A co-founder of Greenpeace speaks in favor of one of the things the organization has most vehemently opposed over the years. Dr. Patrick Moore was the keynote speaker at this week’s Manitoba Special Crops Symposium in Winnipeg.

Moore served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada, and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization. You could say since that time his perspective on sustainability and environmental responsibility has changed somewhat.

He was asked about genetically modified crops, something he describes as one of the most important scientific advancements society has made. That’s why he is particularly concerned about Greenpeace’s success in blocking the introduction of Golden Rice, a GM crop.

“Other GM rice varieties are able to eliminate micronutrient deficiency in the rice eating countries, which afflicts hundreds of million people, and actually causes between a quarter and half a million children to go blind and die young each year because of vitamin A deficiency because there is no beta carotene in rice,” says Moore. “We can put beta carotene in rice through genetic modification, but Greenpeace has blocked this.”

Moore says this is a crime against humanity because they are preventing the curing of people who are dying by the hundreds of thousands a year due to vitamin A deficiency.

He says another example of the positives genetically modified crops provide is they’ve allowed agriculture to do things it couldn’t do otherwise, for example growing soybeans that produce omega-3 fatty acids. He says this will be a boon for the aquaculture industry, vastly increasing its feedstock.

“One of the limitations on aquaculture is that fish and shellfish need omega-3 fats, and the best place to get them is from fishmeal, but fishmeal is a limited supply,” says Moore. “But if we can grow soybeans and other terrestrial crops that have the foods necessary for fish production, we can vastly increase aquaculture.”

Patrick Moore is the author of Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.

Fortune magazine’s Marc Gunther wrote a blog this week about the growing adoption of  biotech crops and the debate over their use:

The debate over biotech crops has become predictable. In his 2012 annual letter from the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, who has a near-religious faith in technology and innovation, argues that an “extremely important revolution” in plant science, i.e., genetically-engineered crops, can help farmers in poor countries by giving them access to new varieties of crops that will better resist disease and adapt to climate change.

Soybeans

Days later, the Center for Food Safety, a Washington watchdog group and persistent critic of Big Ag, pushed back, saying that biotech crops had failed to deliver on their promise to alleviate hunger, and that Gates would do better to support low-cost “agroecological techniques” that don’t depend on patented, genetically-engineered seeds.

…The voices of farmers are rarely heard in these debates. (They’re probably working too hard.) But data released this week indicates farmers, through their actions, are voting for biotech crops. Last year, farmers planted an additional 12 million hectares of biotech crops, an increase of 8 percent over 2010, according to the annual biotech crop report of the ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications).

Why do more farmers every year plant biotech crops? Critics of genetically-modified crops will say they are tricked into it by marketing or lack of knowledge or short-termism, and it’s certainly true that the popularity of a product is not a reliable indicator of its value (ABBA sold more records than the Rolling Stones. People smoke cigarettes.). But if biotech crops didn’t make farmers more productive, or save them time or money, would they spread around the world as consistently as they have?

…click here to read the full article.

Watch a Q&A with Bill Gates in which he discusses biotech crops:

Bill Gates has a terse response to criticism that the high-tech solutions he advocates for world hunger are too expensive or bad for the environment:  Countries can embrace modern seed technology and genetic modification or their citizens will starve.

When he was in high school in the 1960s, people worried there wouldn’t be enough food to feed the world, Gates recalled in his fourth annual letter, which was published online on January 24 and reported on by the AP in the Huffington Post. But the “green revolution,” which transformed agriculture with high-yield crop varieties and other innovations, warded off famine.

Gates is among those who believe another, similar revolution is needed now. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent about $2 billion in the past five years to fight poverty and hunger in Africa and Asia, and much of that money has gone toward improving agricultural productivity.

Gates doesn’t apologize for his endorsement of modern agriculture or sidestep criticism of genetic modification. He told the Associated Press that he finds it ironic that most people who oppose genetic engineering in plant breeding live in rich nations that he believes are responsible for global climate change that will lead to more starvation and malnutrition for the poor.

In his 24-page letter, the Microsoft Corp. chairman lamented that more money isn’t spent on agriculture research and noted that of the $3 billion spent each year on work on the seven most important crops, only 10 percent focuses on problems in poor countries.

“Given the central role that food plays in human welfare and national stability, it is shocking – not to mention short-sighted and potentially dangerous – how little money is spent on agricultural research,” he wrote in his letter, calling for wealthier nations to step up.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced that the Government of Japan approved Hawaii’s Rainbow papaya for commercial shipment to Japan. The Rainbow papaya is genetically engineered to be resistant to the papaya ringspot virus. This announcement marks the beginning of a new chapter for Hawaiian papaya growers.

“The market opening in Japan is great news for Hawaii’s papaya producers and even better news for American agricultural exports,” said Michael Scuse, Acting Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.

In the 1990s, an outbreak of the papaya ringspot virus decimated Hawaii’s papaya crop.  Scientists from Cornell University, the University of Hawaii, The Upjohn Company and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service used biotechnology to develop the Rainbow papaya, which is resistant to the virus.  After receiving full clearance from the U.S. government, the Rainbow papaya was commercialized in 1998.  Now, the majority of Hawaii’s papaya crop is resistant to ringspot virus through genetic engineering.

“The story of the genetically engineered Rainbow papaya is a prime example of how biotechnology can help farmers and consumers by literally saving the Hawaiian papaya industry from extinction,” says BIO’s President and CEO Jim Greenwood.  “This announcement ensures that Hawaii’s papaya producers will continue to help grow our nation’s agricultural sector by expanding exports, creating jobs, and strengthening our nation’s eceonomy.”

Japan was once the major market for Hawaiian papayas, with annual sales reaching $15 million in 1996. These sales dropped to $1 million by 2010 while U.S. exporters awaited Japan’s approval of Rainbow papaya.  With Japan’s approval for import of Rainbow papaya, U.S. papaya producers are set to regain access to this important market, supporting jobs through increased exports.

After much debate, Boulder County commissioners sided with science and voted to allow some biotech crops to be grown on county-owned land.

Six farmers leasing the county land came forward in December 2008 seeking permission to plant herbicide tolerant sugarbeets. After more than two years of hearings, protests, studies, and debates, policy that includes a decision on GMOs was approved.

“With our adoption of the Boulder County Cropland Policy on Dec. 20 we believe we have taken some very positive steps toward a more sustainable future for agriculture in the county we love and call home,” said Commissioners Cindy Domenico, Ben Pearlman, and Will Toor in a statement published in Boulder’s Daily Camera.

“As local farmers have moved to genetically engineered corn and sugarbeets, we have seen reductions in the toxicity and amount of pesticide and herbicide used, as well as reductions in erosion and runoff.  We have also seen significant increases in yield coupled with a decreasing carbon footprint resulting from fewer passes across the field.”

The Colorado Daily reports that both sides of the debate had a large turnout for the public hearing, with farmers organizing to make their point that the benefits of genetically modified corn and sugarbeets outweigh the risks.

The Boulder County Business Report also covered the issue in a December 21 article.

What’s important in this situation is that farmer choice is protected.  Coexistence is alive and well in Boulder, with large and small farms sitting side-by-side. Farmers growing biotech crops, organic crops and conventional crops can utilize both private and public land to the betterment of the community.  This case proves – once again – that sound agricultural policy is not black and white, winners and losers and either/or.  It’s about farmers and the community working together so that all forms of agriculture can contribute to goals of sustainability.

The journal Nature recently published an article authored by Calestous Juma, director of the Agricultural Innovation in Africa Project at the Harvard Kennedy School.

To survive the droughts, wars and other major causes of famine, Africa must embrace technologies that enable it to produce more, better food with less effort.

Juma argues, “if African countries can’t plant genetically modified crops to produce more and healthier food, vulnerable populations will be at risk.”

Indeed, without the advances in molecular biology and other scientific fields that occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, African nations would be much worse off than they are now. Without this Green Revolution, which enabled developing nations to import cheaper grains and grow high-yield seed varieties, analysts estimate that crop yields in developing countries would have been 23.5 percent lower and prices between 35 percent and 66 percent higher in 2000.

Caloric intake would have dropped by up to 14.4 percent, and the proportion of malnourished children would have increased by nearly 8 percent. Put another way, the Green Revolution helped to raise the nutritional status of up to 42 million preschool children in developing countries.

These tools were a great help to African nations in the previous century, but they are not sufficient to help Africa’s agriculture survive what is coming: rising population and loss of productivity brought on by ecological disruptions such as environmental degradation and frequent droughts.

To weather these changes, African nations must be open to new biotechnology tools that allow farmers to grow crops that have even higher yields and a higher nutritional content, and which can withstand biological and physical stresses.

At present, only a few African countries are allowed to grow genetically modified (GM) crops, partly because of restrictive national biosafety policies that impose excessive regulatory barriers to the adoption of agricultural biotechnology. This must change.

The Wilmington News Journal’s recent article, “GMOs: 10 Simple Questions (and Some Surprising Answers)” garnered a lot of attention on both sides of the debate around biotech foods.  Among the responses, a thoughtful piece authored by Pioneer Hi-Bred president Paul Schickler was published in the paper’s Sunday edition:

Biotech crops are perhaps the most stringently regulated aspect of agriculture – held to the highest level of analysis and scrutiny. They are regulated by three federal agencies – the USDA, the FDA and the EPA. The National Academies of Science, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the American Dietetic Association and the American Medical Association all agree that biotech foods are as safe as foods grown with conventionally bred seeds.

“As I have met with farmers and others around the world working to improve access to food, it is readily apparent that the tools farmers need to feed the 7 billion people on our planet today goes well beyond seed. They need information on best practices. They need credit and crop insurance. They need adequate roads and access to viable markets. They need holistic, sustainable local solutions.

“Enabling farmers to meet the challenge of feeding the 9 billion people expected by 2050 will require all of us – scientists, farmers, philanthropists, businesses, governments and NGOs – to work together to find local solutions to the global issues we face.

Click here to read the full article.

This week we’ve seen a lot of big numbers in the news headlines:  7 Billion, 3 Billion, and 150.  What is special about these numbers?  These three numbers actually tell a very compelling story about the importance of agricultural biotechnology.

On Sunday, October 30, our world’s seventh billion person was born.  In the UK newspapers the Telegraph and the Independent, science editor Michael Hanlon explains the challenges facing “baby seven billion,” Manila’s Danica May Camacho.

“Since 1880, the world population has doubled and doubled again, and this has changed the face of the planet,” writes Hanlon.  “I know that to stand a chance of keeping an extra two or three billion people fed, watered and sheltered in the decades ahead without completely ruining our planet, we are going to have to abandon our bizarre, decadent aversion to ‘risky’ new technologies…Why do we reject the technology that would put food on the plates of the poorest?”

On Friday, November 4, a farmer somewhere in the world – probably in South America where Spring planting has begun – made agricultural history by planting the world’s 3 billionth acre of biotech crops.

Brazilian farmer Richard Franke Dijkstra, a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network, authored an editorial this week commemorating this milestone.

“How big is 3 billion acres?  It’s bigger than the Amazon rainforest. It’s bigger than all of Brazil. It’s big enough to say with absolute certainty that biotechnology is now a thoroughly conventional variety of agriculture.  We often talk about biotechnology as a part of our future, but let’s also recognize that it has become an indelible feature of our present because 3 billion acres of it are now a part of our past.”

Also this week, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack kicked a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  President Abraham Lincoln signed a law establishing the Agriculture Department in 1862.

Lincoln recognized the potential of America’s farmers to find new ways to cultivate the land and that with advances in research and technology.  It is that investment in research and technology – including better and more modern farming practices and use of biotechnology and better seeds – that has made American farmers the most productive in the world.

To provide for seven billion people, the world will need a lot more than three billion acres of biotech crops, but it’s a good start.  As we celebrate the 150^th anniversary of the USDA, let’s remember that our farmers’ willingness to adapt to technology and modern innovation is what has sustained this planet, and will continue to do so in the years ahead.

By Ab Basu, Executive Vice President (Acting), Food and Agriculture, Biotechnology Industry Organization

Here in the United States, Food Day (October 24, 2011) can be a day to recognize the achievements of American agriculture. We can – and should – celebrate our nation’s farmers, who consistently provide a safe, reliable and affordable food supply. Even during a current weak economy, agriculture is one sector that is thriving. In America, agriculture is a tremendous success story.

Sadly, this is not the case in other countries around the world. In a recent speech at Iowa State University, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack agreed that America’s farmers are the most productive in the world.

“There are 925 million people in the world, on the globe, today that are undernourished. When you consider the challenge we face over the next 30 to 40 years, with the world population increasing and the need for food having to increase by 70 percent in order to feed that ever-increasing world population, you can see that we are facing a serious long-term challenge,” Vilsack said.

In approaching the problem, the USDA has three guiding principles: the first has to do with embracing innovation; the second principle is that increased productivity should not negatively affect the sustainability of natural resources. Vilsack said it is important to the USDA to focus on strategies that allow the world’s farmers to do more with less.

When it comes to agricultural innovation and allowing the world’s farmers to do more with less, biotechnology is key. The success of the Green Revolution in the mid-twentieth century was brought about by using elements of biotechnology to promote research, development and technology transfer initiatives in developing countries.

I remember growing up in India and going to the market as a child. I saw first-hand the fear and chaos that comes from food insecurity. India – at that time – had the world’s largest food deficit. Now, India is a leading food exporter. That’s a great story to tell, and it’s because India adapted to technology and began using crop varieties that produced better yields.

Access to scientific advances such as agricultural biotechnology, including seed varieties that are insect-resistant or herbicide-tolerant can improve the productivity of important staple crops. For example, the average yields of U.S. biotech corn varieties in 2010 were 30 percent higher than average corn yields prior to 1996 – the year biotech varieties were first planted.

Future innovations such as drought tolerance will enable farmers to be productive despite the challenges associated with climate change. Nutritionally enhanced foods such as biotech cassava and Golden Rice will enable millions of children in developing countries to lead healthier lives.

You might hear about debates over food politics: Anti-technology activists arguing for changes to food labeling policies or organic proponents advertising that their products are safer or healthier. Personally, I don’t have anything against organic food – except the price – but the fact is, it’s not safer or healthier than conventionally raised foods or foods grown using modern agricultural biotechnology. The world’s leading scientific authorities have documented this fact for more than two decades.

Frankly, these types of political debates take away attention from REAL food production problems. Coordinated by the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the aim of World Food Day (October 16, 2011) was to look seriously at what causes swings in food prices, and do what needs to be done to reduce their impact on the weakest members of global society.

Rising food prices and food insecurity is a growing challenge. In a report released this month, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and World Food Programme (WFP) warned that today’s high and volatile food prices are likely to continue and possibly even increase. All three organizations called on the international community to address this situation by working to improve farm productivity through better seeds.

It is critical we provide farmers around the world with the same scientific tools and knowledge available that American farmers have. And let’s keep the food debate focused on basic human needs. Consumers everywhere deserve a safe, reliable and affordable food supply. No child should go to sleep hungry. And in our quest to increase agricultural production, we must protect and conserve our natural resources. Biotechnology has already made huge strides towards those goals.

For more information on this issue, click here.

The Anchorage Daily News ran an editorial authored by California Farmer and Alaska fisherman Ted Sheely about the still-pending approval of the genetically engineered salmon.

Sheely says some politicians in Washington think they have identified a threat to the pristine Alaska wilderness.

These members of Congress are trying to force the federal government to slow down or stop a technology company that has figured out a way to make salmon less expensive for ordinary consumers.  If they succeed, they’ll destroy jobs, raise prices and place new pressures on wild fish populations.

Click here to read more of this October 5 editorial.