BIOTECHNOLOGY AND FOOD SECURITY

Biotechnology and Food Security



Biotechnology and Food Security

"Will Frankenfood Save the Planet" by Jonathan Rauch

Americans are experiencing some bad side-effects from the food we eat. But those effects result not from what we eat so much as from how much we eat. After munching for years on foods made from genetically modified crops, Americans, Africans, and others are doing just fine. That's a good thing because, as Jonathan Rauch shows, we will need to extend the Green Revolution greatly over the coming 50 years if we are to feed a growing global population at an ascending level of nutrition. Genetic engineering holds the key not only to multiplying current product levels several times over, but to solving a range of environmental woes.

Rauch's richly informative article takes us through instances of biotechnology as applied to agriculture, showing how genetically engineered crops can flourish where regular crops perish. These crops eliminate the need for ploughing, drastically reducing runoff and erosion, saving fuel and money while increasing yields. Without biotechnology, everyone agrees, we could not once again triple food output over the coming decades as we have since 1960. With biotechnology, that increase in output could be achieved, at least matching the growth in consumption until population most likely levels out around 2050 - after which we might actually reduce our “agricultural footprint”.

Not ploughing apparently allows the soil ecosystem to flourish and builds a foundation that holds soil and water in place preventing floods, runoff, and erosion. So this can lead to less fertilizer runoff and less irrigation. This can lead to better crop yields, to feed a growing population, and saves fuel used in ploughing. However, continuous no-till farming relies on pest-resistant genetically modified crops, to reduce pesticide use.

Recent public discourse would lead us to believe that organic farming is the way of the future, most notably for its health and environmental benefits. He says that organic farming uses manure (leading to contamination) and low-input farming (less chemicals) uses more land. He feels that government regulation can help deal with some of the negative consequences of genetically-modified crops.

I see validity in all his arguments, however, he fails to recognize that the increased use of herbicides may lead to other negative consequences, such as health effects in humans and animals and that the increased use of fuel and other resources related to herbicide production and application. Further, irrigation can lead to the drying of lakes and seas. So, surely, genetically-modified crops provide some benefits, such as a more reliable and productive food supply, but there are also potentials for unforeseen consequences. Organic farming favors the use of sustainable practices at the expense of productivity. Rauch does not see organic farming supporting the projected population growth.

I believe paradigm shifts, to include the use of biotechnology that Rauch sees, will only happen is there is sufficient evidence to show that the perceived risks associated with transgenic crops do not exist. Rauch sees genetically-modified crops as a food security ...