The donation

Monsanto’s May 13 Press Release Monsanto Company Donates Conventional Corn and Vegetable Seeds to Haitian Farmers to Help Address Food Security Needs is a good place to start to find out exactly what was donated and how it got there. Importantly, the donation was approved and by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry was involved in selecting seeds that would be “appropriate for the growing conditions and farming practices in Haiti.” The exact way the seeds are being distributed ensures long term benefits from this one time donation:

The initial seed shipment will be distributed to Haitian farmers by the WINNER project, a five-year program to increase farmer productivity funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). WINNER will provide the in-country expertise, technical services and other inputs, such as fertilizer, needed by farmers to manage the crops.

“Our goal is to reach 10,000 farmers this growing season with these seeds,” said Jean Robert Estime, the director of the WINNER project. “The vegetables and grain these seeds will produce will help feed and provide economic opportunities for farmers, their families and the broader community. Agriculture is key to the long-term recovery.”

The seeds are being provided free of charge by Monsanto. The WINNER project will distribute the seeds through farmer association stores to be sold at a significantly reduced price. The farmer stores will use the revenue to reinvest in other inputs to support farmers in the future. The farmer associations alone will receive revenue from the sales.

I can’t think of a better way for this donation to be distributed. There are a lot of problems with the way international food and agriculture aid have been handled in the past, but the situation certainly seems to be improving as private and public donors as well as governments see the need for education and infrastructure, not handouts.

Food aid is the worst. It’s good enough in the very short term, but as soon as the food is consumed, there is no lasting benefit. Donations of seed are better, but again, once they are used there is no lasting benefit. Seed donations in combination with development of infrastructure that farmers need to distribute their products and to obtain inputs are much better, and I’d argue that such infrastructure development in combination with extension is the best possible way to help farmers, particularly when local people are involved in the process – which is exactly the case here. Ideally, part of the process would be to develop local seed production, but the information available on WINNER doesn’t say if that is included or not. The Earth Institute at Columbia University is also involved in improving agriculture in Haiti.

You may have noticed a distinct lack of terms like biotech, genetically modified, GMO, Roundup Ready, or Bt in the press release. Haiti has no system in place for regulation of biotechnology, according to FAO’s Biotechnology Country Profile for Haiti. Haiti is “party of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol” which, as I understand it, requires member countries to develop precautionary-principle based rules to protect biosafety if they want to even have biotech seeds cross their boundaries. In short, the regulatory framework needed to grow biotech crops in Haiti does not exist. Without that framework, they can’t accept biotech seed as a donation, and as far as I know, Monsanto did not even consider donating GMO seed to Haiti.

The hyperbole

It seems that the details in the press release and the lack of biotech regulation in Haiti was missed by many in the days following the news. Some examples are Timi Gerson’s appropriately civil Five Questions Monsanto Needs to Answer about its Seed Donation to Haiti at Civil Eats and  Jean-Yves Urfie’s  not so civil (and completely fabricated) A New Earthquake Hits Haiti: Monsanto’s deadly gift of 475 tons of genetically-modified seeds to Haitian farmers. These two articles seem to be the source of many of the erroneous posts and Tweets. Some of Timi’s questions are answered in the press release itself while some require a little background in crop science. Her questions are well thought out, if not well researched, so I think they are a good place to start, even though I’m obviously not the intended answerer. I don’t think Jean-Yves’s article is even worth addressing, it’s so completely made up – but I thought it should be included here since it has been cited in so many other blog posts and articles.

Five questions

1. What do Haitians think? Do Haitian farmers actually want these seeds?

Members of the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture and Haitians in the WINNER project were involved in approving the donation and making it happen, so that’s at least some Haitians who want the seeds. As for the farmers, they have the choice to buy the seed or to not in the stores run by farmer associations listed in the press release. No one is forcing them to take, buy, or grow the seeds. Even if individual farmers don’t want the seed, is that a good reason to prevent every farmer from having the seed? Is it fair to keep farmers from having a choice because organizations outside Haiti like the Organic Consumers Association (based in the US) don’t want them to? Anything other than letting the farmers for themselves choose is tantamount to paternalism.

2. Will Haitian farmers be able to save the seed?

Yes. Haiti doesn’t have any laws in place to protect plant intellectual property such as Plant Variety Protection (at least according to Haiti’s Biotechnology Country Profile), so even if Monsanto wanted to prevent the farmers from planting the seed from this year’s harvest, there would be no legal basis for the contract. On Beyond the Rows, Monsanto employees have clearly stated that these seeds can be replanted without any intellectually property interference. There will be no Haitian Percy Schmeiser, even if the seeds are brought into local breeding programs.

Some of the seeds are hybrid. Hybrid seed can be replanted, but many farmers choose to purchase hybrid seed each year due to the superior qualities that hybrids can have. (more on this in a minute)

3. Will Haitian farmers be able to use existing farming methods?

Per the press release: the seeds were selected by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, to be “appropriate for the growing conditions and farming practices in Haiti.” To me, the big question is: how are Haitian farmers currently farming?  Are they using de facto organic (put the seeds in the ground and hope)? Certified organic? Sustainable agriculture ? Conventional agriculture?

There’s not much info out there on the web to answer the question, but Manuel Rivas (Monsanto’s Regulatory Affairs Lead in the Andean Region, Central America & Caribbean) has shared some pertinent info on one of the Beyond the Rows posts:

…the corn hybrids sent to Haiti have been tested in the region with no fertilizer use and the yield obtained with them has been higher than the average yield Haitian farmers currently obtain using their open pollinated varieties.

…although farmers there have very limited resources in general, the use of fertilizers and pesticides is quite normal among them. Many times Hatian farmers don’t have the resources to purchase those inputs, but they know how to use them and they do use them whenever they have access to them.

The assumption that almost everyone has when they see the state of poverty in Haiti is that agriculture in the country is in the pre-historic ages. However, keep in mind that Haiti has a long tradition in agriculture since colonial times and not so long ago (in the 70’s) the country was an important exporter of sugar, coffee, tobacco, and mangoes, just like other countries in the Caribbean. The use of agricultural inputs in those crops and in rice (the most important local crop) has been very common with most of them coming across the border from the Dominican Republic. Political problems in the last 25 years or so have practically destroyed the country’s agriculture sector and made the country dependent on foreign aid; but the farmers are still there trying to survive and willing to make their land productive again.

What’s exciting about this seed donation, in combination with the WIN

NER program, is that there is potential for a lasting improvement of farmer’s ability to purchase inputs if they wish to, along with the in-country expertise to help them choose the best farming methods for their situation. While the WINNER program won’t last forever, five years is a long time to get a strong, sustainable system started.

4. Will Monsanto donate GMO seeds to Haiti?

No, for the aforementioned reasons.

5. Will indigenous seeds be “contaminated” by Monsanto’s seeds?

Yes and no. Gene flow is simple and complex at the same time. For the most part, pollen stays near the source, but in a country as small as Haiti (10,714 mi²), wind and pollinators could conceivably carry pollen all over the country. If farmers who choose to plant traditional varieties, they will be able to maintain those varieties. Some percentage of the seed that they harvest at the end of this growing season will be a hybrid between the traditional variety and the new seed, depending on how close they are physically to a farmer who planted the new seed. Conversely, the farmer who planted the new seed will have a certain percentage of his harvest “contaminated” with the traditional variety. They can keep their two varieties separate (for the most part) generation after generation by keeping seeds from plants that are similar to the variety they want and avoiding keeping seeds from plants that look different. Importing heirloom or open-pollinated seeds would “contaminate” the local varieties as much as the seeds from Monsanto. For more details on gene flow, check out Those naughty plants!

There are actually potential benefits of crossing the donated seeds with the local varieties (remember, there are no intellectual property restrictions with this donation). After an initial cross, a farmer could simply select the plants that do best in his or her microclimate. They would be gaining alleles for disease resistance, high yield, and other traits, while maintaining local alleles that make the plants uniquely suited for their location. Done right, this could result in high yielding locally adapted varieties.

What are hybrids, anyway?

A hybrid is simply a cross between two different plant varieties. The two varieties can be inbred lines or populations like open pollinated varieties. The reason why hybrids are used is a phenomenon called heterosis, or hybrid vigor. While the exact mechanisms of this phenomenon aren’t completely understood, its effects are striking! In maize, hybrids have been used since the 1920s. A classic maize hybrid is B73 x Mo17. B73 and Mo17 are divergent inbred lines, meaning that they have different sets of alleles for each gene in the maize genome. When crossed, the resulting plants are much stronger and have much higher yields than the inbreds alone.

Hybrid vigor: Corn lines B73 (left) and Mo17 (right) produce the hybrid F1 (center). From Iowa State University News Service.

Some people argue against hybrid seed by saying it has to be purchased every year, but this isn’t quite true. First, the seed from hybrids can be planted – there is no biological reason why they wouldn’t produce seeds that grow perfectly well. However, if you cross hybrid plants together, the resulting plants won’t be quite as good as that first generation hybrid, though they will likely be better than the original inbred lines. Second, farmers and gardeners are perfectly capable of producing their own hybrid seed, and some do, if they like a challenge. Most, however, let seed companies big and small do the work of keeping the inbred lines separate and producing the hybrid seed for farmers to buy.

Some people argue against hybrid seed by saying that it that it requires more inputs, but this isn’t quite true either. Seeds are seeds. That is an over-simplification, but a given seed no matter its genetics can be grown with high inputs or with no inputs at all. The difference is that the seed grown with fertilizer and pesticides will, on average, yield more than the seed with no inputs. The ability of a plant to respond to fertilizer can be changed with breeding, but that doesn’t mean you can’t grow a seed with high fertilizer response without inputs. Breeding specifically for low inputs can be done simply by selecting the best preforming plants under low input conditions – the breeding process remains the same. The specific corn hybrids donated have been tested under low input condtions, as mentioned by Manuel Rivas.

Some people argue against hybrid seed by saying that it that it is less nutritious, but this isn’t quite true either. It is true that most of the commercially available seed was bred for high yield without consideration for characteristics like taste and nutritional composition that are important to consumers. The reason for this is obvious – consumers don’t buy seed, farmers do. And farmers (particularly grain farmers, but fruit and vegetable farmers too) are paid for quantity not quality. This is not a characteristic of hybrids but of the system in general. Heirloom varieties are typically selected for taste, not yield, and taste is affected by nutrition. Gains in yield from breeding do suffer if selection for too many other characteristics are added, but it isn’t impossible, especially with the advent of precision breeding.

Toxic chemicals on the seeds?

Besides the confusion over hybrids, there has been quite a bit of confusion over the fungicides that protect the seeds. First, the Hatian Ministry of Agriculture was made aware of the fungicide, to which they responded: “The products listed are used everyday in Haitian agriculture and should pose no problem,” according to Between the Rows. The specific details were provided by Monsanto employee Mica:

The corn seeds were treated with Maxim XL, which is a Syngenta product. According to Syngenta, approximately 90 percent of U.S. corn seeds are treated with Maxim XL… It’s also used in Western Europe and Latin America.

Thiram, a Bayer Crop Science product, was used to treat the vegetable seeds. Thiram has been registered for use in the U.S. for more than 60 years and is used to treat approximately 1.3 billion pounds of seed annually. (Source: U.S. EPA)

It might seem strange to treat seeds with these chemicals, but it helps protect the seeds from being destroyed by fungus before they germinate. They are used safely by farmers all over the world. The fungicides also help prevent the spread of fungus on seeds from place to place – such as from the US to Haiti.

Reasons for seed treatment. North Dakota State Extension.

Marcia McMullen and Arthur Lamey, Extension Plant Pathologists at North Dakota State, provide three reasons to use fungicidal seed treatments:

1. to control soil-borne fungal disease organisms (pathogens) that cause seed rots, damping-off, seedling blights and root rot
2. to control fungal pathogens that are surface-borne on the seed, such as those that cause covered smuts of barley and oats, bunt of wheat, black point of cereal grains, and seed-borne safflower rust; and
3. to control internally seed-borne fungal pathogens such as the loose smut fungi of cereals.

Let the Farmers Decide

There is nothing inherently dangerous with the seeds being donated or with the WINNER program. Farmers may choose to purchase the seeds or not. Burning the seeds or demanding that the seeds be turned away just takes away options for farmers. I hope that the people calling for burning the seeds will stop and think about the consequences of their actions for those farmers who might want to try planting the donated seed and instead think of ways to help farmers who don’t want seed from Monsanto for whatever reason.

* Disclaimer: I do not have any personal or financial connection to Monsanto, I’m only writing in hopes of dispelling some confusion about things like hybrid seed that could ultimately have a negative effect on farmers in Haiti and other places. I had been avoiding writing this post but the confusion about what hybrids are and what they do just became too much to ignore!

While you’re thinking of blog to submit to the Guardian (perhaps Biofortified.org?), I hope you’ll take a moment to comment on this post with blogs you follow about plant biology, plant science, genetic engineering, genetics in general, and similar topics – and share why you like them. Your responses will help to create a Biofortified Blogroll page.

The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384 has a few clauses that have anti-biotech activists all worked up. What do the changes really mean? Is the US government really part of a Monsanto-led conspiracy to force the impoverished into a cycle of dependency on patented seed and pesticides?

The Pesticide Action Network of North America sums up their view of the situation in their newsletter:

After its introduction in the Senate a year ago, Bill Gates and Bill Clinton have been quietly pressing for this piece of legislation that aims to fight global hunger with one hand while orchestrating a giant taxpayer subsidy to pesticide and ag biotech companies with the other. The bill, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act — for Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Robert Casey (D-PA) — would refocus aid programs on agricultural development, with a caveat: public funding of genetically engineered (GE) seeds is what this bill means by “agricultural development.”

I don’t know if PANNA actually read the Act, because there’s a lot in there about agricultural development that has nothing to do with genetic engineering, as you’ll see in this post.

Genetic engineering ≠ Corporations

One of the biggest arguments against improved seed, whether biotech or simply hybrid, is that it is developed by corporations. To be fair, this is often true in the United States. The US government decided decades ago to leave crop improvement to corporations. The USDA still does a little work in crop improvement, but this work doesn’t result in many released varieties.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In countries around the world, including Brazil, India, and China, much public funding goes into crop improvement. If you think that it’s dangerous to leave all seed improvement and production to a few companies, and if you want more public funding for crop improvement, then let your representatives know.

Ironically, the changes proposed in the Global Food Security Act of 2009 will lead to more public funding for crop improvement, genetically engineered and otherwise. It will also lead to funding of agricultural research in other countries, something that is very necessary if those countries are to ever stand on their own when it comes to food.

What the Act says

This is an amazing piece of legislation that has the potential to help a lot of people, so I hope you’ll take a moment to read the whole thing. I’m personally very excited about the funding for public agricultural research both in the US and in developing countries listed in Title III. I’m disappointed that it’s taking this long for the Act to be made into law.

In this post, I’ll just discuss Title II, where the controversial language appears. Titles I and III don’t mention biotechnology or any other specific farming or research methods, so they haven’t raised any controversy to my knowledge. Title II lists quite a few changes that most would argue are favorable for agriculture in developing nations.

Let’s actually look at the changes and try to determine what they really mean. Am I the only one who has noticed that the petitions and blog posts in uproar over the Act don’t actually show the Act or even link to it? It’s not that hard to find on websites such as Thomas. At the end of this post, you can find the relevant section of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (pdf, pages 40-42) with the changes made in red, then the proposed changes as they appear in the Global Food Security Act of 2009 (pdf).

The first set of edits in Title II of the Global Food Security Act of 2009 add three additional goals to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961:

1. Find ways for impoverished people who don’t have access to agriculture to improve their economic situation, while providing those persons health and nutrition assistance.
2. Fund development and implementation of sustainable agricultural techniques that work under the stresses of climate change, including drought.
3. Improve nutrition of the most vulnerable people, specifically “children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women.”

Sounds good so far.

The second section allocates funds for all of the aid activities in the Foreign Assistance Act. In billions of US dollars: 0.75 for 2010, 1 for 2011, 1.5 for 2012, 2 for 2013, and 2.5 for 2014.

Sounds expensive, but it’s not much when put in the perspective of military spending (more than $650 billion, not including additional funds for current overseas activities).

On to the controversial part.

The current Act states that agricultural research under the Act will do the following:

1. Take needs of small farmers into account when determining research priorities.
2. Include research on factors affecting small farms including interplay between technological, institutional, economic, social, environmental, and cultural factors.
3. Use field tests to adapt research to local conditions – in other words, don’t develop something that works in one country and expect it to work in another country!
4. Produce results that can be disseminated to small farms (both info and technology) and that can actually be used on small farms.

The proposed changes would add one additional clause, requiring research to include “biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.” Frankly, I don’t know why the authors enumerated any specific technologies or methods. They could have left out that last clause, still considered biotechnology as an option, and everyone would have been happy. However, Senator Lugar has seen the potential that biotechnology has to help people and wants to move that forward.

There are already examples of public-private partnerships that have been making great progress toward developing crops specifically for farmers in developing countries. Two of them were discussed by Marianne Bänziger, Director for CIMMYT’s Global Maize Program, at the Maize Genetics Conference in March: WEMA (water efficient maize for Africa) and IMAS (improved maize for African soils). Publicly funded flood tolerant rice is already out there helping farmers, with help from Biofortified editor Pam Ronald. What more could be accomplished with additional funds?

What the Act doesn’t say

The Act does not say “include genetic engineering to the exclusion of anything else”. It doesn’t even say “include biotechnology to the exclusion of anything else” (biotechnology includes marker assisted selection (pdf) as well as genetic engineering and other techniques). That means breeding remains a funded means of crop improvement, and leaves in the goal of improvement of farming methods as well. The Act specifically states that any biotech research will be appropriate to local environmental conditions, as well as taking needs of small farmers into account. That does leave out funding for any crop or method development that would be too expensive for small farmers to use, so royalty-free releases would presumably be required.

Looking at GM crops currently on the market, this excludes Roundup Ready crops because small farmers in impoverished countries often can’t afford Roundup and/or don’t have access to markets that carry pesticides. However, it includes Bt crops because they require no additional inputs and have been shown to be safe for people and safe for non-target organisms while reducing yield loss due to insect pests. It would also include traits that improve nutrition and environmental traits such as drought tolerance or salt tolerance. These are careful, thoughtful distinctions, ones that must be made before biotech is even considered, according to the Act.

While conspiracy theorists are happy to put words in Senator Lugar’s mouth, no where does the Act claim that genetic engineering is a silver bullet to solve the food crisis (on the contrary, the Act emphasizes small, locally adapted solutions – the opposite of a silver bullet). No where does the Act propose that seeds with biotech traits be forced on countries that do not want them (on the contrary, the Act aims to improve the economic situation of impoverished farmers, which obviously can’t be done by encouraging farmers to plant seed that they can’t sell). No where does the Act ask for short term technological fixes (on the contrary, the Act aims for long term self-sustainability for impoverished farmers and countries).    …you get the idea.

The language of the Act is clear

Farmers in developing countries need changes that will work for them and that will work long term. While most of us admire the great accomplishments of the Green Revolution, most of us know that those same strategies of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides can’t be used again. To truly help the farmers, we must work with them to develop appropriate farming improvements for their situation – exactly what this bill says.

Don’t want to take my word for it? Ask Senator Lugar. He’s listed his goals for the legislation in full on his website: Lugar Clarifies Food Security Bill for Colleagues (or see pdf in case the post has moved). In the Senator’s own words: “Hungry people are desperate people, and desperation often sows the seeds of conflict and extremism.” Not only do we have a moral imperative to help impoverished people, but it is in the interests of peace to help ensure that every person has the ability to feed themselves and their families.

He’s taken time to spell out why the biotech clause is in the Act:

The research would include work on the appropriate uses of GM technologies in different environments. While much research has already been done on the development of GM seeds, with profound benefits for agricultural productivity in developed countries, there is a dearth of research on its development and applicability in developing countries. Those countries may have environmental and other challenges that differ from those encountered in the United States. The bill advocates strengthening the local capacity of university and research institutions to find localized solutions to agricultural productivity and food security.

Without advances in technologies that are adaptive to local and regional environmental conditions, the world’s farmers will be hard pressed to meet projected demand of the nearly 9.2 billion people that will inhabit the planet by the year 2050. The development and dissemination of technology, whether it be traditional, biotechnological, or GM, is vital to raising both farm productivity and incomes of poor farmers. Further, without the gains in production per acre that can come from advanced technology, it is likely we will only be able to meet future food demand by greatly expanding the amount of land under cultivation, a development which would necessarily involve substantial forest destruction as well as environmental degradation. GM represents one important tool in this endeavor, and we must do the research to determine where and when it works best.

The bottom line is that a provision of the Lugar-Casey bill directs U.S. assistance in developing local technological solutions to advance agricultural productivity in countries suffering from chronic hunger. It does not require that these solutions be GM, but it does not preclude it, where appropriate.

Widespread support

Don’t believe me or the Senator? Take a look at the groups supporting the Act (pdf) - no less than 25 well-known NGOs that work with impoverished people and/or environmental issues, most of which have a global reach. ONE, a prominent organization that works against hunger and AIDS in Africa, is positively enthusiastic about this potentially historic Act. The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges has endorsed (pdf) the Act, likely due to it’s support for education and research. CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.) applauds the Act’s support for women and girls. Oxfam urges people to tell their members of Congress to co-sponsor the Act. The Friends of the World Food Program call the Act an essential part of the Roadmap to End Global Hunger. Dr. Thomas Lovejoy of Population Action International and Jim Harkness of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy argue that it’s time to stand up for people who are most in need, especially now that the health care debate is over. (IATP supports the House version of this legislation in this editorial, not the Senate version.)

The Act has also done something that few pieces of legislation can anymore: inspire bi-partisan cooperation.The authors of the bill are a Republican and a Democrat, and they have the support of people from both parties in the House and in the Senate. For example, the House version of the Act was introduced by Representative Betty McCollum (D) along with Donald Payne (D) and Jo Ann Emerson (R).

Follow the money

Finally, let’s look closely at the authors of the bill. Are they being paid off by Monsanto to push this legislation?

In short, no. Looking at Senator Lugar’s campaign contributors at OpenSecrets.org, there’s a striking lack of any biotech company donors later than 2002, when Monsanto contributed $14,250. Senator Lugar does have some donors from agribusiness, such as Archer Daniels Midland which donated $8,000 in 2008 and $6,000 in 2010 – hardly enough to buy special legislation for nefarious purposes, and completely unsurprising considering that he is a Senator for Indiana. Senator Casey doesn’t have any contributions from Monsanto or agribusiness. Any conspiracy theories regarding the authors of the bill fall flat as soon as you look at the data.

.

Let’s see this Act for what it really is – an honest effort to make real changes in the way the US aids poor farmers in impoverished countries. Contact your elected officials to let them know what you think about the Act.

.

proposed changes to Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1)

2151a. Agricultural development in rural areas

(a) Authorization to President to furnish assistance; appropriations

(1) In recognition of the fact that the great majority of the people of developing countries live in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture and agricultural-related pursuits for their livelihood, the President is authorized to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, for agriculture, rural development, and nutrition—

(A) to alleviate starvation, hunger, and malnutrition;

(B) to expand significantly the provision of basic services to rural poor people to enhance their capacity for self-help; and

(C) to help create productive farm and off-farm employment in rural areas to provide a more viable economic base and enhance opportunities for improved incomes, living standards, and contributions by rural poor people to the economic and social development of their countries; and

(D) to expand the economic participation of people living in extreme poverty and those who lack access to agriculturally productive land, including through productive safety net programs and health and nutrition programs, and to integrate those living in extreme poverty into the economy;

(E) to support conservation farming and other sustainable agricultural techniques to respond to changing climatic conditions and water shortages; and

(F) to improve nutrition of vulnerable populations, such as children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women.

(2) There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for purposes of this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, $760,000,000 for fiscal year 1986 and $760,000,000 for fiscal year 1987. Of these amounts, the President may use such amounts as he deems appropriate to carry out the provisions of section 316 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980. Amounts appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.

Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the President to provide assistance under section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a) for the purpose of carrying out activities under this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purpose–

(1) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; (2) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; (3) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; (4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and (5) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.

*Note – I’m not sure where the above belongs, but it seems to fit well here.*

(3) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (2) for the fiscal year 1987, not less than $2,000,000 shall be available only for the purpose of controlling and eradicating amblyomma variegatum (heartwater) in bovine animals in the Caribbean.

(b) Use of assistance primarily in aid of rural poor; multilateral infrastructure projects; forestry projects

(1) Assistance provided under this section shall be used primarily for activities which are specifically designed to increase the productivity and income of the rural poor, through such means as creation and strengthening of local institutions linked to the regional and national levels; organization of a system of financial institutions which provide both savings and credit services to the poor; stimulation of small, labor-intensive enterprises in rural towns; improvement of marketing facilities and systems; expansion of rural infrastructure and utilities such as farm-to-market roads, water management systems, land improvement, energy, and storage facilities; establishment of more equitable and more secure land tenure arrangements; and creation and strengthening of systems to provide other services and supplies needed by farmers, such as extension, research, training, fertilizer, water, forestry, soil conservation, and improved seed, in ways which assure access to them by small farmers.

(2) In circumstances where development of major infrastructure is necessary to achieve the objectives set forth in this section, assistance for that purpose should be furnished under this part in association with significant contributions from other countries working together in a multilateral framework. Infrastructure proj ects so assisted should be complemented by other measures to ensure that the benefits of the infrastructure reach the poor.

(3) The Congress recognizes that the accelerating loss of forests and tree cover in developing countries undermines and offsets efforts to improve agricultural production and nutrition and otherwise to meet the basic human needs of the poor. Deforestation results in increased flooding, reduction in water supply for agricultural capacity, loss of firewood and needed wood products, and loss of valuable plants and animals. In order to maintain and increase forest resources, the President is authorized to provide assistance under this section for forestry projects which are essential to fulfill the fundamental purposes of this section. Emphasis shall be given to community woodlots, agroforestry, reforestation, protection of watershed forests, and more effective forest management.

(c) Increased agricultural production in least developed countries

The Congress finds that the greatest potential for significantly expanding availability of food for people in rural areas and augmenting world food production at relatively low cost lies in increasing the productivity of small farmers who constitute a majority of the agricultural producers in developing countries. Increasing the emphasis on rural development and expanded food production in the poorest nations of the developing world is a matter of social justice and a principal element contributing to broadly based economic growth, as well as an important factor in alleviating inflation in the industrialized countries. In the allocation of funds under this section, special attention shall be given to increasing agricultural production in countries which have been designated as “least developed” by the United Nations General Assembly.

(d) Coordination with population planning and health programs

Assistance provided under this section shall also be used in coordination with programs carried out under section 2151b of this title to help improve nutrition of the people of developing countries through encouragement of increased production of crops with greater nutritional value; improvement of planning, research, and education with respect to nutrition, particularly with reference to improvement and expanded use of indigenously produced foodstuffs; and the undertaking of pilot or demonstration programs explicitly addressing the problem of malnutrition of poor and vulnerable people. In particular, the President is encouraged—

(1) to devise and carry out in partnership with developing countries a strategy for programs of nutrition and health improvement for mothers and children, including breast feeding; and

(2) to provide technical, financial, and material support to individuals or groups at the local level for such programs.

(e) Use of local currency proceeds from sales of commodities

Local currency proceeds from sales of commodities provided under the Food for Peace Act [7U.S.C. 1691 et seq.] which are owned by foreign governments shall be used whenever practicable to carry out the provisions of this section.

(f) National food security policies and programs; bilateral and multilateral assistance

The Congress finds that the efforts of developing countries to enhance their national food security deserves encouragement as a matter of United States development assistance policy. Measures complementary to assistance for expanding food production in developing countries are needed to help assure that food becomes increasingly available on a regular basis to the poor in such countries. Therefore, United States bilateral assistance under this chapter and the Food for Peace Act [7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.], and United States participation in multilateral institutions, shall emphasize policies and programs which assist developing countries to increase their national food security by improving their food policies and management and by strengthening national food reserves, with particular concern for the needs of the poor, through measures encouraging domestic production, building national food reserves, expanding available storage facilities, reducing postharvest food losses, and improving food distribution.

(g) International Fund for Agricultural Development; participation and contributions; availability of appropriations

(1) In order to carry out the purposes of this section, the President may continue United States participation in and may make contributions to the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

(2) Of the aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated to carry out subchapter I of this chapter, up to $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1986 and up to $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1987 may be made available, by appropriation or by transfer, for United States contributions to the second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

2151a–1. Agricultural research

Agricultural research carried out under this chapter shall

(1) take account of the special needs of small farmers in the determination of research priorities,

(2) include research on the interrelationships among technology, institutions, and economic, social, environmental, and cultural factors affecting small-farm agriculture, and

(3) make extensive use of field testing to adapt basic research to local conditions. Special emphasis shall be placed on disseminating research results to the farms on which they can be put to use, and especially on institutional and other arrangements needed to assure that small farmers have effective access to both new and existing improved technology., and

(4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.

Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384

SEC. 201. AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND NUTRITION.

(a) Authority- Section 103(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a(a)(1)) is amended–

(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘; and’ and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; and’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:

‘(D) to expand the economic participation of people living in extreme poverty and those who lack access to agriculturally productive land, including through productive safety net programs and health and nutrition programs, and to integrate those living in extreme poverty into the economy;

‘(E) to support conservation farming and other sustainable agricultural techniques to respond to changing climatic conditions and water shortages; and

‘(F) to improve nutrition of vulnerable populations, such as children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women.’.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the President to provide assistance under section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a) for the purpose of carrying out activities under this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purpose–

(1) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; (2) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; (3) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; (4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and (5) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.

Sec. 202. Agricultural Research.

Section 103A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1) is amended in the first sentence–

(1) by striking ‘, and (3) make’ and inserting ‘, (3) make’; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘, and (4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.’.

.

This week, one of Biofortified’s contributors is the subject. I hope you’ll check out Biotech is Not a Product.

While you can no longer find SEED Magazine on newsstands, they do have a strong web presence. Seed Media Group also publishes the extremely popular ScienceBlogs as well as the important tool Research Blogging.

New ways of looking at agriculture

Analytical frameworks can be helpful in putting peoples’ ideas about agriculture, and indeed many other things, into context. In “Integrating Sustainability into Agricultural Education”,  Wals and Bawden (2005, p. 30-32) describe dichotomous ways to see the world. Academics like Wals and Bawden and their predecessors and successors invent and use analytical frameworks to help describe ways of thinking. These frameworks, based on philosophical theory, are artificial divisions. No single one of them is “right” or “correct”, they’re just different ways to describe the same things. Nonetheless, it can be very helpful to categorize the ways that people frame the world around them. If we work to understand the frameworks that people use to view agricultural problems and solutions, we might be better able to communicate with people that have frameworks that differ from our own. Improved communication and collaboration between academics and activists, scientists and farmers in sustainable and conventional agriculture would be of great use to each person involved, to consumers, and to the environment.

While understanding these conceptual divisions can be very helpful, they are also holding each of us back. In order to achieve truly sustainable agriculture, we must all learn how to look past the frameworks that we impose on ourselves and look for ways that nature can guide us instead. For example, conventional farmers are often unwilling to make changes that might make their farms more sustainable. Part of the resistance is financial, because some changes require the purchase of new equipment, but part of the resistance is also emotional and tied to the mental frameworks that they have about agriculture. Similarly, organic farmers and other non-conventional farmers are more likely to take advice from non-conventional sources because their mental frameworks are often quite different from those of conventional sources such as extension agents (Eckert, 2005).

In this paper, I will examine two sets of opposing frameworks as described by Wals and Bawden (2005, p. 30-32): relativism and objectivism, and holism and reductionism. Specifically, I’ll apply these frameworks to agriculture, with the goal of showing that a better understanding of how these concepts frame our thinking and the thinking of those around us might result in a better, more sustainable, agriculture. Finally, I’ll show how better understanding of the different frameworks people might have towards a specific method can affect whether the method is considered sustainable.

Relativism and Objectivism: How do we know what we know?

Relativism and objectivism are both epistemologies, or ways of knowing knowledge. In the case of agriculture, the knowledge in question is knowledge of nature. Relativism is the idea that we understand reality only in the context of our own consciousness (Wals and Bawden, 2005). Taken a step further, relativism is a way of knowing that depends on our past or current experiences, and that depends on things that we are made aware of through our own senses. Objectivism is the idea that reality exists and can be understood separately from our own consciousness (Wals and Bawden, 2005).  In other words, knowledge in an objectivist epistemology contains universal truths that are unaffected by our personal experiences or sensory input, even though these are often the methods through which we understand reality.

Epistemology is closely related to methodology, the methods we use to gain knowledge about the world around us (Trochim, 2006a). In agriculture, there are many ways, or methods, to gain knowledge about a farm. Soil quality can be determined by feeling its texture in your hand and smelling its earthy richness. Its quality could also be determined by collecting soil samples and sending them to a lab to have various properties analyzed. The well-being of animals can be measured by how many offspring they produce. Their well-being can also be determined by how friendly they are, or by how frequently they play with their siblings. These different methods of gaining knowledge may be characterized as either qualitative or quantitative.
Qualitative methods look at a phenomenon in its greater context while quantitative methods examine distinct parts of a phenomenon (Trochim, 2006b). In many ways, qualitative methods depend on a relativist worldview; a qualitative researcher may become immersed in the phenomenon of study, examining a phenomenon through their own experiences and senses. Quantitative methods and researchers are more aligned with an objectivist worldview, in that they begin with the assumption that there is an ultimate reality that may be broken down into parts and studied. An example within agriculture might be the study of agricultural workers on different types of farms. A qualitative study might examine in depth the life histories of selected groups of workers and use this information to tell a story about their working conditions within the greater context of the workers’ lives. A quantitative study might involve a questionnaire that asked employers of farm workers to report quantitative characters, such as how many employees they have, how much the employees are paid, and so on.

Relativism, as in contextual and personal ways of knowing, and qualitative study, as in information gathering that considers the larger system, are generally associated with sustainable agriculture. Meadows explains her idea of relativism, which she calls systems thinking, as an acknowledgement of the uncertainty inherent in systems. An objectivist point of view implies that all knowledge is knowable, if we know how to measure it. Uncertainty is simply due to inaccuracy in measurement. The relativist point of view, on the other hand, implies that there is no essential knowledge to know, because reality is always changing based on the context in which we view things. This changing, or dancing, as Meadows calls it, can only be examined through flexible models that are constantly redesigned as the system changes.

Holism and Reductionism: What is the Nature of Nature?

Along with epistemology, ontology can provide useful distinctions in the way we frame the world around us (Wals and Bawden, 2005). Ontology is the study of the nature of reality, including the ways that reality might be divided or grouped. A holist perspective claims that an entity (concept, phenomenon, process, etc.) can not be divided into parts. If an entity is divided into parts, those parts do not in sum have all the properties that existed in the whole entity. Properties that are present in the entity but not in the parts are called emergent properties. A reductionist perspective claims that an entity can be divided into parts and that the properties of an entity are simply the sum of the properties of the parts.

Sustainable agriculture is generally considered to be holistic in that it considers whole entities.  Leopold (1949), one of the most well known figures in sustainable agriculture, shares his opinion of holism and reductionism in his allegory “Thinking like a Mountain”. Reductionist thinking led many states to enact programs to remove wolves from hunting ranges in an effort to encourage larger deer herds. The result was too-large herds that overgrazed the land to the point that it would no longer sustain deer. Leopold (1949, p. 132) says of the situation that man “has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.” Instead of this reductionist thinking, sustainable agriculture would encourage holist thinking that includes the soil, foliage, deer, and wolves as part of the entity that is the mountain’s ecosystem. Any desired changes to the system must work with the system in its entirety. This holism in sustainable agriculture lends itself well to interdisciplinary study. One can not effectively consider the workings of an entire system by examining only one part of it.
Conventional agriculture is often associated with productionism, a form of reductionism. Productionist agriculture focuses exclusively on yield, and improvements in yield are achieved by manipulation of individual factors within an agricultural system. Individual changes within the system have been extremely successful in increasing agricultural production.  Increased yields were “driven by technological developments in five areas: increased use of chemical fertilizers; high-yield crop varieties with a stronger response to those fertilizers; chemical pesticides for controlling insects, weeds, and diseases that depressed yields; greater use of irrigation; and increased mechanization” (Phelan, 2009, p. 2). Reductionism in agriculture does not require interdisciplinary work except at the most shallow level. It is typical for conventional agricultural research to focus on a narrow subject area within one discipline. Phelan (2009, p. 4) states that reductionism in agriculture “is reflected in the structure of agricultural colleges of U.S. and European universities, which are almost universally divided into disciplines, if not departments, of soil science, agronomy, horticulture, weed science, entomology, and plant pathology.”

Defining Sustainability: Using frameworks to describe what we mean

Understanding the analytical frameworks of relativism and objectivism and holism and reductionism can help us to better communicate about sustainability. Keller and Brummer (2002), Leibman et. al (2008), and many others make a case for moving conventional agriculture away from objectivist and reductionist thinking and towards relativist and holist thinking. I agree, and humbly suggest that sustainable agriculture must meet conventional agriculture somewhere in the middle, if not for any other reason than the fact that an entirely relativist or entirely holist frame makes it difficult to communicate with the objectivists and reductionists that make up the majority of farmers and agricultural researchers.

We may be better able to achieve a more sustainable agriculture if we recognize that both relativist/qualitative/holist/interdisciplinary and objectivist/quantitative/reductionist/individual ways of knowing, measuring, and studying are valuable. In fact, these ideas are most useful in combination. We must at minimum work to understand views that are different from our own. Doing so will allow us to communicate with more people that have diverse viewpoints. It will allow us to understand information that is collected in ways that are different from the ones we are used to, and potentially allow us to use these different methods in our own exploration of the reality that is a farm. It will also help us to evaluate farming methods to determine if each has a role to play in sustainable agriculture.

However, we must be careful to not give too much weight to epistemological or ontological distinctions. In practice, there are few if any farmers or agricultural researchers that apply any of the frames to exclusion of the others. There is no such thing as “sustainable farming” or as “conventional farming” if we define them as “holistic farming” and “reductionist farming” respectively. In reality, there is a gradient between particularly sustainable/holistic methods and particularly conventional/reductionist farming methods, with many methods in-between. Even the most reductionist farmer uses some practices that rely on the farm as an ecological system to achieve a goal. Crop rotation and cover crops are both methods that are associated with sustainability and a holist way of thinking about agriculture, but they are used by conventional farmers to some degree, and the majority of conventional farmers are interested in adopting these methods (Singer and Nusser, 2007). Similarly, a truly holistic farmer shouldn’t make any individual responses to specific problems, instead they should modify the system as a whole. All good farmers, sustainable or otherwise, carefully observe their fields and react as needed, whether their reactions include are synthetic nitrogen and organophosphates, or blood meal and neem. All of these are reductionist responses, though the second two consider secondary effects within the system more than the first two.  A more holistic farming system can be achieved, but not a truly holistic farming system. The key to a more sustainable, if not more holistic, agriculture is to evaluate each method individually on its own merits. In short, we can use the analytical frameworks as a guide, as long as we don’t use them dogmatically.

Bringing the Concepts together: Does Biotechnology have a role in sustainable agriculture?

It has been argued that biotechnology is just one more reductionist solution in the body of reductionist solutions that make up conventional agriculture. Krimsky (2005) argues that the reductionism in biotechnology began in 1975 and has not changed since. This is true of some traits created with biotechnology, but other traits can be seen as providing a solution that works within the greater context of the system. Conventional agriculture faces its biggest problems when looking outside of systems for solutions to problems within the system. Ronald and Adamchak (2008) argue that biotechnology is inherently compatible with sustainable farming because biotechnology allows us to find biological solutions for biological problems. Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are chemical solutions for biological problems, and many of these have significant unintended effects both inside and outside of the system. Traits like herbicide resistance do not work with biology to solve problems because they encourage chemical use, even though they may encourage farmers to use a less toxic herbicide than the ones currently in use. Upcoming traits like drought tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, and so on are reductionist in nature, because they address individual problems like scarcity of water and nitrogen runoff. However, these traits allow a farmer to reduce other inputs into the system which is a major goal of sustainable agriculture.

In my own research, I am developing nutritionally enhanced crops through breeding and biotechnology. Some traits are best manipulated with selection while other traits are best introduced with biotechnology. Each is a tool that can be used to achieve goals that may or may not fit into the different analytical frameworks. The nutritional quality of crops is in itself a reductionist goal. Krimsky (2005, p. 322) sums up his pessimistic view of biotechnology thusly: “rather than seeing the problem of vitamin A deficiency in terms of loss of crop bio-diversity, poor access to seeds, water resources, farming machinery, and arable land, it is seen as one of nature’s failings, namely that its rice lacks beta carotene – something that can be easily fixed through biotechnology and provided through a global seed cartel.” This view is only accurate if the analytical frameworks are kept rigid. In reality, the frameworks are flexible and we may find a variety of solutions that are appropriate for a given system. Few, if any, proponents of biotechnology would embrace a solution to nutritional deficiency that includes only biotech crops. Instead, proponents would suggest nutritionally enhanced crops that fit in the current system, but only in combination with solutions that would improve the system overall, such as poverty reduction. Each solution, whether holist or reductionist, relativist or objectivist in nature, may be part of a more sustainable agriculture, if only we are able creatively view the merits and faults of each solution in the context in which it will be applied.

Works Cited

Eckert, Eileen and Alexandra Bell. (2005) Invisible force: Farmers’ mental models and how they influence learning and actions. Journal of Extension Vol. 43 No. 3.

Keller, David R. and E. Charles Brummer. (2002) Putting Food Production in Context: Toward a Postmechanistic Agricultural Ethic. BioScience Vol. 52 No. 3.

Krimsky, Sheldon. (2005) From Asilomar to industrial biotechnology: Risks, reductionism and regulation. Science as Culture Vol. 14 No. 4.

Liebman, Matt, Fred Kirschenmann, Rich Pirog, and Jerry DeWitt. (2008) Sustainable agriculture in the United States: Maturation and new directions.

Leopold, Aldo. (1949) Thinking Like a Mountain. A Sand County almanac: And sketches here and there. Oxford University Press.

Meadows, Donella. Dancing with systems.

Phelan, P. Larry. (2009) Ecology-based agriculture and the next green revolution: Is modern agriculture exempt from the laws of ecology? Agroecosystem management for ecological, social, and economic stability. CRC Press.

Ronald, Pamela and Raoul Adamchak. (2008) Tomorrow’s table: Organic farming, genetics, and the future of food. Oxford University Press.

Singer, J. W. and S. M. Nusser. Are cover crops being used in the US corn belt? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Vol. 62 Issue 5.

Trochim, William M. K. (2006a) Positivism and post-positivism.

Trochim, William M. K. (2006b) The qualitative-quantitative debate.

Wals, Arjen E. J. and Richard Bawden. (2005) Part 1: Integrating sustainability into agricultural education; Dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and diverging worldviews. Curriculum innovations on higher education. Elsevier Overheid: The Hague, Netherlands.

Sure, it’s cool, and I wouldn’t mind having a taste, but my first thought after reading Barley + Space = Space Beer! on Wired was: were there any mutations in the barley or hops that were caused by the exposure to gamma rays, etc while in space? Should the lucky few who get to try it be worried about unintended changes in the barley and hops from gamma rays and other mutagens in space?

Multiple groups in China have been purposefully using the mutagenizing effects of space as a tool to develop new traits in crops including alfalfa and rice. Unfortunately, these researchers have been publishing in Chinese journals and other journals that I don’t have access to. A 2009 paper in Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis called Spaceflight induces both transient and heritable alterations in DNA methylation and gene expression in rice (Oryza sativa L.) has some key ideas in the abstract that can help us consider the potential risks of “space barley” and other “space crops”.

Spaceflight represents a complex environmental condition in which several interacting factors such as cosmic radiation, microgravity and space magnetic fields are involved, which may provoke stress responses and jeopardize genome integrity. … We report here that extensive alteration in both DNA methylation and gene expression occurred in rice plants subjected to a spaceflight … [which] are heritable to progenies at variable frequencies.

The rice that had spent time in space had epigenetic changes that were passed on to the next generation. The changes didn’t have any obvious phenotypes, so it’s possible that similar changes exist in the decedents of space barley that haven’t been detected. Are these changes dangerous? Probably not, but it is possible. All mutagens (and even just breeding) can cause unintended changes, but testing is not required for plants resulting from either. Space induced mutations will likely escape regulatory scrutiny as well.

The 2004 book Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects lists some classic examples of breeding resulting in unintended effects in Chapter 3: Unintended Effects from Breeding, including increases of naturally occurring toxins that are harmful to humans. These unintended consequences are often due to selecting for one trait that inadvertently selects for a different trait that may or may not be related to the first trait. Interestingly, these authors of this book were not able to find any examples of unintended consequences due to mutagenesis. This is likely a result of the same process that removes any unintended changes from plants with genetically engineered traits – lots of breeding. Seems a bit paradoxical, but this sort of breeding isn’t done with the goal of developing new traits. Instead, the goal of post mutageneis or post genetic engineering breeding is to stabilize the trait of interest in a line that already has other desired traits. Other research, notably the 2008 Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion, showed that both mutagenesis and genetic engineering can cause unintended changes in gene expression. However, obvious phenotypes may be rare.

In the case of space barley, four generations may have been long enough to revert any mutations that had occurred, especially if most changes are epigenetic as suggested by Spaceflight induces both transient and heritable alterations in DNA methylation and gene expression in rice (Oryza sativa L.). The space hops didn’t have any additional generations, so there is a greater likelihood that any mutations that occurred were still present in the hops that were used to produce the space beer. Does this make space beer more dangerous than non-space beer? Maybe, maybe not. It might be a good idea to at least consider potential changes induced by space, just as we should be considering potential unintended effects from breeding, mutagenesis, and genetic engineering. We might employ a flow chart, such as this one from Chapter 7: Framework, Findings, and Recommendations in Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. It’s time to stop treating crops resulting from non biotech modifications as inherently safe, and start comparing the newly modified varieties to their parental varieties. Then, we’ll be sure that space beer, space rice, and a host of up-and-coming products are safe for us to eat and drink.

Let’s take Research Shines Light on Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone (full paper) as an example. This report by the National Corn Growers association was, to be blunt, biased to the point of falsehood. I explain how in Rotten Corn. The organization has an agenda to put corn farming practices in the best possible light, which means every report we see from them will have some degree of spin. We should expect some degree of spin from any of these groups, but sometimes they overstep the line.

Spin can be frustrating, particularly when we have specific evidence that contradicts what the special interest group said. What happens when the bias isn’t as obvious as in the NCG’s hypoxia report? Sometimes these reports seem 100% legitimate, especially when we agree with the agenda of the group, and especially when we don’t have the prerequisite knowledge to judge them. Even worse, there are many situations where two groups will put out directly opposing reports. Each group claims to have the “real” information, sometimes even calling out opposing reports.

The most recent example of this is the Organic Center’s Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years. It directly contradicts the year old GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2006 (pdf) by PG Economics. I covered some of the specific differences in Does using GMOs really increase pesticide use? a few days ago. In researching for the post, I made the decision to include the PG Economics report as an opposing viewpoint because the sources of the data are solid and the conclusions they make in the paper are well supported by peer-reviewed research. The Organic Center’s report leaves out a lot of data that is readily available, and doesn’t explain why – which is enough to make me question the conclusions in the report (along with glaring problems like lumping all biotech traits as “GMOs” with only a passing mention of how Bt and glyphosate resistant crops are different).

I mention these two opposing reports on GMOs and pesticide use to show that it is possible to evaluate “spun” reports when we consider them with a critical eye and a reasonable familiarity with peer-reviewed research on the subject. Why peer-reviewed? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Peer review is the worst form of quality control for scientific research except for all those others that have been tried.” Mistakes do, famously, get through, but don’t matter as they are either ignored (not cited by other scientists) or directly contradicted by new research.

These reports, scientifically sound or not, bypass the peer-review process. They aren’t screened by other scientists before they are published, and sometimes they are written by people who aren’t even in the field they are writing about. They can be good sources of information, but only if we take it to the next level and seek out the peer-reviewed research behind the reports as well as opposing viewpoints to help us get the big picture.

52 card pickup by mikep, via flickr.

When I say peer-reviewed research, I’m not just talking about one paper. Instead, I mean multiple papers, preferably by different authors from different institutions, and different funding agencies. The papers should use different data sets and different experimental designs that ask similar questions.

Imagine that the entire body of peer-reviewed research for a subject area is a deck of cards that we’ve placed on the table, 52 card pickup style. Each card is a paper that is related to some of the other papers. Some papers cover very similar areas, totally overlapping. Others are only slightly related, with just a tip overlapping. Any one of those cards won’t tell us that much about what’s really happening, but when we look at the whole pile, particularly the overlapping areas, we can start to understand what’s really happening.

For more on the benefits and downfalls of peer review, see Nature’s peer review debate (accessible without login!).

First, all GMOs are not created equal. The two biotech traits currently on the market are herbicide tolerance and insect resistance (Bt). These traits are obviously very different, but most of the report just lumps them together as “GE crops”, even though the report clearly states multiple times that Bt crops have reduced insecticide use. For example:

Bt corn and cotton have delivered consistent reductions in insecticide use totaling 64.2 million pounds over the 13 years. Bt corn reduced insecticide use by 32.6 million pounds, or by about 0.1 pound per acre. Bt cotton reduced insecticide use by 31.6 million pounds, or about 0.4 pounds per acre planted.

Why, then, does the report fail to distinguish between glyphosate tolerant crops and Bt crops when concluding:

For the foreseeable future, this study confirms that one direct and predictable outcome of the planting of GE corn, soybean, and cotton seed will be steady, annual increases in the pounds of herbicides applied per acre across close to one-half the nation’s cultivated cropland base. Farm production costs and environmental and health risks will rise in step with the total pounds of pesticides applied on GE crops.

What about Bt crops? What about nitrogen efficient crops? What about nutritionally enhanced crops? These don’t require additional pesticides of any kind when compared to non-biotech crops. If anything, the conclusion should read:

…this study confirms that one direct and predictable outcome of the planting of herbicide tolerant corn, soybean, and cotton seed will be steady, annual increases in the pounds of herbicides applied per acre across close to one-half the nation’s cultivated cropland base. Farm production costs and environmental and health risks will rise in step with the total pounds of herbicides applied on herbicide tolerant crops.

Second, all pesticides are not created equal. There are huge differences between pesticides in toxcicity, target organisms, amount required, etc. Use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp herbicide, certainly does increase with glyphosate tolerant crops. The million dollar question is: does the use of glyphosate replace the use of other herbicides? And even more importantly, what is the relative impact of the herbicides used? The Organic Center’s report doesn’t actually address these questions.

The 2008 report GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2006 (pdf) produced by PG Economics did answer these questions*. They used an index called EIQ (Environmental Impact Quotient) which was first described by Kovach et al in 1992 (to learn exactly how the EIQ is calculated, see the American Farmland Trust’s explanation). The EIQ actually factors in how toxic a pesticide is as well as how much active ingredient is used. This report found (on page 60-61) that, in soybeans, the global impact has been:

In 2006, a 6% decrease in the total volume of herbicide [active ingredient] applied (10.1 million kg) and a 23.7% reduction in the environmental impact (measured in terms of the field EIQ/ha load)

Since 1996, 4.4% less herbicide [active ingredient] has been used (62 million kg) and the environmental impact applied to the soybean crop has fallen by 20.4%.

A similar global impact was seen in maize:

In 2006, total herbicide ai use was 8.3% lower (10.9 million kg) than the level of use if the total crop had been planted to conventional non GM (HT) varieties. The EIQ load was also lower by 10.8%

Cumulatively since 1997, the volume of herbicide ai applied is 3.9% lower than its conventional equivalent (a saving of 46.7 million kg). The EIQ load has been reduced by 4.6%.

It certainly seems strange that two different reports would have such vastly different conclusions.

Third, what about non-biotech herbicide tolerant crops? Breeding for herbicide tolerance doens’t require biotechnology at all – breeders can simply rely on artificial selection (aka “natural” plant breeding). For example, consider the Clearfield trait, resistance to the herbicide imidazoline. Clearfield is available in far more crops than glyphosate resistance, likely because it is not required to undergo any of the additional testing or regualatory hoops that are required for biotech traits. Crops available with Clearfield include sunflower, canola, corn, wheat, and rice. Because this is a non-biotech (non-transgenic, non-GMO) herbicide resistance trait, Clearfield crops aren’t tracked in the same way as Roundup Ready crops.

“This report deals only with GE HT crops” even though “a market research firm recently estimated that non-GE herbicide-resistant crops were planted on roughly 6 million acres in 2007.” The thing is, if biotech herbicide tolerance was never invented, we’d just have many more acres of non-biotech herbicide tolerance. Using herbicide tolerant non-GE crops would result in all of the same effects that we see in GE herbicide tolerant crops. Additionally, improper use of herbicides of any type (in conjunction with herbicide tolerant crops or not) will result in resistant weeds. It is misleading to claim that side effects of herbicide use are due to genetic engineering.

If a person was truly interested in determining how novel traits affect herbicide use, that person would consider all types of herbicide resistance, instead of singling out just the ones created with a certain method.

In sum, these are the three main complaints I have with this report: failure to distinguish between different biotech traits, failure to distinguish between different pesticides, and failure to consider non-biotech traits that could increase pesticide use.

What are your thoughts?

*I already had a copy of the PG Economics report stored in Papers (iTunes for journal articles), but when I went to find the link for this post, I found that PG Economics has actually written their own rebuttal to the Organic Center’s report: Impact of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use: US Organic Center report evaluation by PG Economics (pdf). They cover far more specific issues than I did in this post – I recommend it and the original PG Economics report as a counterpoint to the Organic Center report. No matter our personal beliefs, it’s always good to expose ourselves to many points of view.

Another viewpoint can be found at Truth About Trade and Technology, a non-profit farmer’s advocay group, where Illinois farmer John Reifsteck wrote The Business of Farming in response to the Organic Center’s report.

One particular example of bias preventing dialogue is conspiracy theories involving “big ag”. There exists these ideas that everyone who interacts with “big ag” is somehow part of “big ag”. People who subscribe to this view include farmers as part of “big ag”, as described by Nate Taylor on All Things Agriculture:

You obviously have many issues with the current food system, and I do not disagree that there are many to go after, but including the farmer in that mix and then calling them Big-Ag because it is easy and people “understand it” doesn’t help and creates divides. I am not Big-Ag and never have been.

There is a real interaction between farmers and “big ag”. They buy products from and sell their crops to corporations that are considered to be part of “big ag”. This doesn’t mean that the farmers are in cahoots with some master plan of “big ag” or that their personal philosophies align with whatever people think “big ag” stands for.

Whether it’s explicitly stated or not, there is a general feeling coming from opponents of “big ag” that farmers are stupid, greedy, or malicious tools of “the man”. Maybe the opponents of “big ag” don’t mean to target individual farmers, ranchers, ag researchers, and others but it sure feels that way. I’ve seen quite a few farmers get angry at getting lumped with a concept that they don’t feel adequately represents them. The claims feel like attacks, and result in people wanting to fight back. It’s sad, because this isn’t a fight, or shouldn’t be.

Science bloggers like those of us here at Biofortified are often claimed to be part of “big ag”, even when we are very forthcoming about exactly how we are funded, who we work for, etc. Like farmers, we do have an interaction with “big ag” in that we read and analyze their research, and we may see scientific merit in their work. We might work with the UDSA currently or plan to in the future. We might currently or plan to participate in academic research that is funded by the USDA and/or agricultural companies. We might even end up with jobs at companies like Monsanto, Pioneer, or Syngenta. As bloggers, we might communicate directly with these companies in order to get information, as the saying goes, straight from the horse’s mouth. Like farmers, that interaction does not mean that our personal philosophies are aligned with whatever philosophies people think “big ag” stand for. Also like farmers, when people lump us with the negative ideas that people have about “big ag” or “industry”, we get frustrated and sometimes we take it personally.

So here I’ll leave the abstract discussion and speak more personally. I am unfortunately too optimistic when it comes to people in that I expect people to be truthful, to be careful about what they say, to be observant of how their actions and words affect others, to not repeat information that they have heard with out at least a quick investigation. While I know these things aren’t universally true, I like to follow the moral “treat others as you would like to be treated”. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that don’t reciprocate.

In a lot of cases, the attacks have been personal. I’ve gotten comments on my blog that include physical threats. I’ve been called a charlatan, a fraud, a shill (and those are the nice ones). I’ve been told directly and had it implied that I’m some sort of corporate zombie without an opinion of my own. I’ve been told that Monsanto is my puppeteer and that they are what’s really behind my blogging efforts and my small successes.

All of these confuse the crap out of me because I’ve always been as open and honest as I can. I admit when I’ve made mistakes and sometimes turn my position around 180° when more information presents itself. I’m not dogmatic or unreasonable. So, can you blame me when I am a bit defensive? Can you say I’m unreasonable when I strongly react to unfounded claims involving me, my co-bloggers, our efforts to nurture dialogue on a complicated subject? Sure, you can say it, but you wouldn’t be right.

Here at Biofortified, we’re honestly hoping to engage in dialogue. We honestly want to both learn and teach in a two-way conversation. The thing is, it’s not two-way unless you get involved. We may have been preaching to the choir, but it’s not because we don’t want other people in the church. So get on in here. Comment on posts, get involved in the forum. Write responses on your own blog and let us know about them so we can respond in kind. Let’s actually work to expand our own and each others’ knowledge and world views. I’m ready. Are you?

Despite the fact that Biofortified is maintained by students and professors on a volunteer basis, and the fact that none of us are compensated by any company or organization for our blogging efforts, GM Watch has decided that we are “a blog run by some well known GM promoters”. I don’t know if using peer-reviewed evidence to make decisions about genetic engineering counts as promotion, but it’s nice to be well known!

GM Watch seems to be upset that Biofortified is currently ahead in the GMO: Risk or Rescue competition at Ashoka Changemakers. They claim that tweets to vote for us by industry caused our abrupt increase in votes, but that’s actually not the case at all.

A simple search on Twitter for “Biofortified” shows that my friend Mike tweeted about us 4 days ago. Then, the Council for Biotechnology Information and Mica from Monsanto tweeted about us 3 days ago, back when were were still behind in votes. It wasn’t until this morning when a truly well known blogger and scientist helped us out with a mention that our votes started to increase. Subsequent mentions by other well known skeptic and/or scientist personalities have kept our vote count going up all day!

Going by this evidence, one could argue that we are a scientist-backed blog, not an industry backed blog, which I think really says something about us. The fact that GM Watch lies rather than engaging in dialog really says something too.

Thanks to everyone who’s voted, and please continue to ask your friends and colleagues to support a science-based discussion of genetic engineering. They can find instructions on how to navigate Changemaker’s site right here on Biofortified.

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that our primary competition is actually industry connected but their supporters are making up industry connections for Biofortified? I guess it all depends on which industry you’re involved with (or supposedly involved with).