Creating a Sustainable U.S. Agricultural System Memo: Genetically Modified Organisms, Production Scale, and Feasibility of Reform Proposals

Transcription

1 Shephard - 11/1/09 Page 1 Creating a Sustainable U.S. Agricultural System Memo: Genetically Modified Organisms, Production Scale, and Feasibility of Reform Proposals Genetically Modified Organisms: Necessary or Anathema to Sustainable Food Production? The World Health Organization cites improving crop protection as the initial reason behind the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The potential health concerns identified include allergic reactions, gene transfer from genetically modified foods to body cells or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, and outcrossing (migration of genetically modified genes to conventional crops or wild plants). Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) allow commonly held genetic resources to be patented as private property (upheld under TRIPS). IPRs have two key consequences for sustainable agriculture: 1) genetic diversity may be owned and, therefore, excludable; 2) essential and/or traditional genetic resources may be patented by outside actors denying free access to the original users, which may result in societal instability, and can contribute to malnutrition and economic insecurity. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization also published a paper on the ethics of agricultural intensification, which addresses the competing moral views of GMOs. 1 Several probable environmental impacts were also acknowledged, such as escape into the environment, genetic drift, persistence of the gene after the genetically modified crop is harvested, evolution of pests and diseases, susceptibility of nontarget organism, gene stability, loss of biodiversity, and increased use of agricultural chemical inputs. Sustainable agricultural systems require rich genetic diversity to dilute the impacts of pests and diseases on particular plant species. The shift to monocultures in much of the industrial world increases the potential damage that a disease or pest could cause to the food system. Under the premise that chemically enhanced and altered crops are more resistant to havoc than traditional varieties, many of the crops used in monoculture systems are genetically modified. 2 In addition to the health, property rights, and moral concerns associated with genetically modified foods, there are also socio-economic concerns. The primary beneficiary of GMO production and sale is not farmers, but seed, chemical-input, and development companies. Although GMOs are publicized as a solution for increased yields and agricultural profitability in developing and food insecure nations, the study by Price, et. al. concluded that the majority of the benefits are enjoyed by the United States: in 1997, the United States captured 94% of the $307.5 million in global surplus gain from genetically modified crops. 3 The primary argument in support of genetically modified crop production is that GMOs enable farmers to produce more food, at a faster pace without many traditional barriers (such as pests, diseases, etc). Using GMOs to achieve these goals are often cited as moral obligations by industry actors chemical companies, research labs, and seed producers. For example, Monsanto claims that its products have contributed to the amount of energy and water necessary to grow commodity crops, such as corn. 4 However, the energy, water, and other resources necessary to produce the chemical inputs that necessarily accompany genetically modified crop 1 United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. The Ethics of Sustainable Agriculture Intensification. 2 World Health Organization. 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods. 3 G.K. Price, et. al. The Size and Distribution of Market Benefits from Adopting Agricultural Biotechnology. 4

2 Shephard - 11/1/09 Page 2 production, and impacts on human health and non-market environmental goods and services are not accounted for. It is difficult to find literature on the positive effects of GMOs in relation to sustainable food production. One study appeared in Ecological Applications in The authors acknowledge the risks and consequences of genetically modified foods noted above. However, the authors assert that with a careful environmental risk assessment and comprehensive management strategy, genetically modified foods can be effectively cultivated. One benefit cited is the conservation tillage practices that may be promoted by using transgenic herbicide-tolerant crops. Use of some types of insecticides and herbicides may decrease because pest resistance is built into the crops. However, other types of pesticides may be needed. The net effect is ambiguous because it varies greatly by geographic region. The paper focuses on primarily on management strategies, analyzing the costs and benefits of GMOs appropriately, and risk analysis; consequently, does not offer any groundbreaking information on environmental benefits of GMOs. 5 The Royal Society published the most recent study on the issue in early October. The report reiterates the eight primary drivers for chronic food insecurity: 6 Increasing population Changing and converging consumption patterns Increasing per capita incomes, leading to increased resource consumption Growing demand for livestock product (meat and dairy), particularly those fed on grain Growing demand for biofuels Increasing water and land scarcity Adverse impacts of climate change Slowing of increases in agricultural productivity The report also features a very helpful diagram of the complex interactions at play on page 5. The definition of sustainability used in the Royal Society s consideration of the issue relies on the following four principles of sustainability and corresponding concepts attributable to a sustainable production system: 7 Goals Persistence: the capacity to continue to deliver desired outputs over long period of time (human generations), thus conferring predictability Resilience: the capacity to absorb, utilize, or even benefit from perturbations (shocks and stresses), and so persist without qualitative changes in structure Autarchy: the capacity to deliver desired outputs from inputs and resources (factors of production) acquired from within key system boundaries Corresponding System Features Utilizes crop varieties and livestock breeds with high productivity per externally derived input Avoids the unnecessary use of external inputs Harnesses agroecological processes such as nutrient cycling, biological nitrogen fixation, allelopathy, predations, and parasitism Minimizes the use of technologies or practices that have adverse impacts on the environment and human health 5 A. A. Snow, et. al. Genetically Engineered Organisms and the Environment: Current Status and Recommendations, Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society. (London: October 2009), 1. 7 Ibid., 7.

3 Shephard - 11/1/09 Page 3 Benevolence: the capacity to produce desired output (food, fibre, fuel, oil) while sustaining the functioning of ecosystem services and not causing depletion of natural capital (e.g. minerals, biodiversity, soil, clean water) Makes productive use of human capital in the form of knowledge and capacity to adapt and innovate and social capital to resolve common landscape-scale problems Quantifies and minimizes the impacts of system management on externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions, clean water availability, carbon sequestration, conservation of biodiversity, and dispersal of pests, pathogens, and weeds The Royal Society s report assesses the several types of the genetic technologies available. There is a consensus that genetic analysis and genome sequencing is a valuable tool for both traditional plant breeding and molecular genetic modification, and for developing crop management changes. The potential for changes in management strategies to combat abiotic stress (non-living factor impacts, e.g. drought, salinity, heat, toxic metals) is also investigated. These changes may be non-technical, e.g. conservation agriculture, intercropping, and protecting plants by mixing specific species, or technical, such as genetic modifications for drought tolerance, which have not been field tested yet. Challenging biotic stressors include weeds, pests, and diseases. Integrated pest management strategies may include genetic changes and/or limited use of chemical inputs (either within the plant itself or via physical application). There is currently research aimed at developing crop protection chemicals that activate and/or enhance the natural resistance mechanisms in plants. This is a very different type of science from the current norm of inserting synthetic herbicides or pesticides into species (for an example, see Small firm's large find: Seed raises bean yields 8 ). A final option is the use of sterile insects to control pests during plant growth, transportation, and storage. 9 A review of the past twenty-years of GMO use in agriculture was conducted earlier this year by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report concluded that genetically modified soy has not increased yields in comparison to traditional soy, and that genetically modified corn (BT) has only increased yields slightly. When reviewing genetically modified crops as a group, Gurian- Sherman determined that the intrinsic yield (potential yield assuming ideal conditions) has not increased at all by using GMOs. The operation yield (normal field conditions) has increased approximately 3 to 4% as a result of GMOs, but 24 to 25% as a result of improved farming practices and advancements in traditional crop breeding. Other experimental high yield varieties have not yet demonstrated success. For a comprehensive review on this subject, check Failure to Yield. 10 The New York Times recently hosted a debate on the ability of GMOs to a) feed the world, and b) produce food in a sustainable manner. The debate is increasing as countries prepare for the 2009 World Summit on Food Security (November 16-18, Rome) 11. A quote from Raj Patel, participant in the New York Times debate, caught my eye as particularly relevant: The U.S. leads the world in genetically modified agricultural technology, yet one in eight Americans is 8 Dan Piller. Small firm's large find: Seed raises bean yields. Des Moines Register. October 24, Ibid., Gurian-Sherman, Doug. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Union of Concerned Scientists. 11

4 Shephard - 11/1/09 Page 4 hungry. Last year, with bumper harvests, more than a billion people ate less than 1,900 calories per day. The cause of hunger today isn t a shortage of food it s poverty. 12 Production System Merits: Local, Small-Scale or Larger, Concentrated Production? Local food production systems are not necessarily sustainable. The types of agricultural practices employed on individual farms (organic, no-till, etc.) determine whether the system can be categorized as sustainable or not. There are several positive effects of local food production and purchase. First, regardless of production practices, decreased distance, transportation emissions, and packaging in comparison to food produced in other regions or areas of the world. Second, supporting local farmers ensures that farm revenues are accumulated in the same communities, sustaining community economic foundations (e.g. employment, profits). Farmers receive a larger percentage of the revenues because there are less middlemen to compensate. Third, farmers typically have a strong connection to the land. If the community that they live and work in supports them, farmers may be more likely to employ sustainable practices. Conventional agricultural practices are characteristic of many small farms. Tillman, et. al. raise several discussion points regarding the scalability of conventional and organic production in Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. There is a serious need for an increase in fertilizer efficiency because fertilizer application has diminishing returns and ecosystems are suffering the effects of nitrogen and phosphorus overload (e.g. eutrophication). There is some skepticism surrounding the idea of relying only organic nutrient sources as fertilizer for large-scale operations. Organic sources release nutrients slower than synthetic inputs, so it is unclear if organic fertilizers will be able to meet nutrient supply needs for increased crop production. Diverse crop systems may have an advantage over monocultures in this area because different species of crops are able to absorb and use different concentrations and combinations of nutrients. A second point of debate is soil tillage. Tilling the soil increases decomposition rates, allowing organic nutrients to be broken down and enter the soil faster. However, tillage also leads to erosion, nutrient loss, and decreased soil quality. 13 A change of incentives is needed to move the world from an agricultural system that favors increased production over decreasing environmental impacts. Improving research and knowledge at the farm level is important, but essentially the structure of the market determines the method of production. Removing subsidies, implementing new regulations, and taxing unsustainable practices are supply-side solutions. Consumer incentives, such as education, labeling, and change in the pricing structure address the demand-side of the problem. Both types of solutions are needed to achieve a system of sustainable agriculture that maximizes net benefits. The market value of essential environmental goods and services is typically not attainable, which often leads to a value of zero substituted for the true value. 14 Feasibility of Reform Proposals: Productive Capacity Under Proposed Sustainable Systems 12 Editors. Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger? New York Times. October 26, David Tilman, et. al. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices, David Tilman, et. al. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices, 675.

5 Shephard - 11/1/09 Page 5 Organic low productivity myths were addressed in a twenty-one year study conducted in Sweden that examined agronomic and ecological performance of biodynamic, bioorganic, and conventional farming systems in Central Europe. The authors found that the yields of organic crop systems were approximately 20% lower than conventional systems. In the organic systems, fertilizer and energy inputs were reduced by 34-53% and pesticide input was reduced by 97%. The soil in the organic plots was more fertile and biodiversity was higher, which the authors concluded may cause organic systems to be less dependent on external inputs. The improved quality of the soil is arguably the most important result because it will sustain crops for years to come. 15 World Watch completed a comprehensive review in 2005 of other studies addressing the organic productive capacity question. Bill Liebhart, University of California-Davis, reviewed data from 154 growing seasons in both rain-fed and irrigated land in the United States. He found that organic corn yields were 94% of conventional corn yields, organic wheat yields were 97%, and organic soybean yields were 94% of conventional yields. Yield comparisons of organic and conventional tomatoes revealed no difference. Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine, University of Essex, analyzed over 200 projects in developing nations that converted to organic and ecological farming practices. Their study determined that of the 9 million farms and 30 million hectacres surveyed, yields increased an average of 93% over previous yields under conventional systems. A 2007 study sponsored by the University of Michigan used 293 examples to analyze the impacts of organic and conventional production methods on yields in both the developed and developing world. 16 The study determined that the average organic yield was slightly less than the yield of conventional crops in the developed world and slightly more than the yield of conventional crops in the developing world Paul Mäder, et. al. Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming, Catherine Badgley, et. al. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. (Cambridge University Press, Vol. 22, 2007). 17 Brian Halweil. Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?

6 Shephard - 11/1/09 Page 6 Works Cited 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods. Food Safety World Health Organization. Agricultural biotechnology: will it help? FAO Newsroom. March Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Badgley, Catherine, Jeremy Moghtader, Eileen Quintero, Emily Zakem, M. Jahi Chappell, Katia Avilés-Vázquez, Andrea Samulon, and Ivette Perfecto. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. Cambridge University Press, Vol. 22 (2007): DOI: /S Corporate Responsibility. Monsanto Company Editors. Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger? New York Times. October 26, The Ethics of Sustainable Agriculture Intensification. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization Gurian-Sherman, Doug. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Union of Concerned Scientists. April Halweil, Brian. Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? World Watch Institute. World Watch Magazine (May/June 2006). Mäder, Paul, Andreas Fliebach, David Dubois, Lucie Gunst, Padruot Fried, and Urs Niggli. Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science, Vol. 296, No (31 May 2002): DOI: /science Piller, Dan. Small firm's large find: Seed raises bean yields. Des Moines Register. October 24, Price, G.K., W. Lin, J.B. Falck-Zepeda, and J. Fernandez-Cornejo. The Size and Distribution of Market Benefits from Adopting Agricultural Biotechnology. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Technical Bulletin No November Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society. London: October Snow, A.A., D. A. Andow, P. Gepts, E. M. Hallerman, A. Power, J. M. Tiedje, L. L. Wolfenbarger. Genetically Engineered Organisms and the Environment: Current Status and Recommendations. Ecological Applications, Vol. 15, No. 2 (April 2005): DOI: / Swaminathan, M.S. Can science and technology feed the world in 2025? Field Crops Research, Vol. 104, Issues 1-3 (October-December 2007): 3-9. DOI: /j.fcr Tilman, David, Kenneth G. Cassman, Pamela A. Matson, Rosamond Naylor, and Stephen Polasky. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, Vol. 418 (August 2002):