Agriculture is a man-made activity that has for millennia changed
many forms of plants and animals to suit our needs. Today there is a
strong lobby calling for a return to organic agriculture. This
affluence-centered ideology can not effectively support the less
fortunate or future pressures of a growing human population. It was
the science and technology of the green revolution that helped feed
the population as it rose from 3 billion to 6 billion.
With great promise the international community began a multiyear
project designed to evaluate the role of agricultural science and
technology with the goal to help reduce hunger, malnutrition and
poverty. This International Assessment of Agricultural Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD) brought together people from many
different walks of life. The first meeting was held in 2004 with 185
different groups represented. They included 45 governments, 86
NGO/civil societies, 29 co-sponsoring agencies (World Bank, UNESCO,
UN-FAO, WHO etc) and representatives from international biotechnology
companies.
The mission statement of the IAASTD promised to evaluate the
relevance, quality and effectiveness of agricultural knowledge,
science and technology (AKST) in reducing hunger, improving
sustainability, improving nutrition, health and livelihood of the
world rural populations.
The interim report of their findings was recently published [1]. In
the four years since the inception of this project, the science of
agriculture seems to have taken a backseat to ideology.
The IAASTD claims the report on AKST is: "an evidence-based guide for
policy and decision-making." However the suggestions of `perceived
risks' and `potential harm' are in many of the paragraphs dealing
with biotechnology even though the evidence of risks and harm are
lacking.
The International Council for Science is likely the world's largest
collect of scientific opinion with most National Academies of Science
and over 150 scientific organizations. In 2003 the ICSU published a
very extensive review [2] of genetically modified (GM) crops and
food.
The ICSU review looked at the following pertinent questions:
Who needs GM Food?
Are GM Foods Safe to eat?
Will GMO's affect the Environment?
The opinion of this truly global scientific organization is very
clear when it states:
"... there is no evidence of any ill effects from the consumption of
foods containing genetically modified ingredients"
"There are also benefits [eg. vitamin content of rice] to human
health coming from GM foods"
"Pest tolerant crops can be grown with lower levels of chemical
pesticides, resulting in reduced chemical residues in food and less
exposure to pesticides."
And with respect to the environment the ICSU report states: "there
is no evidence of any deleterious environmental effects having
occurred from the trait/species combinations currently available."
Nevertheless the IAASTD report states: "As the general public has
become increasingly interested in the linkages between agricultural
production systems and human health, the list of food related health
concerns has continued to grow. It includes uncertainty with regard
to the effects of GMO's on human health."
In fact there is very little uncertainly. The science is very clear.
However, a massive international anti-GMO campaign by many NGO's has
planted the seeds of doubt in the public. There is no evidence to
support these `perceived risks' and therefore they have no place in
the "evidence-based" IAASTD report.
The IAASTD review also states: "Emerging evidence indicates that
organic farmers are able to sustain their livelihoods..." This may be
true in some places, but certainly not on a global scale with a world
population of over six billion. Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug
said it well when he said organic agriculture can only feed four
billion people and he does not see two billion volunteers [to starve
to death].
On average, organic agriculture produces only 70 percent of the yield
of conventional agriculture. If we were to increase organic
agriculture on a global scale as suggested in the IAASTD report we
would have to put the remaining wilderness under the plow just to
produce the same amount of food we do today. What would we do when
the population reaches 7-8 billion? Clearly such a massive increase
in organic agriculture at the expense of other forms of agricultural
production would severely threaten global biodiversity and have
profound negative impact on the environment world-wide.
Although North America has accepted GM crops and biotechnology the
same can not be said for Europe. However it is not a difference in
scientific opinion that blocks widespread adopt of biotechnology
crops in Europe. In 2001 the European Commission released a report
[3] on the safety of GM crops and food. Research over 15 years
involving 81 projects and over 400 scientists concluded: "GM plants...
have not shown any new risks to human health or the environment,
beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding.
Indeed, the use of more precise technology and greater regulatory
scrutiny probably make them safer than conventional plants and food."
There has been a misinformation campaign against genetically modified
crops and food by NGO's that spans the past 15 years. No amount of
positive research mattered to their campaigns. Statements made to
the British House of Lords by the head of a large international NGO
made it clear that this NGO's opposition to genetically modified
crops and food is permanent regardless of any future scientific
safety evaluations. This type of blind ideology does not fit
anywhere in a scientific assessment. However, this particular NGO is
very active in the IAASTD.
Every year millions of children suffer from vitamin A deficiency.
Lack of this key vitamin in the diet causes 500,000 cases of
blindness a year and up to 6000 deaths a day in the developing
world. Researchers created a type of genetically modified rice with
elevated levels of beta carotene (vitamin A precursor).
International attempts to freely distribute this rice to subsistence
farmers in the developing world have been blocked with overly
cautious regulations.
There is no doubt that some of the NGO participants of the IAASTD
have been very active in helping to create and implement regulatory
road blocks to the free distribution of Golden Rice which is in
direct conflict of one of the stated outcomes of increased nutrition
by the IAASTD.
The authors of the IAASTD report are absolutely correct when they
say: "choices we make at this junction in history will determine how
we protect our planet and secure our future."
Yet there is no mention of the UN-FAO statement: Biotechnology
would provide powerful tools for the sustainable development of
agriculture and food production [4].
"Success [including alleviating malnutrition, reducing hunger and
improving health] would require increased public investment in AKST,
the development of supporting policy regimes." This IAASTD statement
is completely opposed by the continued expansion of overly cautious,
onerous regulations.
One estimate has it costing 20 million dollars to gain commercial
certification of a single GM crop. This is far in excess of the
abilities of public-funded research. The end result of these costly
regulations is that biotechnology crops which would help the poor are
not developed. Drought tolerance, salt tolerance and insect
resistance are just three examples of genetically modified crops that
could help farmers in developing countries. But extremely high costs
of regulatory compliance keep these beneficial crops from being
developed by public-funded research.
There is public-funded research in agricultural biotechnology
programs in over 70 countries. This global research community was
very disappointed with the draft IAASTD report. After reading the
report the Public Research and Regulations Initiative stated: " We
believe that the chapter [biotechnology] is written from a
perspective that is so fundamentally different from what we believe
should have been the perspective of such an evaluation, that a
submission of comments on the many technical omissions and errors
would not be meaningful."[5]
The unbalanced nature of the IAASTD report becomes even clearer when
it states: "some long standing problems such as mycotoxins continue
to significantly add to the health burden, especially of infants".
It is very difficult to reconcile the statements of desire to improve
nutrition and health with the complete omission of any statements of
peer-reviewed data that consistently showed insect resistant GM maize
has much lower levels of mycotoxins than either conventional or
organic maize.
The IAASTD claims to want to reduce pesticide use but then refuses to
acknowledge the massive reductions in pesticide use afforded by
growing insect resistant GM crops. Interestingly, nowhere in the
report is there any mention of the widespread use of highly toxic
copper compounds in organic agriculture. It is very clear modern
synthetic fungicides are far less harmful to the environment than
these copper compounds which persist for decades.
Over 8 million farmers in the developing world now grow GM crops and
each years sees a 20 percent increase. This adoption rate indicates
there are real benefits of biotechnology crops for these farmers.
Scientific evidence shows substantial benefits of growing
biotechnology derived crops. Yet the IASSTD warns against increasing
education and training of farmers in the use of GM crops. It is hard
to understand this position in light of the overwhelming scientific
data in support of genetically engineered crops.
One of the most striking examples favouring organic agriculture in
the IAASTD report is the suggestion that organic certification is
threatened by pollen flow from GM crops. This is pure rhetoric
directly from the organic food industry. During a time of
unprecedented growth of both GM and organic agriculture there has not
been a single case of loss of certification of an organic farmer as a
result of pollen flow from neighbouring GM crops. In fact the
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements does not
advocate any testing for GM content.
The executive summary of the IAASTD report repeatedly advocates
increases in organic agriculture without similar endorsements for
biotechnology. This seems very strange as in the body of the report
it states an alternative pathway forward with less biotechnology
would mean "humanity would likely be more vulnerable to climate and
other shocks and to increased natural resource scarcity".
Most of the 6000 year history of agriculture is by definition
organic. This type of poor yield agriculture is exactly why we have
significant problems with hunger, malnutrition, soil degradation and
poverty in much of the developing world. To suggest organic
agriculture is the best way to improve this defies logic and
demonstrates how the reported "science-based" assessment of the
IAASTD has been completely over-ridden by ideological based green-
washing. It is very clear why those who work in the fields of
agriculture biotechnology are so disappointed by the non science-
based IASSTD report.
[1]http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=Plenary&ItemID=2713
[2] http://www.icsu.org/2_resourcecentre/INIT_GMOrep_1.php4
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/gmo/index.html
[4] http://www.fao.org/biotech/stat.asp
[5] http://www.pubresreg.org/
Robert Wager
Vancouver Island University
900 Fifth Street
Nanaimo BC
Canada
V9R 5S5
250 753 3245 ext.2324
wagerr@viu.ca <mailto:wagerr%40viu.ca>
http://web.viu.ca/wager
