especially Europeans, will tolerate the increasing presence of genetically modified food.

While Americans are split on the issue of genetically modified food (GM), it has not become a major political issue. It is telling of American ambivalence that despite the fact that “over two-thirds of food in the US market contains some amount of a genetically engineered crop,” the issue still has little political salience (ScienceDaily). In Europe it is a different story. Europeans have resisted GM for decades, despite the increasing scientific consensus that it is not only safe but has numerous potential benefits, from larger crop yields to decreased need for pesticides. It seems that some environmental groups want to have everything at once - natural, unmodified food, enough food for the world’s growing population, and a protected environment. The Swiss report is a perfect example - the idea that humans can go out of their way to think of the well-being of individual plants while at the same time tackling a growing food crisis is at best impractical, and at worst impossible.

For years many scientists have been highlighting the positives of GM and stressing the need for tough choices. In this recent article from the UK’s Guardian, crop expert Chris Pollack of the University of Wales says:

To stop widespread starvation, we will either have to plough up the planet's last wild places to grow more food or improve crop yields. GM technology allows farmers to do the latter - without digging up rainforests. It is therefore perverse to rule out that technology for no good reason.

Professor Pollack argues that the widespread use of GM would actually help the environment, as higher food yields would necessitate less cultivated land. This is the kind of trade-off that will be necessary. As Pollack makes clear, there is no way around the fundamental fact of a growing population and rising demand for food. As demand rises, unless the food supply rises along with it we will see a dramatic increase in world hunger. According to the UN State of Food Insecurity 2006 there are 854 million undernourished people worldwide. Reducing this number will require the use of all the tools available – including genetically modified food.

In a world where resources, time, and money are limited, we must choose how best to allocate our sympathy, attention, and efforts towards various problems. Perhaps one day we will live in world of plenty, and then it will be entirely appropriate to ponder whether plants have rights, and what protection should be afforded them. But we are not there yet, and until all of humanity has a sustainable and dependable way to feed itself, our priority must be above all humane – and this means that feeding those 854 million must be accomplished before we begin pondering the rights of plants. The further development of GM technology may allow us to alleviate some of this hunger. Perhaps even more importantly it may help those at risk set up sustainable, productive farming and trading practices that are environmentally responsible. Putting GM technology to responsible use in service of this long-term goal is therefore a moral necessity.

William Gingher has been an intern at the CSIS Global Strategy Institute since January 2008. He plans to attend Georgetown Law in the fall.