MOLLY HURLEY-DEPRET
Communications Officer
Green Biotechnology Europe, EuropaBio
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
THE CASE FOR GMOs: The global trade in agricultural commodities: GM
crops are here to stay
In the spring of 2011, newspapers reported that animal feed imports
to the European Union (EU) would soon be allowed to contain trace
amounts (0.1%) of genetically modified (GM) material not yet approved in
the EU. There were conditions, of course: the GM material must be
approved in the exporting country and be under review by the European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The legislation that provided this
'technical solution' to GM low-level presence was the result
of efforts to avoid trade disruptions due to the EU's 'zero
tolerance' policy, such as the 2009 disruption of soy exports from
the United States when trace amounts of two unapproved GM maize
varieties were discovered. This new 0.1% tolerance level, which still
technically maintains the zero tolerance policy, is most likely only a
stop-gap solution and a workable tolerance level will be necessary. The
legislation does not cover food imports, despite their unrealistic
separation from feed. Food companies are rightly concerned that they
will have shipments turned away from European ports and have made their
concerns clear to EU politicians.
The story of the EU and imports is incomplete without considering
why a real tolerance level is necessary in the first place. One crucial
factor is the overwhelming global popularity of GM crops. 15.4 million
farmers around the globe currently grow GM crops such as maize, soy,
oilseed and cotton, an increase of 10% since 2009. (1) Each year since
GM crops were introduced, plantings have risen. These farmers, 90% of
whom are smallholders, cultivate 148 million hectares of GM crops,
roughly the size of the territory of France, Germany and Spain combined.
In August, the most recent statistics from Brazil (2) revealed that in
2011-12, 82.7% of Brazilian soybeans will be GM, an annual expansion of
13%--four times the amount predicted. With the momentum for new GM
approvals in North and South America, Asia, and increasingly in Africa,
regions that are slower to approve GM crops or imported products are
falling behind. The odds are simply higher that trace amounts of GM
products that are not yet approved in the EU could be in shipments.
Exporting countries are taking the segregation of GM and non-GM
material seriously, particularly since it has profound effects along the
value chain: farmers, processing facilities, shipping companies and
their customers are all affected if segregation is not handled properly
at each stage. On a recent visit to Canada, I examined the segregation
process and learned firsthand why a workable tolerance level for
unapproved GM material is essential. Jim and Judy Gowland, farmers near
Toronto, grow non-GM soy, primarily for export to Japan, a non-GM soy
niche market. They also grow GM maize. In order for their soybean
harvest to be accepted for processing, they have to ensure that any GM
material from maize harvesting is not mixed with the soybeans. However,
they, and others, pointed out that no method of segregation is perfect;
some level of tolerance for as yet unapproved GM material is needed to
avoid trade disruptions.
Interestingly, the Gowlands did not approach GM or non-GM crops
ideologically; rather, they plant the crops that ensure their
farms' viability and profitability. They supply the markets that
they find attractive--after all, farming is a business. Speaking with
Dale Mountjoy, another farmer near Toronto, I learned that his GM maize
yields much more than conventional maize, earning up to 86 [euro] more
per acre. The crop requires less tillage, fertilizer, pesticides and
herbicides. It saves him time and money, and he uses less fuel, helping
reduce carbon emissions.
Though some may still question the benefits of GM crops, many see
clear benefits for farmer income, efficiency and the environment. One
thing is clear: GM crops are here to stay.
(1) James, C (2010), Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/ GM
Crops. 2010, ISAAA-brief 42.
www.misaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/42/default.asp
(2) Celeres (2011), Biotechnology Report. www.comunique.se
com.br/deliverer_homolog/arq/cli/arq_1198_76582.pdf
URS NIGGLI
Director-General
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
THE CASE AGAINST GMOs: Innovative agri-ecological solutions--how
organic farming shows the way
The challenge of achieving food security is not so much a matter of
producing more food but rather of improving access to what is already
being produced and incorporating modern technologies into
agri-ecological farming systems to improve livelihoods in rural
areas--in a sustainable way. Organic farming, mistakenly believed by
some policymakers and scientists as lacking innovativeness, offers many
advantages. Progress in biological-molecular, nanotech, information,
robot, GPS and sensor sciences must also be taken into account.
In feeding more people it is vital to dramatically reduce the
degradation and irretrievable loss of ecosystem services and to respond
to the imminent scarcity of energy and non-renewable raw materials like
phosphorous. The goal is best pursued through high nature value (HNV)
agriculture. HNV recognizes that certain types of farming--typically
low-intensity, low-input farming systems, often with high structural
diversity--are extremely valuable for biodiversity. Organic farming has
been the best example of such a concept and has been proven manageable
by 1.8 million farmers on all continents. (1)
The 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report also advances
agri-ecology as a solution for food insecurity and not technologies like
genetic engineering. (2) Additionally, a multi-disciplinary group of
leading scientists warned in 2009 that modern agriculture and the load
it places on the environment might threaten the very stability of the
planet. (3)
People should not be going hungry anywhere in the world as
sufficient amounts of food are already being produced. There are
political, economic and social obstacles in the way of enabling
satisfactory access to this food. The solutions lie with political and
economic leaders and organizations. There is also a responsibility at
the people's level with farming systems marshalling natural, human
and social capital in rural communities that are more powerful than
expensive technologies for increasing yields. The 2008 study by the
United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development in Africa gathered data from 1.9 million farmers
on 2 million hectares of land documenting how effective organic and near
organic farming is for improving livelihoods and access to food. (4)
Genetic engineering is meant to be a powerful tool for plant
breeding. Doubts have been raised about the extent of yield increases
achieved by the use of genetically modified plants. Traditional breeding
methods have been equally successful in addressing complex goals, such
as how to best cope with environmental change and water, phosphorous and
nitrogen scarcity. Whether the genetic modification of plants is really
a macro-economically efficient solution, and whether or not it creates
unintended externalities for the environment, social coherence and human
health, are still controversial, even in the scientific community.
At the moment, no-till cropping systems with GMO crops are promoted
to be the most advanced solution to reduce soil erosion and mitigate
climate change. Crops like canola, soybean, cotton, corn or sugar beet
are genetically modified to prevent harm by total herbicides so that no
soil tillage is needed. This technique is recommended by many Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), EU and national government policy
papers. However, this practice excludes many agri-ecological techniques
such as more diverse crop sequences, the integration of nitrogen-fixing
legumes, the recycling of organic matter and nutrients from livestock
systems, and the use of urban compost. These techniques are recommended
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007
agricultural report for mitigating climate change. (5)
Rather than simple technology fixes, innovative agri-ecological
solutions focussing on resilient farms are more promising in addressing
the future challenges of securing food production. I am convinced that
modern and further developed organic farming systems will offer powerful
solutions for farmers and will become a high priority on the agenda of
national and international agricultural policy.
Urs Niggli is also Honorary Professor for Research Management in
International Agriculture at Kassel University Germany.
(1) Willer H. and Kilcher, L. (Eds.) (2011), The World of Organic
Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2011, IFOAM. Bonn, and FiBL,
Frick
(2) Reports from the International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (2008),
www.agassessment.org
(3) Rockstrom et al., (2009), 'A safe operating space for
humanity', Nature 461. 472-475 (24 September 2009) |
doi:10.1038/461472a: published online 23 September 2009
(4) UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity building Task Force on Trade, Environment
and Development (2008). Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa
www.unctad.org/en/ducs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
(5) Smith, P., D Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B.
McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O'Mara, C Rice, B. Scholes. O. Sirotenko
(2007), Agriculture', in Climate Change (2007): Mitigation.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz. B., Davidson, OR.,
Bosch, P.R., Dave, R, Meyer, L.A. (eds)], Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at www.
ipcc-wg3.de/publications/assessment-reports/ar4/files-ar4/
Chapter08.pdf/view