Two weeks ago, we had encouraging news about world hunger. The number of chronically undernourished people in the world fell by 100 million from the year before, due mostly to increases in grain production. However, we cannot celebrate, as much work remains to end the scourge of hunger that still leaves close to one billion people going to bed every night without enough to eat and one child dying from malnutrition every six seconds.
Increased effort will be required for years to come to provide an adequate and consistent food supply to rising populations worldwide. Increased production on existing land is the key component of this strategy.
Half a century ago, revolutionary advances in grain breeding tripled production in developing countries and played a major role in saving the lives of an estimated one billion people in Mexico, India, Pakistan and the Philippines. This came to be known as the Green Revolution. It was made possible by genetic advances achieved through slow and laborious cross-breeding research by Dr. Norman Borlaug, a native of Iowa.
After receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his work, Dr. Borlaug created the World Food Prize to honor leaders in the continuing battle against hunger. He believed that it would require a constant effort with all of the tools available to our best minds. As I look forward to the ceremony honoring this year's recipients of the World Food Prize in Des Moines on Oct. 13-14, I am reminded of the enormous potential that agriculture presents.
New agricultural technologies are an integral part of U.S. trade. Now more than ever, the United States supplies the 95 percent of the world's consumers who live outside our borders. Agricultural products are a critical component of this trade, contributing nearly $100 billion dollars to exports this year.
Ensuring that our trading partners do not erect barriers to innovation is an economic priority for the United States. Roadblocks and opaque regulations not only have a negative impact on U.S. producers, they also limit access to more affordable food supplies for people in those markets.
The volume of biotechnology crops -- particularly corn, soybeans, and cotton -- has grown rapidly each year and now is an important component of our exports. As the world's largest producer of improved food and animal feed products, the United States is a powerhouse to feed the world.
One of the ways we can improve exports and expand the benefits of biotechnology is to encourage countries to develop regulatory systems based on science, not politics. Unjustified and impractical legal obstacles are stopping genetically-enhanced crops from saving millions from starvation and malnutrition.
Through the National Export Initiative, the Obama administration is focused on trade advocacy, export promotion and removing barriers to the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad. We are pursuing these goals by enforcing trade regulations and creating policies for growth so that there will be a strong worldwide market for our goods and services. In the area of agriculture, we can produce a win-win solution for U.S. businesses and overseas economic development through technological innovation.
Investment in agriculture produces positive returns -- $1.43 for every dollar invested in research. Some countries have expressed concerns, while others have embraced the technology and have benefited from its use. Biotechnology can help developing countries to reduce crop losses due to insects and disease and increase the nutritional content of crops. It saves on costly collateral inputs that the farmer must make, and it increases yields, thereby raising small farm incomes. There are other benefits as well, such as increased soil carbon sequestration through no-till techniques, and crops like Bt cotton that dramatically lower pesticide use. Clearly many farmers around the world want what this technology has to offer.
The question is not what the technology can provide, but how to break down the barriers that block its implementation.
Unfortunately, some are exploiting fears and creating problems for the wider acceptance of agricultural biotechnology. These distractions keep us from looking at the science and the potential of the technology to address the doubling of production that will be needed during the next four decades. These crops can save millions from starvation and malnutrition. The technology is here, the science is available, if only it can be freed to reach its potential in many developing countries
This administration is actively working with countries to improve their regulatory capacity to scientifically assess the health and environmental impact of biotechnology. The United States will continue to expand its technical assistance and training programs for developing countries and transitioning economies to put in place regulatory systems that facilitate the utilization of biotechnology to expand trade and optimize food resources.
Science-based regulations will enable these countries to protect the public and the environment, as they enable farmers to meet growing food demands.
I would suspect many on Huffpost are on board with climate change which suggests the severe weather events which is partly a culprit for the higher prices, along with population and income growth in developing markets, will only exacerbate this trend going forward. Good times to be a farmer I guess (or hope!), not so good to be poor person though.
I sold some wheat at a high price this last August directly due the drought in Russia. Climatologists think the Russian drought is directly related to climate change. Here is my cynical take on this: I make more money because of climate change. Since humans are too clueless to understand science, I might as well make extra cash off this ignorance. ;-/ My land prices keep going up to. There has been no real estate crash in farmland. There is a reason for that. Bring on more climate change! (as I smile with sarcasm)
The world is full of ag science deniers on the left and climate change deniers on the right. They pretty much sound alike these days.
You want to combat hunger with GM? Give the seeds away and let them replant. If they don't want them, give them regular seeds (Any of those left?). Monsanto can afford it don't ya think?
We need to clear our extra land from corn to grow hemp for fuel anyway. A crop they do not hold the patent on, with 7 times the cellulose fuel capacity of corn.
"$1.43 for every dollar invested in research" Is this through the private sector (not allowing re-planting) or public university research number?
I think we have already tried the, "People are starving to death, let's go profit off them! Call the IMF and Monsanto!" route.
Can you tell me why the IMF bans subsidies for agriculture as a precursor to loans? Even though we subsidize by about 3 Billion a year to our famers? (I am not exactly sure that number is correct, but it is a lot :-)
I am of the belief that we should either give the technology away, or give it away at actual cost. Then those societies would boom as well, even more than us. (Which is good for us)
Feeding the world should not have strings attached.
I could be barking up the wrong tree here, are you with me?
Again..this is nonGM corn I am talking about. nonGM.
Farmers have bought seeds from seed corn salesman for 80 years or so this way. So now buying GM corn doesn't change this process one bit, it's just more expensive. (but Soybeans are different....that explanation is for another day.)
But I do know the difference between conventionally bred hybrid seed (What actually created the "Agricultural Revolution") and modifying the genetic structure by adding genes to create a pesticides.
Standard hybrid seed produces from 150-300 bushels an acre, so I don't understand why you would get 50? When you replant hybrid, don't farmers choose the best of the corn and use those as seed for the next year? They used to have guys that came around and did the sorting for the farmers.
I have nothing against hybrid foods, I do it myself with vegetables, it is the GMO that I believe we need to be more careful of. We should test it longer, and stay far away from creating a situation in which one disease can kill the worlds supply of corn because of a lack of genetic diversity. This happened to potatoes in Ireland, and starved hundreds of thousands in one season.
That is the first time I have ever heard the term "Anti-Science" and "Lefty" used in the same sentence. LOL
And whether or not you'd be a laughing stock for planting non GM seed depends on where the neighborhood is, your market, fuel costs and the amount of debt load you carry :-)
One size doesn't fit all in farming. That's why some farmers are more successful than others.
Fact is many small family farms are doing very well economically by abandoning the monoculture paradigm and using open pollinated, non GM corn & soybeans.
It's cheaper to run the cultivator once or twice than to carry a debt load. The corn yield per acre is lower ( but is the same as in the 1990's) but then so are the costs.
Farms that don't use GM or Round Up Ready seed maintain soil health and fertility. Not to mention seed can be saved over and planted again - the bane of the seed salesman and the hope for the 3rd world.
The public has become very wary of GMO's. Most people aren't real keen on being part of a large and ongoing uncontrolled science experiment.
The GM seeds are being developed to make profit, not combat hunger - that hunger thing is just a sales pitch.
And yes that is what corporations do, I know - just hate when lipstick is put on that pig.
From wiki - "Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for poor smallholder farmers, Monsanto Company, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999.[2] Late in 2006, it acquired Delta and Pine Land company."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
The way Monsanto controls the seeds is to get farmers to sign contracts preventing the replanting of seeds. Remember the Monsanto lawsuits where the GM seeds were replanted?
His job is not to feed the world, his job is to help the megacorps.
"As the world's largest producer of improved food and animal feed products, the United States is a powerhouse to feed the world."
It sounds like a set-up for catastrophe to me if one country/economy is feeding the majority of the rest of the world. The trend should be reversed to where as many nations as possible are able to independently feed their own people. Only a great number of independent local systems produce a robust world food supply.
Also, you can hold off on your holier-than-thou citations of how US GM crops feed millions until the patent-owning companies wave any and all up-charges for their patents and make it possible for farmers everywhere to use those products without restrictions just like natural seeds, including harvesting seeds for the following year. Otherwise, your system only breeds more dependence.
The first economic analysis of growing genetically modified crops on a wide scale has found that the biggest winners were the farmers who decided not to grow them.
The study, which looked at maize yields in the corn belt of the United States, found that farmers who continued to grow conventional crops actually earned more money over a 14-year period than those who cultivated GM varieties.
Did you actually read the article? It's about nonGM corn nearby to GM Bt corn getting the benefit having less borer infestation due to the nearby GM crops.
The neighbor farm with GM pays more than the nonGM guy. It's about cash flow, not against GM crops.
"William Hutchinson of the University of Minnesota, the study's lead author, said an analysis showed that the European corn borer moth has declined in the fields neighbouring those of GM crops by between 28 and 73 per cent, depending on the initial level of infection. The scientists were able to make these estimates because of good records of pest populations going back 45 years."
You nonfarmers are hilarious. Time and time again I just copy what you think is an argument against GM but it turns out the opposite. Thanks for the article by the way. Very interesting.
Pest damage to my field crops is the least of my concerns.
I grow an extremely rare type of OP corn (Early Butler) for seed stock and know of only 3 or 4 seed vaults in the WORLD that have that variety stored.
I'm concerned about permanent genetic contamination and damage from neighboring GM corn.
If my seed stock is contaminated by my neighbor via the GM pollen carried upon the wind, the Early Butler variety of corn may become as extinct as the Brontosaurus.
I cannot save the seed because it will not come true to type and I will be in possession of an illegal plant/copyright violation through no fault of my own. The bottom line is 110 years of Pennsylvania agricultural history will be destroyed.
I hardly care about "cash flow".
When talking about GMO's contaminating other life organisms there aren't too many second chances.
oh wait..I'll bet you watched Food Inc didn't you? i am so in awe of people who watch a 1.5 hour film and become ag experts. ;-/
What I see is a global food supply and production ability that is being further and further removed from the hands of local people to the great risk and detriment to them. There is a study that look at the commodity price bubble of 2008 when wheat, rice, copper, etc, etc exploded in price. This price explosion was not due to huge increases in demand or a commensurate decrease in supply - this bubble was facilitated by speculative MONEY looking for a place to land and make a quick profit. That speculative commodities bubble cost an estimated 2,000,000 lives! 2 million people who were already on the edge and when the price of grains doubled they could longer afford to feed themselves or their children. THGE GLOABL FOOOD SUPPLY IS THE GREATEST CHALLENGE WE FACE OVER THE COMING 10-20 YEARS AND IT UNDER HUGE THREAT IN ALMOST COUNTLESS WAYS. This is not a challenge necessarily of ability but of will and philosophy.
This is a public record not a theory-
ohn and Paul Mayfield, who farm in Arkansas, came to Reesman with a case
unlike any he had ever seen. The brothers are being sued by Monsanto, the
multinational corporation that's a pioneer of genetic engineering.
Five years ago, the brothers bought their first crop of the company's
genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans. When they did that, they
entered into a whole new set of rules for growing crops, rules that
eventually landed them in a lawsuit.
The case will be the first of its kind to go to court if there's no
settlement by the scheduled trial date in May. Monsanto has filed a number
of suits, but most farmers settle out of court rather than submit to a
costly legal battle.
Genetically engineered crops are a
revolution in terms of money and power. Companies that create and sell the
crops also patent them, giving them massive control over the plants and
every generation of offspring from those plants.
Monsanto can legally patent crops like Roundup Ready soybeans because the
plants are basically creations of the company -- there is no way they could
possibly exist naturally. They contain genes from bacteria or other
organisms spliced together in laboratories
rules of use. For example, they are not allowed to save any of the seed
from their crop to plant the next season. Saving seed is a common practice
used for thousands of years, but Monsanto forbids it, requiring farmers to
buy new seed from the company every year.
The case started about two years ago, when a stranger knocked on the
Mayfields' door. "This detective came in, sat down in the living room and
said 'You've been accused of bagging, cleaning and selling seed,' " Paul
Mayfield recalled. But Mayfield said the detective wouldn't identify the accuser. He only said
it came from an anonymous tip.
Monsanto has a toll-free line set up to accept calls from people who
suspect farmers of violating the company's rules. The company runs ads in
magazines and on the radio encouraging people to turn in those they suspect
of breaking a Monsanto contract. When the company gets a tip, it sends
detectives out to investigate. The detectives search farmers' fields and go
through documents to find out how much seed farmers bought and how much
grain they've sold, tying to ferret out those who save it.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KfvYjZ5fyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi1FTCzDSck
http://rajpatel.org/
Here is some information not supplied to you by the corporations that are ruining our quality of existence...
Tibet Goes Organic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rz481L5yPI
Suggested reading for you, sir:
"Uncompromising Truth for a Compromised World"