This entry was posted on Monday, April 21st, 2008 at 10:53am and is filed under Media and information, Agriculture, Farming. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
A front page article in The New York Times notes that the combination of food prices and grain shortages are causing some to rethink their opposition to crops improved through biotechnology, often known as “GMOs” or genetically modified organisms.
As a long-time supporter of these crops, I have to think “it’s about time.” But another part of me thinks it’s tragic that this reluctant acceptance stems from people literally starving and rioting in the streets because trade policies, politics and sometimes well-intentioned, but misinformed, consumers.
I’ve been engaged in the issue of biotech acceptance for nearly a decade. It’s apparent that when these crops (most commonly corn, soybeans, cotton and canola) were introduced in the early to mid-90s, industry was focused on sharing the benefits with their immediate customer, farmers. And U.S. farmers quickly embraced this new tool in what has been termed the most rapidly adopted technology in the history of agriculture. But what wasn’t readily apparent was that the ultimate customer was the consumer with the shopping cart. A host of groups saw this information gap as an opportunity to “educate consumers” and launched anti-GMO campaigns which successfully slowed these new crops’ adoption in some geographies (notably Europe).
The biotech opponents’ high-profile, often fear-inducing campaigns had the effect of slowing or stifling corporate and academic research in other crops such as wheat and rice, two of the most widely consumed grains on the planet, and which are today in short supply. Farmers choose to grow crops for which they are paid the best prices – just look at the demand for high-yielding corn varieties, and the soybeans with enhanced oil profiles that enables growers to earn a premium for their crops. Through biotechnology and advanced plant-breeding techniques, these crops have kept pace with changing market needs. But where are the innovations in rice and wheat?
Seed improvements that increase yields or “add value” such as more nutrition to rice, and improved milling qualities for wheat have sat on the shelf because “consumers don’t want them.” That philosophical mindset may have been acceptable to some in times of plenty, but can it be morally justified today? No, biotech crops aren’t the solution to the food crisis – it’s a very complex issue, that’s above my pay grade, as they say here in Washington.
But I do think it’s time to take a deep breath and acknowledge that the time to play politics with food is over. Biotech crops may not be a first choice for those with the luxury to eat local and buy organic, but they can be a useful tool to help produce more food so that others also have a choice.
If this sparks your interest to learn more about biotech crops, you may want to visit these Web sites: University of California Web site or the United Nations Food and Ag Organization.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:21pm
All very well said, Lisa! If the human population is going to grow by another 50% (all of whom will want to park on my street), we desperately need improvements in all the core food crops (and food animals, too). The good news is. . . .there’s good news! This month alone, Golden Rice trials got underway in the Philippines, and Uganda moved forward on a framework for biotech crops (the country’s researchers are already testing a virus-resistant banana). A survey found Indian consumers were receptive to biotech foods, and would in many cases choose them over comparable non-biotech products. Both companies and academic researchers are developing drought- and salt-resistant crops. Will all of this be enough to save the world? One can hope, although we have to acknowledge there are limits to the productivity of the earth. But biotech may be able to help us get the most out of the soil, water and sunlight that we have.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:47pm
Many recent studies are indicating that GM crops actually result in fewer yields and are less productive than conventional crops. That hardly seems to be the answer to a food shortage.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:36pm
Hi Jenny, could you share those reports? They sound contradictory to what I’ve seen by ISAAA (www.isaaa.org) and the UN FAO. I’m curious to see the context, thanks!
April 21st, 2008 at 3:55pm
It was in the Ethicurean digest. The original post is in the Indpendent. The research article is supposedly published in “Better Crops” Gordon, B., 2007. Manganese nutrition of glyphosate-resistant and conventionalsoybeans. Better Crops, Vol. 91, No. 4: 12-13
I cannot find the original research article online, but what I have been unable to unearth does lend creedence to a yield decline in Roundup Ready GMs. This is in part explained by the chemical action of the Roundup itself, which can alter the nutrient uptake ability of the plant, even if the plant is engineered to be resistant to the killing action.
The important thing to realize is that this is not an indictment of the GM process itself. It is a strong caution to the industry however, about evaluating the big picture, and total production when we use GM.
One other real phenomenon is the genetic progress made in breeding conventional varieties while the modified strain is being tested. In species where there is still much genetic progress to be made by traditional selection, the base yield may, in fact, increase more in the time lag than the modification causes in the original crop. That same modification, once proven, could theoretically be made in the later generation genetic stock to bump the yield further.
I have seen much very convincing research on modifications such as salt tolerance and nitrogen utilization that show yield increases and/or fertilizer need decreases compared to conventional varieties.
Neither sweeping generalization that “GMOs will cause the end of the world” nor “GMOs will solve all our problems” are accurate. Genetic modification is a useful technology, but must be evaluated thoroughly and honestly and used wisely in the larger context.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:29pm
Ah, Geoffrey Lean and The Independent. Sigh. Based on past dealings with Mr. Lean, he is pretty straightforward in his opposition to plant biotech. But of course, it isn’t his job to be a cheerleader. Nor mine — I just want to get us beyond a “he said/she said” and “either or” type of discussion on this technology. No, it’s not perfect. Nor is it a panacea to a food shortage –and I don’t know anyone who makes those claims. But it is a technology that exists today that can make a difference.
Increased yields are just ONE benefit for SOME crops. Today’s GM crops are basically developed to fight bugs and weeds, the bane of farmers, and a drag on crop yields.
As Sara notes in her post, research is underway to address issues of salt tolerance and better nitrogen utilization. And drought tolerance improvement has already been realized in corn. These changes will likley allow future farmers to grow crops on marginal land, or to better adapt crops to the changing climate.
I appreciate Sara’s thoughtful comments — she’s a scientist, and I’m not. I would encourage anyone who wants to wade into this issue and make their own decision, to visit http://www.isaaa.org/kc/default.asp (paste this link into your browser) to learn more about the work that’s being done around the world to help farmers, particularly those in developing countries, have access to modern tools of agriculture.