Sociology. Anthony Giddens
Figure 5.4 Proportion of municipal waste going to landfill, by European economic area country, 2001 and 2010
Source: European Environment Agency (2013: 21).
The international trade in waste led to the export of plastic waste to China for recycling, where waste was often sorted by hand in poorly regulated working environments that produced environmental degradation. However, in 2018 China banned the import of plastics and other solid wastes for recycling, forcing national governments to look for alternative ways of dealing with their material waste. India and Malaysia followed, banning the importation of solid plastic waste in 2019, and Thailand announced a similar ban from 2021 (Lee 2019).
UK government statistics show that recycling rates increased from 40.4 per cent in 2010 to 45.7 per cent by 2017. Over the same period, the proportion of biodegradable waste going to landfill also fell, from 36 to 21 per cent (Defra 2019b). So, although the amount of household waste has been increasing, more of this is recycled year on year (Defra 2016). Although the amount of household waste recycled may still seem low in comparison with the overall amount produced, a large proportion of what is thrown away cannot be easily reprocessed or reused. Many plastics employed in food packaging simply become unusable waste and have to be buried in refuse tips, where they may remain for centuries. Recycling is becoming a huge industry around the world, but there is still a long way to go to transform the world’s ‘throw-away societies’.
Recycling of household waste has increased as it has become built into the routines of everyday life.
In the developing world, the biggest problem with domestic waste is the lack of refuse collection services. It has been estimated that 20 to 50 per cent of domestic waste in the developing world goes uncollected. Poorly managed waste systems mean that refuse piles up in the streets, contributing to the spread of disease. Over time it is very likely that the developing world will have to deal with problems of waste disposal that are even more acute than those in industrialized countries. This is because, as societies become richer, there is a gradual shift from organic waste, such as food remains, to plastic and synthetic materials, such as packaging, which take much longer to decompose.
Food shortages and biotechnology
In some of the world’s most densely populated areas, people are highly dependent on staple food crops – such as rice – stocks of which are dwindling. Global warming may increase desertification and lead to poor harvests, which has resulted in fears that food shortages may become more widespread. As a result, many worry that present farming techniques will not be able to produce rice yields sufficient to support the growing population. As with many environmental challenges, the threat of famine is not evenly distributed. The industrialized countries have extensive surpluses of grain, but, in the poorer countries, shortfalls are likely to become a chronic problem.
One UK report, based on two years of research into the future of food supplies and farming, argued that the present global food system is not sustainable and cannot end the problem of hunger (Foresight 2011). As the global population grows, from 7 billion to over 8 billion by 2030 and 9 billion by 2050, competition for water, land and energy will intensify and global warming will increase the pressure on food production systems. The combination of these factors constitutes a major threat which demands urgent action. Piecemeal changes will not solve the problem, nor will attempts to achieve national food self-sufficiency. The report argues for a coordinated policy approach and action on four fronts: more food needs to be produced sustainably, demand for resource-intensive foods must be contained, waste in all areas of the food system should be minimized, and political and economic governance of the food system needs to be improved (ibid.: 12–13).
The Foresight report also argues that no policy options or technologies should be closed off in the quest for a sustainable food system, and some scientists and politicians see one key to averting a future food crisis may be advances in biotechnology. By manipulating the genetic composition of basic crops, it is possible to boost a plant’s rate of photosynthesis to produce bigger yields. This process is known as genetic modification, and plants produced this way are called genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Scientists have produced GMOs with higher than normal vitamin content, for example, while other genetically modified crops are resistant to commonly used agricultural herbicides that can be used to kill the weeds around them, as well as insects and fungal and viral pests. Food products that are made from, or contain traces of, GMOs are known as GM foods, and GM crops are sometimes called ‘transgenic’ crops.
GM crops are different from anything that has existed before, because they involve transplanting genes between different species. This is a much more radical intervention than older methods of cross-breeding. GMOs are produced by techniques of gene splicing that can be used to transplant genes between animals as well as plants. For instance, in some experiments, human genes have been introduced into farm animals, such as pigs, with a view eventually to providing replacement parts for human transplants. Human genes have even been spliced into plants, although the GM crops that have been marketed so far do not involve this kind of radical bioengineering.
Scientists claim that a GM strain of ‘superrice’ could boost rice yields by as much as 35 per cent. Another strain, called ‘golden rice’ – which contains added amounts of vitamin A – could reduce vitamin A deficiency in more than 120 million children worldwide. You might think that such advances in biotechnology would be welcomed enthusiastically, but, in fact, genetic modification has become one of the most controversial issues of our age. For many people, it highlights the fine line that exists between the benefits of technology and the risks of environmental damage.
The GM food controversy
The intense debate on GM foods began in the mid-1990s, when the first shipment of GM soya beans from the USA arrived in Europe before EU labelling rules had been put in place (Horlick-Jones et al. 2009: 4). Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth campaigned against GM, and pressure built on supermarkets in Europe not to stock GM foods. Concern was especially widespread in Europe (Toke 2004).
The American company Monsanto was the leader in developing GM technology. Monsanto bought seed companies, sold off its chemical division and devoted much of its energy to bringing the new crops to market. Its chief executive launched a huge advertising campaign in America promoting the benefits of GM crops to farmers and consumers. Monsanto’s campaign claimed that GM crops could help feed the world’s poor and reduce the use of chemical pollutants, especially the chemicals used in pesticides and herbicides. It is claimed that biotechnology will allow farmers to grow better-quality crops with higher yields, while at the same time sustaining and protecting the environment. However, since GM crops are essentially novel, no one can be certain about what their effects will be once they are introduced into the environment, and many consumer groups became concerned about the potential risks involved.
Many members of the British public registered their opposition to GM crops. A typical 2003 survey showed that 59 per cent of the UK population strongly agreed that genetically modified foods should be banned (ONS 2005). Campaigners engaged in ‘direct actions’, pulling GM crops out of the ground at official trial sites across the country. Similar responses occurred in a range of other European countries. In the UK, seven out of the eight major supermarket chains changed their policy on GM foods. Five imposed a complete ban on GM ingredients in their own-brand products, which is still in place, and all of them insisted on better labelling. Two large companies, Unilever and Nestlé, announced they would withdraw their acceptance of genetically modified foodstuffs. Some farmers in the USA who had been engaged in the large-scale cultivation of GM crops changed back to conventional crop production.