Author: Jules Pretty
Director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University
of Essex, Colchester
The Guardian Weekly Volume 160 Issue 11 for week ending March 14, 1999, Page 26
MONSANTO, one of the greatest advocates of genetically modified (GM) crops, says that agricultural biotechnology will play a major role in realising the hope we all share for feeding the world in the next century. Accepting this science, it argues, will make a "dramatic difference in millions of lives". But will it? The world population is 5.9 billion people. It will stabilise somewhere between 8-11 billion, with most growth occurring in the poorer countries. Today, 800 million people are hungry. Food production will have to increase, otherwise we could be faced with crises of epic proportions.
Solving hunger is not simply a matter of developing new technologies. The world already produces enough food to provide everyone with a nutritious and adequate diet -- on average, 350kg of cereal per person. Why so many people are hungry is important, as it tells us what type of improved agriculture should best be promoted, and where this should happen. Some cereal is turned into meat, milk and other animal products, which is energetically inefficient and reduces the total amount of food available.
But a more important factor is that most hungry people simply do not have the money to buy the food they need. And if poor farmers cannot afford expensive "modern" technologies, no amount of GM technology developed by companies or research establishments seeking to make a financial return will make any difference for them. But things could be different if farmers had alternatives that were cheap, renewable from year to year, and yet still improved their productivity.
Slowly sustainable agriculture is sweeping the world's farming systems. This is farming that makes the best use of nature's free goods and services while not damaging the environment. It does this by integrating natural processes such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration and pest predators into food production processes. It minimises the use of non-renewable inputs (pesticides and fertilisers) that damage the environment or harm the health of farmers and consumers. And it makes better use of the knowledge and skills of farmers. The best evidence comes from those countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America which are believed to be most in need of GM technologies. Where whole communities have been involved in the complete redesign of farming and other local economic activities, regenerative technologies and practices are hugely beneficial for both farmers and rural environments.
First, sustainable farming is taking root in the resource-poor areas, which have remained largely untouched by the modern technologies of the past 40 years. The dividend is per-hectare food output increases of up to threefold. The second spread is occurring in the higher-input systems, where the so-called "green revolution" has already had an impact on food output, but where there are concerns over high pesticide use. The dividend comes from reducing the use of pesticides -- replaced by natural predators, habitat redesign, and multiple cropping -- while increasing yields by, typically, 10 per cent. What is remarkable is that many of the improvements are occurring in resource-poor areas that had hitherto been assumed to be incapable of producing food surpluses. Highlights include:
Thousands of community-level initiatives are now illustrating that if farmers are involved in technology development, they can substantially improve the food outputs from farming without damaging nature. Many of these countries are pointing to an alternative future, with sufficient food for all, produced in ways that do not damage the environment. Such a future may involve some GM technology -- such as nematode-resistant bananas or virus-resistant rice -- provided we are convinced these are safe, do not damage the environment, and that they are supplied to farmers at low or zero cost.
or
or