Open Pollination and Genetically Modified Crops

Considering that I wrote favorably recently about open pollination, it may come as a surprise to some that I really have no problem with hybrid varieties, moderate use of pesticides and herbicides and even genetically modified food.

What open pollination varieties have in their favor is that they are time-tested and reliable. You can save seeds from one harvest and plant them again next year and expect the same type of plant to grow again, unless there was some cross-pollination. With hybrid crops you may have an abundant harvest, but seed saved into the next year will not produce crops with the same traits. For those who can afford them, hybrids make sense because they tend to me more drought and disease resistant, and generally produce more.

The use of herbicides and pesticides is much-maligned in many circles. Growing up I remember my Dad expressing his frustration at commercials that run frequently in the spring for for these products in the Midwest. He said it gave people who didn't know any better the impression that all farmers did was spray chemicals around. The fact is that these products are not cheap, and farmers typically only use them because they need them. Organic farming is popular among urbanites, but in practical reality it would be incredibly difficult for most farmers -- especially those in the Third World -- to sustain their operations with organically-grown crops. The yield from crops grown in this manner is consistently lower than those benefiting from pesticides and herbicides.

Given that the cumulative impact of moderate use of chemicals can be quite negative for parts of the environment, that chemicals are pricey for lower income farmers and that organic farms generally yield less than their traditional counterparts, genetically modified food makes a lot of sense.

For example, through genetic engineering a variety of corn can be produced that can not only repel insects and tolerate drought and poor soil, it could thrive. There are dangers, of course, but I would say the risks are mostly not due to consumption of the end-product. Actually, one would imagine that food produced through limited or no contact with pesticides could only be better. (For fun, check out this clip from a recent Simpsons episode.)

The trouble may be more with the question of who controls the seeds. With open pollination varieties, no one owns claim to them. Hybrid varieties typically revert back to their source stock, so seed producers don' t have to feel too concerned about people saving seed. Genetically modified varieties, however, are hard-wired to be what they are. In many cases those who have raised them have been obligated via contracts to promise not to save and reuse seed. This is truly complicated.

Essentially, I see this along lines similar to the the open-source vs. proprietary software debate. Which is better? Is proprietary software worth the expense? Taking it back to crops, would it be possible to see open-source genetic engineering come into being? That might not be as far-fetched as you think, but that's a subject for another day.