To the Editor:

In the Commentary 'Greener revolutions for all'1, Flavell introduces quite a few radical suggestions that supposedly will contribute to more sustainable agricultural production and alleviation of hunger “for all.” Beyond supporting the often-heard call for more use of GMOs to increase food production, Flavell also believes that the current debate concerning GMOs is skewed and suggests, “Food should be judged by the products themselves, not how they were made.” He ends with a dire warning to those who continue to oppose or delay such development.

First, much literature has already demonstrated that the (inevitable) use of GMOs now and in the near future could stand to adopt some temperance in admitting the importance of sociotechnical-planning advances as a part of feeding a growing world population. More concretely, it has been estimated that more than enough food to feed all people is already being produced2 but that approximately one-third of all food produced globally is wasted3. Solutions to this enormous food-waste problem, and also to hunger and undernourishment in general, therefore do not necessarily focus on to the production of more food but instead focus on improved distribution, storage, preparation and consumption of food already available, while also addressing the currently uneven global food distribution. Omitting consideration of such important factors is, of course, the right of the author, but in doing so, the importance of GMOs in the present fight against hunger can seem exaggerated, although the technology certainly seems to hold much wonderful promise.

Second, it is surprising to see, on the one hand, Flavell's eagerness in trying to present all the data supporting further development and implementation of GMOs and, on the other hand, his reservations toward consumers' ability to make informed choices regarding these issues. This contrast is not just hypocritical, it is most probably also self-defeating, in that it risks increasing the perception of GMOs as a 'Trojan horse' in the food system, thus risking creating even more resistance. Much of the recent relative success of organically produced food could arguably be attributed to the transparency offered by organic farmers and associated producers.

Citizens and consumers who call for a more transparent food system with full disclosure about the processes from farm to fork, or who have reservations about new technologies, are never on the wrong side of history; however, scientists with authoritarian inclinations might well be, regardless of their good intentions. Science is not democratic, but it does not need to be exclusionary either. Ultimately, “the future shape and purpose of the countryside is society's choice,” as stated in a Commentary on agricultural production4.

Proponents of GMOs who want to further their case (beyond the field) should be calling for more consumer transparency, not less: are they proud to be modified, or not?

Finally, it is important to note that the debate over GMO versus conventional versus organic during the past three decades, despite its sometimes futile nature, has at least provided a tentative scientific base from which to explore and debate the promises as well as the shortcomings of different approaches to agricultural production. For some, it has also instilled the recognition that to have a more fruitful discussion on sustainable food production, alleviation of hunger and natural services in general, future research will benefit from a wider outlook than crop-yield comparisons5, and scientists should strive to “see their subject in a broad social context,” as stated in a Correspondence regarding the social position of science6.

In future sustainable food systems (in plural) that are equipped to both quell hunger and deliver a growing bounty globally, solutions will need to come from scientists from many different disciplines, as well as producers, distributors, legislators and also consumers.

There is resilience and health in diversity, not secrecy.