COUNTRY CORNER
by Steve Fairchild
Farmers stupid, deluded or both?
Environmental activists are willing to smear farmers along with anything else they don’t like.
It’s well known that a group of representative and highly influential farmers meet up with chemical companies, Big Oil, on-the-take plant biologists and planners of the obesity epidemic each year to advance their mutual wicked intentions. There, somewhere in the famously backward hollows of Appalachia, a hooting mass of drunkenly devious hick Bilderbergs plans how it can tread heavy on the environment for the coming year.
Or at least that's what I’m picking up from the headlines, which is why I borrowed this column’s title from Ronald Bailey, author of Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution. In a recent post for reason.com, where he is science correspondent, Bailey speaks up for farmers by refuting a report called Who Benefits from GM Crops?, which was recently released by Friends of the Earth.
You might not be surprised to learn that the report claims biotech crops are bad. It suggests such crops yield less and harm poor farmers and the environment.
But Bailey refutes the report point by point, reminding the reader that glyphosate tolerance has actually reduced the amount of herbicide active ingredient in the environment and notes glyphosate’s relatively quick dissipation into organic soil compounds.
I bring the idea up in general terms because in the next few years, agriculturists will face increasing pressure from environmental groups, even while end-consumer benefits of biotech crops hit pace.
Bailey notes that one of the criticisms from groups like Friends of the Earth is that biotechnology is stagnate and the traits that have been commercialized benefit only the farmer—and the corporation selling them. Yet, as Bailey points out, the same groups fight ferociously to prevent any new biotech products from coming to market. That will change, says Bailey:
[Friends of the Earth] will soon not be able to make that hypocritical claim. Biotech researchers are now incorporating traits for drought resistance, salt tolerance, and one which enables plants to thrive on half a dose of nitrogen fertilizer. Crops with these traits will be particularly valuable for poor farmers in developing countries.
Bailey also has a reminder for Friends of the Earth claims about biotech industry consolidation, a situation that concerns farmers, too.
…Activists should look in the mirror to find the culprits behind this industry consolidation. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the number of startup and well-established seed companies that aimed to develop agricultural biotech exploded. But, as we’ve seen, biotech ran into a buzz saw of environmentalist opposition, especially in Europe. Consequently, since biotech seeds are relatively low in value compared to biomedical treatments, small crop biotech companies withered and the industry consolidated into fairly large companies.
We’ve said it before. When biotech traits begin to benefit consumers in a measurable way, the tide will turn on biotech public opinion. On the horizon, the trend toward healthy eating will meet with advances in biotech crops and consumers will begin to demand them. In that market environment, more companies will be interested in participating—unless groups like Friends of the Earth succeed in scaring the public, and more importantly, governments.
Farmers are neither stupid nor deluded, but the move to squelch the scientific advances of agriculture is both. Click the link to read Bailey’s post or buy his book.
The spruce up
We’ve redesigned the magazine. In a year when Today’s Farmer is celebrating its 100th anniversary of publishing, we decided it was time for a periodic update. The goal is to make reading Today’s Farmer a better experience while giving our editorial crew the environment it needs to efficiently deliver information. Let us know what you think. Send comments to todaysfarmer@mfa-inc.com.
Top of page
