Maize yields in Europe declining?

I speak and comprehend a little French. There’s this video that features Klaus Ammann saying corn yields in Europe have gone down. David Tribe of GMO Pundit has picked up the issue on his blog.

Let me mention something small about David. He is a characteristically mercurial scientist. I must admit I’ve not come across a scientist as interested in science communication as David.

On this blog, I’ve repeatedly called on scientists not to allow rookies to distort their work. David seems to have heeded my call. He writes prolifically about agricultural biotechnology. He doesn’t fear to be branded “a shill of this and that  multinational biotechnology corporations.” These are some of intimidatory accusations anti-technology activists use to try to silence folks like David.

In 2006 I urged scientists to come out and defend the science behind crop genetic engineering. Then, I noted that the voices of few scientists who were willing to stand up to opponents of crop genetic engineering were being drowned by these self-styled activists, who’ve very scant knowledge of agricultural biotechnology. In fact most of them have social science backgrounds. They’re only good in making blue look white, without ever stepping into a paint shop.

David is among the few scientists who have said “enough is enough” to propaganda that has come to define the debate genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

David’s strategy has been to lay facts out there for all to see and decide for themselves. This is what I’ve always advocated: that the debate about genetically modified foods should be anchored in science.

On Klaus’ remark that corn yields in Europe are going down, David has culled out graphs showing the continuing increase of corn yields in the U.S. The U.S. happens to be the leading grower of genetically modified corn. Connect the dots for yourself.

Europe is fervently opposed to GMOs. Could this be the reason why corn yields are unimpressive there? This is the point David is trying to make. And he could be right.

Sphere: Related Content

African scientist honored for her work in agriculture

An African scientist has been honored for her work in promoting sustainable agriculture in Africa. Prof. Florence Wambugu, who heads the Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation, last week scooped the 2008 YARA prize for the African Green Revolution.

Prof. Wambugu was recognized for promoting the use of tissue culture in banana farming in mainly Kenya. The technology has dramatically improved the standards of living of millions of small-scale farmers in the country and other African countries.

Prof. Wambugu is an exceptional, brilliant and selfless woman. After receiving her education in the U.S. and UK, she declined lucrative jobs there to go back to Africa to help it improve its agriculture. This is uncommon to most Africans who go to Western countries to study. Most, if not all, opt to take up well-paying jobs. The fact that Prof. Wambugu decided to forego such opportunities say a lot about her character and her commitment to see Africa becomes self-sufficient in food production.

Prof. Wambugu has also been at the forefront of the campaign to popularize modern agricultural biotechnology. This has not been a simple task. She has fought with anti-tech organizations, such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the two anti-biotechnology activist organizations at the forefront of the campaign against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

To reinforce here support for modern agricultural biotechnology, Prof. Wambugu, soon after receiving the YARA prize, told the SciDev.net web site that the Green Revolution currently being championed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will have to “…embrace cutting-edge biotechnology.”

This call must be taken very seriously. Prof. Wambugu is not just another activist advocating for agricultural biotechnology. She understands the stuff she’s talking about. Farmers and governments in Africa better listen to her!

Sphere: Related Content

Prince of Wales under fire for his anti-GMOs stance

The Prince of Wales is in hot soup for claiming genetically modified crops have set the word on course for “the biggest disaster, environmentally, of all time.”

In an interview with the Telegraph, last week, Prince Charles sensationally accused “gigantic corporations” of meddling with nature and urged them to spare the world the cataclysmic repercussions that might arise from genetic modification of crops.

Prince Charles’ rantings against GM crops, however, have come under harsh criticism from government officials, politicians, the media and scientists for their ludicrous tinge.

British Environment Minister Phil Woolas has challenged Prince Charles to provide evidence to the effect that genetically modified crops are a disaster. Woolas, in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, affirmed that the government had a “moral responsibility” to investigate whether GM crops could help alleviate hunger in the developing world.” And the minister warned the Prince of Wales not to politicize the issue of GM crops.

Alison Smith, Professor of Plant Biochemistry at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, accused Prince Charles of “inflating fears instead of contributing to reasoned debate.”

“He (Prince) seems to be ranting about GM crops, urbanisation, globalisation and even hybrid plants. He is inflating fears instead of contributing to reasoned debate.”

The Times, in an editorial, said Prince Charles’ views on genetically modified crops were “ill-informed, alarmist and anti-science.” “…his apocalyptic predictions of the effect of genetically modified crops do not enhance public debate, but degrade it,” noted the hard-hitting editorial.

British Labor MP, Des Turner, fumed that it’s “…entirely Luddite attitude to simply reject this (GM crops) out of hand.”

Liberal Democratic Phil Willis, who’s also the chairman of the all-party Commons science committee, echoed the same sentiment and warned: “Prince Charles lack of scientific understanding and his willingness to condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely bewildering.”

Prince Charles did have supporters. Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association did issue an oblique statement supporting the Prince of Wales’ views that “GM crops would not help solve the food crisis.”

This is a self-denial statement. I’ve always argued, on this blog and elsewhere, that criticism of crop genetic engineering is warranted as long it’s constructive and scientifically grounded. When somebody, for instance, claims that GM crops would not help solve the food crisis, one is left to wonder what happened to the truth. Just the same way I condemn this, I’ll also take issue with anybody who might claim that organic farming cannot help in solving the food crisis. They’ve a role to play, just like GM crops have an important contribution to make in enhancing global food security.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has just released a report that shows GM crops cultivation recorded a 12 per cent growth from 2006-2007. The number of countries growing GM crops also increased to 23. These are hard facts that cannot easily wished away.

Realistically speaking, therefore, one can safely say that these crops are making significant contribution to global food security. This is an undeniable fact that those who support and oppose GM crops must acknowledge.

For the Prince of Wales and anti-technology organizations to deny that agricultural biotechnology is making significant contribution to global food security is wrong. Acknowledging facts as they’re, perhaps, is the best way to handle the debate about cons and pros of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Sphere: Related Content

Extra-judicial protests on GMOs decried

An article appearing elsewhere on this blog, and which has been adapted from the Australian-based ABC News, reports that Gene Ethics, a nongovernmental organization opposed to crop genetic engineering, has mapped farmers growing genetically modified canola.

The map lists their names and location of their farms. The Victorian Farmers Federation has issued a press statement condemning the tactic as amounting to bullying.

“This is a disgraceful and unsubstantiated witch hunt and shows how few ethics, Gene Ethics really have,” Says VFF President, Simon Ramsay.

This incident reminds me of an article I read two weeks ago featuring Howard Atkinson complaining that research institutions in Britain are spending more money guarding field trials of genetically modified crops than in research proper.

Mr. Atkinson said a field trial of genetically modified potato cost Leeds University 25,000 pounds. And additional six-figure bill went to security. What a waste!

The Australian and the Leeds incidents have one thing in common: anti-technology activists are fast resorting to extra-judicial measures to thwart crop genetic engineering.

Rudimentary tactics being practiced by these groups are unacceptable in today’s world. People might have concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but I don’t think resorting to violence or blackmail is the most sensible thing to do. Let the world engage in a civil debate about GMOs.

GMOs are products of natural science. Natural science demands that every claim be scientifically substantiated. When anti-technology activists make claims against GMOs, they should ground such in science. And they don’t have to do it themselves. Since they’re good in mobilization, they can line up scientists to do it. They can even sponsor research: They’ve huge budgets to do so. This is the most civil way of engaging in the debate about GMOs, not engaging in hooliganism, which trivializes the whole debate.

Food security is an important issue that must be discussed soberly. On this blog, I’ve repeatedly stated that everything must be on the table when it comes to ensuring global food security. If organic farming can help reduce hunger and malnutrition, so be it. If GMOs can do the same, so be it. We shouldn’t have a bunch of activists dictating to farmers the kind of farming to practice.

Sphere: Related Content

Australian researcher wants more young people to study science

There’s this article about Professor Wynne Jones, of Harper Adams University College in Australia, urging young people to study science. Actually, this is not the main theme of the article: It’s about the controversy surrounding genetically modified (GM) foods, and how it can be solved through public education.

Jones sneaks in the idea of egging on young people to study science and technology so that that they can lead this campaign, a theory I’ve not heard since I started blogging about agricultural biotechnology. And I’ve not come across a study that shows young scientists can execute public awareness campaigns about agricultural biotechnology, or any other controversial scientific innovations, than their older counterparts.

In this article, Jones rightly argues the world would be a better place if more young people study science and technology. Apart from gaining scientific knowledge for their career and professional development, Jones further argues, these young scientists - as a service to the community - would be invaluable asset in educating the public about new scientific innovation.

Jones says the debate about genetically modified foods can greatly benefit from young scientists. They’ve the energy and tact to convince a wary public that modern agricultural biotechnology has great potential.

“It’s up to us as educationalists and scientists to inform the public and have a debate based on fact and not heated emotions,” Says Jones referring to the confusion surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Jones can’t be further from right on this issue. More education and awareness about GMOs is needed. As I’ve repeatedly argued on this blog, the public has been denied education about GMOs. And to blame for this situation are scientists who always shy away from confronting those who try to distort their work. As Jones puts it, it’s high time they fill up the plate.

Sphere: Related Content

Transgenic tomato to treat Alzheimer’s disease

Biotechnology Letters Journal is reporting that a group of South Korean researchers has genetically engineered a tomato to enable it treat the Alzheimer’s disease, a neurodegenerative disease, which causes dementia.

Having recognized that the human Beta-amyloid is the main component of Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers sought to investigate how genetic engineering could be used to reduce it. They figured out how it could be integrated into the tomato genome.

Using Agrobacterium-mediated nuclear transformation, the researchers, led by HyunSoon Kim of the Plant Genomics Research Center, based in South Korea “generated tomatoes for Beta-amyloid.”

Their goal was that this tomato trait, upon consumption by Alzheimer patients, would suppress the beta-Amyloid generation and thus reduce or diminish occurrence of Alzheimer’s disease.

The researchers found that mice fed on this Beta-amyloid transgenic tomato elicited an immune response, similar to the one patients of the Alzheimer disease would elicit.

The Alzheimer’s disease is believed to mostly affect those aged 65 years and above. Statistics show that about 26 million people currently suffer from the disease. With the publication of this new study, it’s hoped that the transgenic tomato with Beta-amyloid will be a relief to patients of the Alzheimer’s disease.

Sphere: Related Content

Harvard researcher roots for agricultural biotechnology

Prof. Calestous Juma, a respected Kenyan researcher – currently based at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard - wants the G8 Summit, taking place in Japan, to explore how biotechnology can become an effective tool in enhancing food sustainability in Africa.

Juma, in an article in the Japan Times, argues that investment in agricultural biotechnology in Africa by rich countries can play an instrumental role in alleviating poverty that continues to afflict the continent.

“The G8 summit should encourage Africa and its partners to design new models of cooperation that involve partnerships between government, industry and academia,” Juma advices.

This is not the first time Prof. Juma has called for massive investments in agricultural biotechnology. In January, 2007, Prof. Juma called on African leaders to invest heavily in agricultural biotechnology.

Prof. Juma can’t be so right on the potential of agricultural biotechnology in solving Africa’s food o, when he says agricultural biotechnology has potential to change the fortunes of the African continent for the better, Prof. Juma can’t be said to be pampering to special interests. His is not a roadside pronouncement such as the ones that come from activist groups both supporting and opposing genetically modified foods.

To preempt the often-repeated line that biotech corporations’ sole motivation for developing GM crops is profit, Prof. Juma, in his article, has proposed that African scientists develop royalty-free GM crops that’ll satisfy local needs. Scientists here will identify crops that stand to benefit local communities and genetically engineer them. This is a fantastic idea because such crops will be affordable and accessible to local farmers. This approach will also go a long way in defeating propagandists who argue that GM crops are a ruse by select biotech corporations to dominate global agriculture and deny the world of organic food. (By the way, you need to watch this video that compares people’s attitude toward GMOs and organic foods.)

It’s worth noting that since the commercialization of the first genetically modified crop in 2005, there has been a swirling debate on whether small-scale farmers, especially in Africa, stand to gain from GM crops. Organizations such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth claim that GM farming is for large-scale farmers in such countries such as the U.S., Canada, Spain and China.

Prof. Juma, in advocating for agricultural biotechnology for Africa, believes they can benefit small-scale farmers, and that’s why he’d like more engagement in their development by rich countries. (Read my earlier post on this issue).

G8 countries now need to listen to Prof. Juma. Some of them seem still fixated with food aid as the best solution to solving Africa’s food problems. Food aid will never solve Africa’s food problems. More sustainable strategies, like ones Prof. Juma is proposing, are what Africa needs.

Sphere: Related Content

Another study debunks GMOs and bees disappearance link myth

There have been numerous unsubstantiated media reports linking genetically modified (GM) crops to the disappearance of bees. The episode has come to be known as colony collapse disorder (CCD).

Before theories linking CCD to GM crops started swirling around, the National Geographic magazine ran an article entitled Mystery Bee Disappearances Sweeping U.S. The article is authoritative because it quoted known entomologists such as Maryann Frazier of Penn State University.

The article recalls that CCD dates back to 1896, not 1995 when the first genetically modified crop was commercialized. As to possible causes of CCD, the experts quoted in this article suspect that mites and poor management could’ve become virulent to the bees, and hence their disappearance.

Last week, I bumped onto an article entitled GMO Studies Fail to Produce Definitive Answers. The article reports a study, by Swiss’s Federal Environment Office experts, that found GM crops have nothing to do with bees’ disappearance. Actually, it went a step further to discount reports that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have negative impact on worms, snails or fly larvae.

This report only reinforces findings contained in another study reported in the journal Science in September 2007. The study found that “…the production of specific insecticidal proteins from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in crops to control targeted caterpillar pests and beetles does not pose a risk to honeybees.” I recall commenting on this article early this year. It’s encouraging more studies about this phenomenon are being done. They’re necessary because they’re shedding more light on this issue.

Sphere: Related Content

Writer decries bickering on food

Writer John Gapper, in an op-ed column on the FinancialTimes.com, observes that bickering will never feed the world.

Gapper expresses disappointment that the ongoing debate on how best to solve the current food crisis has turned to be a shouting match between supporters of genetically modified (GM) foods and those for organic foods.

He sees this debate as unnecessary. He clearly echoes plant geneticist Pamela Ronald who I recently featured on this blog saying GM foods and their organic counterparts can, collectively, solve world’s hunger and malnutrition.

Gapper’s article is very insightful and informative. I particularly like his take that high-yielding seeds are what the world needs because there’s no longer more land for cultivation. Of course this is a fact of life. And irrespective of the spin those who support or oppose new agricultural technologies might put on it, technology is what will save this world from food scarcity.

And it doesn’t matter which part of the world one is. I’ve heard people say that Africa, for example, can’t benefit from crop genetic engineering because farmers there practice small-scale farming. Far from it. What they forget is that these farmers, just like those in the U.S. and Canada, desire high quality seeds. Some scientists in these countries also agree that new technologies are needed to improve agriculture.

Gasper, in his article, roots for high yielding seeds and notes that although they can be pricey, their returns can be high. He highlights how Monsanto and other biotech companies, notably Syngenta, plan to encourage Latin American and Asian countries (don’t know why he fails to mention Africa) to engage in technology-intensive farming using such high yielding seeds.

Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant is quoted as saying his company has a master plan to “…develop seeds that will double the yields of maize, soya beans and cotton by 2030 and require 30 per cent less water and other inputs to grow.” Well, this is an ambitious plan that has the potential to change the face of agriculture. And of course let’s not forget that it’s likely to arouse opposition from two traditional opponents of genetically modified foods: the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. This is expected. As long as such criticism is constructive and in the larger interest of farmers it should be entertained

But for it to succeed, countries, especially those in the developing world, will have to change their attitude toward new technologies. They’ll have to heed the advice of a group of scientists who recently met in Abuja, Nigeria, and resolved that agricultural technologies such as agricultural biotechnology could enhance food security.

Sphere: Related Content

Call on developing world to modernize agriculture

Today, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) is meeting in Rome, Italy, to discuss the worsening food crisis. The conference aims to find ways of dealing with the worsening global food crisis, which has hit the developing world worst. I hedge that delegates attending the conference will explore both long and short term solutions. When the conference winds up on June 5, I expect to hear that this and that country has pledged so many millions for food aid to countries mostly affected by food shortage, especially in Africa.

I assure you that I won’t be among those who’ll be wowed by these countries’ gesture of philanthropy. I’ve been in this game before, where - whenever hunger emerges in poor countries - shipments of corn, rice, cooking oil, high protein biscuits, beans, and other kinds of foodstuffs are rushed to the dying and/or emaciated populations.

What’s my expectation of the Rome conference? I read that the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, while officially opening the conference, mentioned how technology could enhance food security in poor countries. The official lamented that not enough has been done to modernize agriculture in poor countries. Rich countries, according to Mr. Ban, seem to pay more attention to short-term solutions such as providing relief food. I can’t help but agree here.

But there is more to this. Developing countries can’t escape the blame. Actually, they should shoulder the heaviest blame. While the rest of the world has been busy utilizing various technologies to increase food production, poor countries, especially those in Africa, have been paying leap service to the issue. So, we have farmers in Africa still practicing antiquated farming methods. They’re averse to new and better ideas, especially if they come from the West. They’re prone to view western innovations with suspicions, usually with the refrain that they’re attempts to re-colonize them.

Take the case of agricultural biotechnology. Genetically modified crops remain anathema to many African countries despite existing evidence that they’ve recorded success in countries where they’re currently grown, such as the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Brazil, China and even South Africa. Rather than listen to scientists, African countries pay attention to sometime erroneous and propagandist rhetoric from activist organizations. These groups inflame passions by claiming that genetically modified foods have not been tested and, therefore, are not fit for human consumption and pose threat to the environment. All these allegations cannot be scientifically verified.

A report recently released by the Japan-based United Nations University, for instance, bemoans the slow pace of adopting agricultural biotechnology in many developing countries. Entitled Internationally Funded Training in Biotechnology and Biosafety: Is it Bridging the Biotech Divide? the report decries lack of international funding for biosafety training in many developing countries. Where there’s little or no knowledge about biosafety issues, opposition to genetically modified crops is likely to be stiff. This is where African countries are. I echo Bank Ki-Moon’s advise that more resources be allocated to projects aimed at helping poor countries, such as those in Africa, to use modern agricultural technologies. This is the only and surest way of decisively fighting hunger and malnutrition in poor countries.

Sphere: Related Content