|
Public Mislead by Debate On Biotech, Says
Expert
Dr. A. M. “Tony” Shelton, a professor of
entomology at Cornell University and a visiting scientist at
Lincoln University, recently wrote an opinion piece that the debate
on biotech crops is misleading New
Zealand’s public.
Shelton, who has worked with organic, conventional and biotech farmers
for more than 30 years says he doesn’t want to bash organic agriculture because
some practices do benefit the environmental and should be encouraged, but the
public should be aware of some key facts about biotech.
Shelton cites the claim that organic agriculture farming
practices are safer than those used by farmers of biotech crops. The benefits of biotech crops have been
clear to agricultural scientists and many working within agricultural sectors,
but may be less clear to the public, he says. Over the last 10 years the use of biotech crops has resulted
in the reduction of 224 million kilograms of active pesticide ingredients being
sprayed.
Organic standards require farmers to apply only
pesticides that are "natural" and not synthetic, but being "natural" does not
ensure safety. As an example,
sulphur, a major fungicide used in organic agriculture, is toxic to a broad
range of organisms and is a longer-term soil and environmental contaminant than
most of its synthetic counterparts.
Another claim, according to
Shelton is that the use of Bt crops will lead to the
development of insects resistant to Bt, eliminating one of the tools organic
growers have to control caterpillar pests. After 11 years, there has yet to be
a case of insects developing resistance to Bt plants in the field. When Bt
plants were developed, scientists knew about the potential for resistance and
developed strategies that have proven effective in preventing resistance to Bt
plants.
Shelton says that many conventional farmers now employ
some organic practices to add to soil health on their farms. He also says that many organic farmers
he knows have expressed interest in using some biotech plants to help control
pests in a more environmentally sustainable fashion, but the organic lobby will
not allow it for philosophical, not scientific, reasons.
The goal of agriculture should be to create the
safest food production system possible, depending on the situation, says
Shelton.
Our goal as a society should be to use the best practices from each
method and integrate them into systems that produce safer food in an
environmentally and economically sustainable manner. That will provide the best
benefits for the public, according to Shelton.
“Opinion; Perspective: GE Debate
Misleading,” Tony Shelton, The Press (Christchurch,
New Zealand)
Biotechnology Benefits Indian Farmers, Households and
Communities
A new "conversation" with Indian economist, Dr. Laveesh Bhandari is now
available on the Conversations about Plant
Biotechnology Web site.
Dr.
Bhandari discusses how GM crops have positively affected
families and communities in cotton producing areas of
India through increased income, greater access to healthcare services and
better education.
Indian farmers first planted
biotech crops in 2002, and today represent the most rapid adopters of this new
technology in farming globally. Of the 90 million farmer households in
India,
approximately 95 percent are resource-poor farmers who do not make enough money
from the land to make ends meet.
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications, Indian farmers increased Bt cotton plantings by
192 percent, almost a three-fold increase from 3.25 million acres (1.3 million
hectares) in 2005 to 9.5 million acres (3.8 million hectares) in
2006.
The Conversations about Plant Biotechnology Web site is designed
to "give a voice and a face to the farmers and families who grow biotech crops
and the experts who research and study the technology." The site is maintained
by Monsanto Company solely for the purpose of promoting the benefits of
agricultural biotechnology.
|