Genetic Maize

The idea that GMOs are causing people to commit suicide is very compelling. But is it true?

A study released by IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) in October says there is no connection between Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India. IFPRI “seeks sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty”, so it makes sense for them to investigate any possible links between Bt and farmer suicides. Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence examines every aspect of the problem, concluding that farmers in India do have very real issues pressing upon them, but Bt is not to blame for their choice to commit suicide.

The report is through, but written in language that lay people can easily follow. I encourage you to read it for yourself. To me, the most interesting part was titled “The Bt Cotton Controversy: The Institutional Context”. This section listed the actual causes of farmer distress, and once we identify the real problems, we can start talking about real solutions. The biggest problem seems to be education. Farmers have access to new technology but little if any information on how to use it to maximize benefit. (more…)

Robert Reich, Prof of Public Policy at UC Berkley, gave a realistic view of fuel and food today on NPR’s Marketplace.

The cost of food and fuel are soaring, not just in the U.S. but all over the globe. The world’s poor are suffering the most — culminating in riots and starvation — but price hikes are eroding living standards in advanced nations as well.

Everyone, it seems, is looking for scapegoats — international conspiracies, speculators, hoarders. But the main reason food and fuel prices are skyrocketing is demand for both is rapidly exceeding supply.

You see, hundreds of millions of people in China and India and the former Soviet republics are ascending into the middle class at a rate never before seen in history. And the two items this huge, rapidly-growing middle class want most are cars and meat.

That’s the problem. Cars use enormous amounts of fuel. And meat uses up enormous amounts of agricultural land, because animals that provide it require lots of feed grains. And supplies of both are limited.

This means global prices for fuel and food will continue to increase in the foreseeable future. And these increases are likely to generate the biggest threats to global peace.

Political pressures will mount on governments to protect their own nation’s sources of energy and food for their own citizens. Conflict will intensify over whether land should be used for biofuels or food production. Farm subsidies in advanced nations will come under increasing attack from developing nations.

Meanwhile, superpowers China, Europe, and America will compete ever more intensely for access to global supplies. And as more cars are used and more forests are cleared for agriculture, greenhouse gases will further shrink arable land.

The answer to all this lies mainly in increasing the supply of food and fuels. And both will depend on two kinds of green research — into more productive and sustainable agriculture, and into more efficient and sustainable fuels.

in other words, we’re in a race between a new generation of biotechnology and non-carbon-based energy technology, on the one hand, and rising political and economic conflict on the other. And the global clock is ticking ominously fast.

So what do we do? Barring something terrible, the population size isn’t going to decrease anytime soon. We need to seriously increase production and decrease per capita demand – which means lifestyle change. One answer is simple – shift farmland from producing animal food to producing people food and carbon neutral (preferably carbon negative) fuel and materials. These are the easiest changes, as renovating suburbia and American car-culture by changing home type/location and shifting to public transportation are bit more difficult. Similar ideas apply to all countries, because unfortunately we were the model that started global aspirations to materialistic wastefulness. I just hope we can be the model again. You can read more of Robert’s no-nonsense views on public policy at his blog and listen to his commentary at NPR.

“Man owes a great debt to the scientists on this list; all of them died or were injured in their pursuit of knowledge. The advances they have all made to science are extraordinary and many of them paved the way for some of man’s greatest discoveries and inventions.” says Jamie Frater, author of The List Universe in Top 10 Scientists Killed or Injured by Their Experiments. There aren’t any plant breeders or geneticists are on the list, so I think I’m safe.
via Science Careers

Rachel Carson was undoubtedly a force for good in the 1960s. She singlehandedly started the environmental movement by calling attention to the dangers of unregulated pesticide use. As a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park, I especially appreciate Carson’s work in the Chesapeake Bay.
Kate Neville, in The Science Creative Quarterly, calls for scientists today to do as Rachel Carson did. She enthusiastically concludes:

We should take from Rachel Carson the hope that her actions conveyed: that great change can come through research, that people do want to know more, and that narrative can bridge the gap. We need not all take on a public role to engage in this process: Carson’s influence came from her ability to synthesize work across many fields, which relied on the willingness of many researchers to take the time and effort to share their findings with her, and explain the significance and the debates. We must support our public intellectuals – question their conclusions, but champion their causes; critique their claims, but provide them with alternative information. We need to communicate our research more clearly, participate in dialogue and explanation, and engage with the issues of our time in collaborative, constructive, critical, and public ways. We have the potential to effect great change, even in the most improbable of cases, and even on the most intractable of problems.

I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I’m blogging, after all. I share Kate’s optimism, believing that the best way to make our world better is through new collaborations and communication that defies traditional boundaries.
Unfortunately, it seems that the movement started by Rachel Carson has forgotten the science their mentor championed and succumbed to pessimism. A few weeks ago, I flipped through Courage for the Earth: Writers, Scientists, and Activists Celebrate the Life and Writing of Rachel Carson. Many of the essays are appropriate, but some go too far, essentially saying that we should stop many types of research in medicine and agriculture.
Rachel Carson, herself a scientist, conducted a a cost-benefit analysis. She saw that the costs of pesticide overuse and industrial pollution outweighed the benefits, and acted accordingly. I don’t think we can predict what she would think about therapeutic cloning, genetic engineering, or many other technologies that have been developed since she passed. I do think she would have considered carefully, educating herself on the ramifications each would have on ourselves and our natural world.

I jut watched Lord of War with my husband. Yes, I rarely see movies in a timely manner – that’s what I get for being involved in probably too many things. Anyway, I don’t know much of anything about the arms trade besides that it exists and that I don’t like it. The movie itself was rather horrible – as in well done, but not on subject matter I really wanted to see. The important part was right at the end, a little jolt to reality: The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are also the world’s largest exporters of weapons: US, Russia, China, England, and France.
The governments of the US, Russia, China, and even England I expected to be involved in the weapons trade. France, well, I always assumed that France was a bunch of hippies. I know that’s stereotypical of me, but we can’t all be perfect. The reason why France’s dealings with arms bothers me is that I’ve never heard of a French protest at a tank factory. I’ve never heard of French citizens setting fire to missiles or having a sit in where workers are assembling war planes. Yet, in actions called activism by some and terrorism by others, protests against GMOs abound.
Side note: if you want to read some amusing government doublespeak, check out the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs describing their arms exportation policies: “the export of war materials is prohibited except as authorized”.
Today, someone twittered “in the mecca of big city liberalism i feel quite inadequate. to fix this i am going to hug the homeless, ride a bike and protest gmo foods”. Ignoring the implied contradiction between liberalism and the planned activities – I am struck by the idea that protesting GM foods is somehow equal to hugging the homeless, and that protesting will bring adequacy to this person’s life.
There are so many things in the world that are wrong. I understand that a lot of these problems seem hopeless, and that most people don’t have the ability or resources to solve them. So, is it possible that people are directing their frustration towards something that they can control (the food they buy)?
Choosing to protest GMOs has succeeded in ensuring that the only GM crops on the market are those produced by big ag, because small companies and public researchers can’t afford to cut through the red tape. In other words, it’s done nothing, since the core values of the anti genetic engineering movement are anti globalization and anti commercialization.
If I had to name one thing that people can change in their daily lives that would have the biggest positive impact on the world, it would be to stop eating animals raised in CAFOs. I won’t go into all of the reasons why CAFOs are a problem here. For a frightening case study see Rolling Stone’s Boss Hog and see Livestock’s Long Shadow for a broader picture.
Note: I’m not saying that there aren’t legitimate problems with GMOs that need to be dealt with and maybe even protested (especially patent law and unethical business practices), just that there might be some other issues that deserve a lot more attention.