Biotechnology

Dear Sir, How do you figure GM crops are minimizing dangerous chemicals? Most are designed to be Round Up resistant so that the crops can be sprayed with massive amounts of the weed killer Round Up. Even as we speak there are weeds that are becoming more and more resistant to Round Up so now an even stronger more dangerous weed killer will need to be developed. How about the sudden increase in severe food born allergies that seem to coincide with the appearance of GM crops? What about the loss of bio-diversity in planted crops or that GM crops cross-pollinate with non GM crops then making them produce GM crops? Natural selection has worked for millions of years so why tamper with it. It is all about making corporations money not feeding the worlds hungry. We replace their native crops with non native GM crops that they have to buy the seeds and can not save seeds to reuse. In most cases these GM crops need more water, weed killers and insecticides that have to be purchased from the same company that developed the GM crops, boy that seems pretty convenient.

Dear Sir,
It seems to me that the pro and the con are debating different propositions. Miss Ronald has laid a fairly clear groundwork for what she is defending, and it seems as though Mister Benbrook concedes this ground in his opening lines. I agree with most of the claims laid out by the opposition, but feel as though it merely encourages a reevaluation of how we use biotechnology, and does little to negate the motion.

I suppose it is productive in that the well reasoned people on either side of the issue see change as necessary, and my guess is that as the debate progresses, both Ronald and Benbrook will largely agree on what sorts of changes ought to occur.

Perhaps the more productive question would have been: How can we shift the current practices dominated by corporate agriculture?

Drew

Dear Sir,

"In Argentina, HT soyabeans have displaced 4.6m hectares of diverse crops and pasture, reducing local access to a healthy, diverse diet."

Charles Benbrook is spectacularly wrong on this one!

Argentina exports the vast majority of its agricultural production, its variety (or lack thereof) has no discernible impact on the health or diversity of the Argentine diet.

Most Argentines live in cities, 15 out of 40 million in Buenos Aires alone, and I'd bet that less than 1% would recongnize a soybean if they saw one.

In spite of the well documented political/economic problems of our beloved country, the farming sector is privately owned/operated and "world class", all the way from the farmers to the crushing plants.

Even with export taxes at about 40% this sector continues to thrive and compete worldwide.

In great measure this is due to the quick and widespread adoption of GM crops. And the agricultural sector in this country is still one of the most sustainable in the world.

I would argue that the wealth the GM crops have produced for Argentina, has made a major contribution towards the health and diversity of our diet, quite the opposite of Mr. Benbrook's argument.

If you were looking for the poster-child of how biotech can complement sustainable agriculture Argentina's farming sector would be one of your best candidates!

José Fernández-Calvo
Associate Professor of Industrial Strategies in Biotechnology. Universidad Argentina de la Empresa.

Dear Sir,

I am a farmer. I care, very deeply, about sustainability. Why? Because farms are capital intensive businesses, and sustainable farming in effect sustains the value of sunk capital.

How do I know what is sustainable? Reading the livers of pigeons? No. Science. Specifically, the life sciences, including advanced manifestations generally called biotechnology (something of a misnomer - a shepherd's crook is biotechnology in the true sense of the word).

Let us not lump all biotechnology in with GM crops (of which I am extremely suspicious owing to effects which biotechnology lets us confirm and measure, such as genes jumping species) and respect it for what it does and can do best: give me, and my fellow farmers, sorely needed information to ensure sustainability.

As has been pointed out before, the limit to feeding people isn't agricultural productivity (within reason), but logistics. If you want to feed the whole world, reach the whole world, and make sure that the incentives in place encourage sustainable farming, for instance by avoiding estate taxes which force farms to periodically change hands and consequently induce shorter term thinking.

Dear Sir,

Without an iota of doubt, biotec crops will go a long way towards solving the food security problems in developing nations. Scientific publications have shown that a considerable number of farmers are adopting GM crops and they are mostly from developing countries. It goes to show that the technology is working for them in terms of socio-ecomonic contributions and limited use of pesticides and herbicides, hence reducing green house gases emission. As as a Biotechnoloist from Africa, will encourage the African government to embrace the technology for sustainable agricultural development.