What this says is that farmers, when given a choice between biotech and conventional crops, are opting for biotech. And after listening to a presentation the other day from Clive James, the chairman and founder of ISAAA, it's clear to me that the growth is going to continue.
In a landmark decision last fall, China issued biosafety certificates for biotech insect-resistant rice and phytase corn. Phytase is an additive, widely used in animal feed, that increases phosphorus absorption and helps animals grow faster.Origin Agritech (NASDAQ: SEED), a Beijing-based company that developed the phytase corn, says it will save farmers money and reduce phosphate pollution caused by animal waste and excessive fertilizer use. While commercial use of these biotech crops is several years away, these three facts -- rice is the world's most important food crop, corn is the most important feed crop and China is the biggest market -- leave little doubt biotech crop acreage will continue to grow.
Few topics in the world of business and sustainability are more controversial than biotech foods. I'm reluctant to wade into the debate for a couple of reasons. First, I'm not an expert on farming nor on the human health issues raised by biotech's critics. Second, I'm conducting a series of interviews about sustainable agriculture for Monsanto's website,Produce more Conserve more, for which I'm being paid. I agreed to do so only after talking about biotech with people I respect -- among them, Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund, glenn plickett of The Nature Conservancy and Steward Brand -- all of whom say that they think biotech foods are essential if we are going to feed the world's growing population while limiting the environmental footprint of farming. In his book, Whole Earth Discipline, Stewart wrote:
I daresay the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we've been wrong about. We've starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool.
Strong words, no? In response, GM watch, an anti-biotech website, called Stewart an "ageing hippie technophile" who "has never been short on hubris." That's name-calling, not argument. Others whose work I respect, including Andrew Kimbrell and Bill Freese of the center for food safety, argue that genetically-engineered foods should not be commercialized until "they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment." Of course, it's not easy to prove that something is safe. The Center for Food Safety also wants foods containing biotech ingredients to be labeled. Still another critic of biotech who has my ear is my daughter Sarah, who funds grassroots organizations in Africa as a senior program officer for the American Jewish World Service. Maybe I'll invite her to do a guest post.
No comments:
Post a Comment