Like many, I baulk at the idea of genetically modified food. I tend toward heritage seeds and good soil, and get irrationally - or perhaps very rationally - angry at Big Agriculture and their use of poisons, monocrops and pesticides to increase yields, in the process destroying the land beyond repair, clearing forests and creating monopolies on seed and fertilisers. It seems to me that genetically modified seeds are more of the same, and Big Ag will use the excuse that with increasing population and the effects of climate change such as drought necessitates the use of genetically modified foods.

Some of the arguments for GM do seem to make sense. For example, using CRISPR to create crops that can resist temperature extremes. It is little wonder Kenya reversed a ten year ban on it to address a looming food crisis - GM crops are presented as an anathema to insect infestation, disease and poor crops due to water shortages. It's not the only country looking to this as a solution either. My concern is who is controlling the data that says these crops are the answer. Whoever controls the technology has a great deal of power in this situation in the same way as Monsanto has previously. If GM companies have control of the production of crops, it'll affect the livelihoods of the armers who rely on it. Food crops have the danger of becoming intellectual property. Furthermore, though companies have touted GM foods as being pesticide resistant, this hasn't always been true - and selling pesticides or herbicides along with seeds is a known strategy for these companies to profit.

We may need technology that can help address food shortages brought about by climate change, but I'm not convinced this is it, nor am I convinced that what the people who own the technology are telling us is the whole story.

One of the arguments for GM foods is that it can make food taste better. To me this carries the risk of sweetening foods so that they sell better, and ignoring the fact that we need a taste for some bitter foods as they contain nutrients that are equally good for us. The idea of multinationals deciding on what tastes are appropriate for our palate is just insane. It also seems to ignore the known argument that if you enrich the soil with organic matter, bacteria and good fungi, you're going to get better tasting food. There's also a whole heap of nutritional content in food that we don't even know about - I've heard it described as nutritional dark matter - and I don't believe this is the realm of experience, expertise or concern of big companies developing a sweet corn to force on our palate.

It does appear that some GM crops might be valuable if it has as one of it's goals tackling climate change by capturing carbon and storing it in their roots. I can't deny that we might need to really look toward GM to adapt to a changing climate. And if more food can be grown on less land to support animal and human feed, then perhaps more land is then saved for forests.

It seems to me that it's not the only answer though - there seems to be so many that would also be beneficial. I wish governments would mandate or campaign the reduction in meat eating, for example, which we all know is bad for the environment. I'm not advocating we give up meat altogether, but we eat far too much of it in the west with little regard for the environmental impact. Another argument is that we actually do have enough food for everyone, but not everyone can afford it. It's not always an environmental issue, but a social hierarchy one.

The bottom line is that I don't trust multinational companies to get it right, as I don't believe their motives are to save the world, but to profit, and that's a dangerous game. What we do need is better agriculture systems that are also ecological systems, and these systems must have biodiversity, healthy soils, the right plants for the right environment, and so on. There are other answers to GM.

Meanwhile, I keep adapting my own gardening methods and plants to suit the environmental challenges that I'm working with. Most home gardeners are finding solutions in their own backyards - soil health, wicking beds, swales, biodiversity, microclimates, and so on. It's an ongoing challenge.

I don't pretend I have all the answers, and certainly I'm not self sufficient enough in my food production to have food sovereignity from the agricultural powerhouses that supply our food. I do know that we have to be educated and conscious about where our food comes from and how it's grown, and aim toward at least a little independence. That's going to vary according to where you live, your economic status and access to growing spaces. But I tend toward the small movements that are aiming for change - community gardening including education and shared growing spaces, farmers brave enough to go pesticide free if not organic and pesticide free, eating seasonally and what is available, changing our diets to include foraged food when available, and so on.

Anyway, that's enough from me. I have some brassicas to plant.