How Much Do We Actually Need GMOs in World Agriculture?
Comments on a Meeting of
the Association of Formulation Chemists, Orlando, September 2000
(the address of this page is: www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/do-we-need-gmos.htm )
Below are extracts of an interesting paper on agricultural-biotechnology presented earlier this week to a meeting of the Association of Formulation Chemists in Orlando (basically a gathering of people who design chemicals - http://www.afc-us.org/).
Given the nature of the audience and the pedigree of the author (former Director of the Agriculture Division of the US Academy of Sciences and now a private consultant on integrated pest management) the delivery of this paper is of some considerable significance.
Our view of this paper is that whilst it does not rule out a role for GMOs in world agriculture it questions the ability of industry and farmers to deploy the technology appropriately and responsibly. The paper further highlights more appropriate alternative strategies to farm management which do not rely on the use of transgenics, including a possible non-GM role for biotechnology in the development of organic agriculture.
The full paper can be downloaded at http://www.biotech-info.net/lukewarm.pdf . We have provided extracts of some of the more interesting aspects of the paper below.
The paper follows a report earlier this year from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation which reveals that GMOs are not needed to feed the world's growing population (see: www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/faoreport.htm ). Meanwhile here is a quote from the Chief Executive of Monsanto also highlighting the issue of whether it is possible to deploy GMO technology responsibly:
"Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, human breeding and so on. But this is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for ten thousand years....
So the question which people have, I believe, not only a right but a duty to ask, is how wisely will we use these unprecedented new powers? What are the risks associated with doing something this new and this profound at the very wellsprings of life? How are they going to be managed? How will we have credible oversight? How will we have credible and effective monitoring of the introduction of this technology? Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging....
We have not yet identified, yet alone cloned, the gene for wisdom, and some skepticism about our ability to manage powerful new technologies is appropriate.... "
Robert Shapiro,Chief Executive of Monsanto - speech on genetic engineering presented at State of the World Forum, Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, CA , October 27, 1998
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
===========================================================================
http://www.biotech-info.net/lukewarm.pdf
WHY MANY FARMERS AND CONSUMERS ARE LUKEWARM ABOUT GMOs AND WHAT MIGHT CHANGE THEIR MINDS
By: Dr. Charles Benbrook
Presented at the Formulations
Forum 2000 September 6, 2000 Orlando, FL, USA
Symposium Sponsored by The Association of Formulation Chemists
[Extracts Only Below - Selected by NLPWessex]
"One of agricultural biotechnology's problems from the beginning has been the propensity of advocates to oversell the technology. Scientists have been among the guilty. They have allowed their sincere excitement over discovery and technological progress to gloss over the need for deep thinking on the many factors that determine farm profits and food security among the poor.
Companies have also contributed, sometimes shamelessly, to the notion that biotechnology will solve all agriculture's problems. Most should know better. But the desire to drive up or sustain stock prices can understandably cloud people's thinking....
Those who ask or expect too much of any genetic, chemical or biological technology set the stage for problems. Biotechnology does not change this age-old reality...
...excessive reliance on Roundup is leading to shifts in weed communities and the emergence of Roundup resistance weed phenotypes across the Cornbelt. [For information on the emergence of weeds resistant to Roundup, see http://www.biotech-info.net/herbicide-tolerance.html#soy.].....
Bt corn and cotton were approved and planted widely before scientists understood the genetics of resistance or how best to manage resistance, or even whether it could be managed. Each year the EPA has had to revisit and modify the resistance management plans required....My sense is that resistance to Bt-crops is probably manageable but regrettably, we may not learn how to do it, or find ways to convince farmers to adhere strictly to science-based resistance management plans, until it is too late....
Genetic improvement, whether through classical breeding or biotechnology is no substitute for good judgement in the design of farming systems. Skill and attentiveness in the day-to-day management of farming enterprises is equally important.
Ideally, breeders should focus predominantly on overcoming genetic limits to higher yields, rather than problems that can be readily solved through proper crop rotation, tillage and fertility management. Plus, many management-based solutions are self-financing. The cost of management system changes is made up for by reductions in the purchase of off farm inputs....
Pest-management related traits have come to dominant seed industry priorities to a degree few people realize. In crop year 2000, just under one-half the Pioneer corn hybrids offered Illinois farmers were genetically modified. Two-thirds of the hybrids offered for the first time in 2000 were GMOs....
One might infer from Pioneer's recent breeding priorities that Lepidopteran insect pest management in corn and soybean weed management were the two areas most seriously undermining farm profitability. Not true. Most farmers live with the episodic damage of the European corn borer and indeed in 5 to 7 years out of 10, Bt-corn does not pay for farmers (Hyde, et al., 1999). A marketing opportunity to exploit intellectual property pushed these technologies to the front of the cue, not need nor benefits to farmers.....
Companies jumped on the chance to move Bt genes into corn, cotton and potatoes because it was technically feasible and because these were large acreage crops. Few experts could argue with a straight face though that developing these Bt varieties was the highest and best use of biotechnology to advance insect pest management. Indeed, developing these Bt-transgenic crops was probably not even the best way to exploit Bt endotoxins.
Bt-transgenic crops are fundamentally incompatible with biointensive Integrated Pest Management systems, or BioIPM for short. This is because the Bt-endotoxin is expressed on all acres planted regardless of need and imposes heavy selection pressure on insects throughout the season, including many weeks when the pests are below threshold levels and pose little or no threat to yields.....
To advance BioIPM, different goals must drive the technology development process. The best solutions are prevention-based and target narrow, specific changes in the interactions between the crop, its environment and pests. The most elegant solutions marginally strengthen the plant's natural defense mechanisms or somehow weaken a pest so it cannot compete as well for space, nutrients, or food sources. Such solutions are minimally disruptive to other organisms or ecological interactions, many of which play a role in managing other pests.
Fortunately, the pesticide industry is bringing to market new generations of biopesticides. These new tools are giving farmers valuable new capacity - and confidence -- to move along the continuum toward increasingly "soft" BioIPM systems.....
Perhaps some of you in this room will help make it possible to bring the new generation of biopesticides to the organic farmer. This breakthrough will require considerable innovation in formulation technology, since the list of organically approved inert ingredients is limited. But with the acres under organic systems growing over 20 percent per year, more and more companies will choose to make the needed investments in order to gain a foothold in the fastest growing niche market in world agriculture.....
In the future the tool kit and strategies of the pest manager will diversify. There will be an expanded array of products, with a heavier emphasis on prevention. Some new products will work in a completely different way than any on the market today.....
For example, a leading IPM crop-consulting firm in this state is working with an Idaho-based company to formulate sprayable, freeze-dried beneficial insect diets to use in BioIPM systems. One strategy under investigation is the use of sprayable diets to tide over populations of beneficial insects when an unavoidable insecticide application causes the food-base for generalist predators to temporarily crash. Another is to use the diets to support a rapid increase in populations right before the expected period of heaviest pressure from a given insect. Many other novel ideas are forming, all of which will challenge formulation chemists to come up with ways to preserve and release biological materials in the field....
The only way to earn public confidence is through independent research and thoughtful, thorough and transparent assessment of the benefits, costs and risks posed by emerging biotechnologies....
Companies need to stop marketing GMO varieties as stand-alone solutions to complex problems with roots in farming system design and management......
Assurances of safety based on an absence of documented human health problems are not going to convince that many people. The general public understands how hard it is for medical epidemiologists to trace the causes of ill health. They know the causes of some of our major diseases are still not known with any certainty and most are convinced that diet affects health in extraordinarily complex ways.
The industry and government are going to have to invest in some careful, detailed safety and nutritional testing in laboratory animals and humans. If a series of "worst case" scenario studies conducted by respected, independent scientists consistently back up "substantial equivalence" findings, food safety controversies will subside, if no newproblems emerge. If new research does point to unforeseen problems, the biotech industry will be in for a rough ride.....
Ways must be found to overcome the adverse impacts of patents and intellectual property policies on the conduct of science and the exchange, use, and improvement of germplasm. North-South fairness issues also must be dealt with and are extremely complex and deep-seated.....
The biotech industry seems to think a hard sell and "attack the critics" strategy is needed to counteract Greenpeace and other activist groups. They obviously view the threat as serious and have pledged $50 million annually to finance a broad-based PR campaign.
I think the return on this
investment will be disappointing because the effort glosses over
the real problems driving public concern. The agricultural
biotech industry may succeed in planting doubts about the motives
and tactics of Greenpeace, but in the interim they will make
little progress dealing with the real problems and uncertainties
that worry people, many scientists, and a growing number of
farmers. Only time will tell."
=================================================================================
'Dismantling
the myth of genetics as the principal constraint on responsible
global agricultural production'
More
web links on 'feeding the world'
Return to NLP
Wessex GM page
Will GM crops deliver benefits to
farmers? - some realities behind biotechnology myths
GM crops a threat to future viability of
farming in Hampshire
Dorset farmers react in support of NLP GM
warnings
Dorset Farmers advised to avoid GM
Oilseed Rape
Natural Law Party campaign to ban genetically modified foods in Wessex