It's enough for everyone - but not for everything

Interview published in ETH-Magazin Studio!Sus, Originalartikel under http://www.studiosus.project21.ch

 

 

In your view, what are the main problems that are currently causing ca. one billion people to go hungry?

The main problem is that most of the hungry people are poor, now 1.2 billion, i.e., an increase of 300 million in the last 10 years. Although globally there is still sufficient food available, despite the food crisis, the crisis points clearly to a problem of access rather than availability of food, again at global level. One of the issues that is affecting hunger and poverty is the very low farm gate price of food (the latest increase in food prices has only marginally increased farm gate prices, and after deduction of the higher production costs, hardly any benefit accrued to the farmers).

As recently reported in the most comprehensive report on the status of agriculture at global and regional level, Agriculture at a Crossroads, lack of investment in agricultural research, education and extension, infrastructures and institutions in developing countries as well as counterproductive subsidy policies in the industrial countries and free trade agreements have left agriculture in the developing countries in a shambles.

 

The report states clearly what steps are needed, basically a radical change of agriculture related policies that will favor small and family farmers, rural livelihoods and the environment.

 

 

What is the potential of (green) genetic modification to contribute to solving the problem of hunger?

There is great known potential to produce more in a sustainable manner across the globe. We will however have to deal with not only increased needs in term of quantity, but also quality of food, feed and fiber, this with the added challenges of climate change, water shortages, land (lost to urbanization, biofuels and unsustainable ag practices) and energy scarcity and loss of biodiversity. The role of green, or for that matter any genetically modified crops, is very limited. So far GM food crops do not yield more and are making agriculture only slightly more efficient in industrial agricultural settings (as per the latest report from the US based Union of Concerned Scientists). What else does the biotech industry have in mind re green biotech? Drought tolerance? It has already been shown that drought tolerance is not a simple problem to solve, as multiple genes are involved. More progress has been made in the past 20 years with classical and marker assisted breeding, than with biotechnology. Other traits such as insect resistance are doomed from the beginning, as resistance will develop and the same vicious circle will develop as with the pesticides, i.e., permanent need to find new killing agents –in past pesticides, now genes. On the other hand we have very good integrated and biological solutions at hand already.

 

There maybe some hope, but many problems that plague GMOs today will remain, as in the perennization of crops, transformation from C3 to C4 plants (more efficient photosynthesis) and nitrogen fixation. Now it must be said that these traits can most probably also be achieved with classical breeding. But it is also to be noted that we get around these problems by using better crop rotation that will allow for nitrogen fixing crops to be part of a conservational agricultural cropping system. We need to take the system’s approach to develop a sustainable agriculture…all the solutions that gene technologies may provide will be of the "reductionism" type, unsuitable for the new paradigm that is needed to feed the world today and tomorrow.

 

 

What are the risks involved in genetic modification (in relation to securing world nutrition)?

The main risks are that we do not know enough about the ecological and health consequences of GM crops today. What may seem OK today may not be so in ten or twenty or fifty years. In particular knowing that today’s yield and other benefits are at best marginal in respect of the key development goals, there is no reason to deploy crops, the risks of which we know little about. As an example we can name the pesticides that were deemed safe at first and later banned…the list is very long indeed. So what have we learned from the past?

 

In my opinion, the money spent in developing GM crops would be much better spent in improving the overall agricultural system - from agronomy up – in terms of resilience and sustainability and thus assure food security for all in the long term. GM crops address symptoms and so only treat the symptoms and not the underlying causes of poor productivity. Water use, soil sciences and pest and disease management are the main areas that need attention, and it would be much better for the small scale farmers anyway, more affordable while giving them control over what they grow, how and when.

 

 

One of the main criticisms of genetic modification is the dependence it creates among small farmers upon large corporations. What is your opinion of this criticism? What, if any, opportunities exist to reduce this dependency or indeed prevent it from developing in the first place?

Yes the dependence of small scale farmers is an issue, not only in developing countries, but also in the industrial countries, where already countless farmers have been sued, and many losing their farms, by the biotech companies for patent infringement. It is like having one’s head in the sand to maintain the belief that GM crop seeds, just like hybrid seeds, can be given away for free. Although GM crop seeds would grow again into full crops unlike the hybrid seeds, they can only be free for so long in a capitalistic system. Eventually the companies that distribute these seeds will enforce patents sooner or later, making it difficult or impossible for farmers to keep seeds for the next season. This will also reduce diversity within the system - exactly what we do not want to happen - in times when more diversity within and across crops in needed, to cater for climate change, changing eating habits, and the need for more diverse and healthy nutrition.

 

 

What is the potential of organic farming to contribute to solving the problem of hunger?

Organic and ecological agriculture can not only feed the world today, but will be the only way to do it in the long term. It has been demonstrated time and time again, but still there is resistance to its spread, because it is based on a different agricultural model than the industrial one, where all is controlled from farm to plate by a few companies. Organic type agriculture builds it own soil fertility and is much less dependent on external energy. It also captures carbon instead of producing it….so in the end agriculture can and should be the part of the climate change solution, not the problem. By being more labor intensive and more remunerative than industrial ag, more people will be employed and better paid. Again a main point when one considers the key development goals.

 

Organic agriculture can and must become the system of choice around the world. It is not scale specific, and it can be done at small and large scale, as already demonstrated. Even if there is a small drop in production of certain crops per Ha, farm productivity will be higher at any rate with organic agriculture. In many areas of the worlds, where yields are low today, such as Africa, Eastern and Central Europe, Latin America and parts of Asia, there is great potential for immediate and substantial increase of productivity. This would help twofold, reduce need to import from US and EU ( so lower production is not even an issue, as we would have fewer surpluses) and more income would be generated in the regions that need the food and the money from the food!

 

 

Organic agriculture is accused of not being productive enough to feed the whole world. What is your opinion of this statement? The much-cited DOK experiment was carried out on Swiss soil. Can these results (which were very positive for organic farming) be transferred to other areas – in particular to those soils which are nutrient-poor? Or are there similar experiments taking place in other regions of the world?

As mentioned above this is nonsense. I have personal experience with this, as while I was at ICIPE in Nairobi, we managed to treble and quintuple maize yields in a sustainable and fully organic manner, over the longer term. So there is no doubt that organic can feed the world, and at that an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. Soil fertility has been restored through mixed cropping and the inclusion of animals on the farm.

 

Major deficiencies in key nutritional elements in the soil need to be addressed. These are often a lack of phosphate, which can be added in the form of rock phosphate for example. The model of agriculture that is developing in the industrial countries, which specializes in crop and animal production, has brought this continent apart and simply cannot work in the medium and long term.

 

People need to realize that there is a cost in producing cheap food. That cost is integrated in organic agriculture, because it has low externalities. That is by far not the case for industrially produced food, as everyone knows, but only few acknowledge. Industrial agriculture cannot survive without subsidies, hidden or not! In particular fertilizers and pesticides, as well as the novelties from science and technology are greatly subsidized. This is not the case for organic products, and even less so for research in organic agriculture, which is extremely low. Imagine what organic and ecological agriculture would look like in terms of soil fertility building and productivity, had it received only a fraction of the research that went into industrial agriculture.

 

Many farmers in various regions of the world see themselves already confronted with the effects of climate change (droughts, floods etc.). In all probability these effects will continue to grow in severity in the coming years.

 

 

7 How do you gauge the potential of organic agriculture, and genetic modification respectively, to combat these effects of climate change?

We need to increase the resilience of the agricultural system. That is only possible in a system that takes care of itself, a system where the natural resources that are limited are not mined, but replaced through natural cycles. That in turn can only be done with organic and ecologically sound practices. As elaborated further above, there is little scope here for biotech (GM crops) to help, in fact it may make matters worse, by limiting the needed crop diversity (it’s expensive to create a large number of varieties). Thinking in systems and making sure that the multifunctionality of agriculture is addressed will help. Reductionism will work against to goal of overcoming the climate change challenges. Furthermore, by providing support to farmers for ecosystem services, they will increase their income and so also improve the life supporting system at large, from which agriculture itself will benefit, but also the urban and rural dwellers. Nothing is free in this world, and air, water, landscape are also products from the farms, which the consumers will have to pay for. Better than distorting subsidies that benefit few and cause great harm to many.

 

 

8 The discussion of ‘organic farming’ versus ‘genetic modification’ is led partly by ideology, where it often comes to a question of ‘either-or’. But there are also voices that speak of ‘Eco-GM’ – a synthesis of organic farming and biotechnology, whereby genetically modified plants – with, for example, resistance to pests – will make the use of pesticides unnecessary. What do you think of these efforts?

Again, I have touched on this matter earlier…..We need to learn to work with the system, not against it. GM crops, just like the pesticides in the past, are the demonstration of control over nature. That has not worked and there is little evidence that it will in the future. However, there is ample evidence that co-operating with nature does work. Not to mention that I was involved in several projects that worked with nature, saved lives and the environment like no other (Cassava mealybug biological control). By taking shortcuts and using quick fixes, which GMOs do, we are setting the farmers and the consumer at risk in the long term, rather than reducing the risks and increasing the resilience and sustainability of the global ecosystem to provide for us today and tomorrow.

 

There are still open questions in the sphere of genetic modification as in organic agriculture.

 

 

Where do you perceive the greatest need for research in both areas?

In organic agriculture there is a need for more research in soil fertility restoration, maintenance and building; pest and disease management and increasing the diversity of crops: how to grow better, stronger and more nutritious crops. In all these areas, new molecular techniques and tools can be of great help to make rapid progress,

 

In the GM crop area, environmental safety and human health aspects need serious and unbiased research, as do the economic and social ones. Also, the claims of higher productivity need to be reassessed and the comparison cannot be the worst possible example of agronomic practice as can be found in many developing countries, but the best alternative practices, be they organic or commercial. We know next to nothing regarding the long term impact on the ecosystem and the existing natural pest and disease system, which are being impacted.

 

While we have decades of experience in organic agriculture we have a relatively short period, 20 years, of experience with a few GMOs. There are therefore many unknowns that should be researched before engaging this path, not the least because we don't actually need it….it does not produce more, or better food. So what’s the hurry, except the drive to profit at the expense of the poor and future generations.

 

Hans R Herren, June 25, 2009