CEI Senior Fellow Greg Conko discusses his recent trip to Kenya where he met with members of Parliament and other officials about the best way to regulate the introduction of genetically modified crops to the country.
farming
The UK Royal Society’s long-awaited study on improving agricultural productivity and increasing food security was released this morning. Although I’ve only had a chance to skim the report, it seems to have lived up to its promise of eschewing politically correct pop-environmentalism and instead embracing the use of science and technology for producing more food on less land. The report acknowledges that farming is an inherently un-natural and ecologically disruptive endeavor. But, it suggests that a healthy concern for protecting the environment necessitates the greater adoption of sophisticated agricultural technologies, including fertilizers, pesticides, and bioengineered (or GM) crops. Why? Because protecting the environment will require growing vastly more food without bringing new land into agriculture–what the report calls “sustainable intensification.”
“Past debates about the use of new technologies for agriculture have tended to adopt an either/or approach, emphasising the merits of particular agricultural systems or technological approaches and the downsides of others. This has been seen most obviously with respect to genetically modifi ed (GM) crops, the use of pesticides and the arguments for and against organic modes of production. These debates have failed to acknowledge that there is no technological panacea for the global challenge of sustainable and secure global food production. There will always be trade-offs and local complexities. This report considers both new crop varieties and appropriate agroecological crop and soil management practices and adopts an inclusive approach.”
Ask people who buy organic food what they like about it, and chances are, most will say “they’re grown without pesticides.” As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that’s not actually true. While organic farmers do not use synthetic pesticides, they do use a variety of chemicals to control insects and plant diseases — including such potentially dangerous substances as copper sulfate, rotenone, pyrethrum, ryania, and sabadilla. These “organic” pesticides are derived from minerals or plants, are lightly processed, and thus are considered to be “natural” for the purposes of organic agriculture. Yet, ounce for ounce, most are at least as toxic or carcinogenic as many of the newest synthetic chemical pesticides.
Now comes news from the UK’s Farmer’s Guardian newspaper that “[n]early half of the pesticides specially approved for use in organic farming [in the European Union] have failed EU safety tests and more could follow as the rules are tightened.” Conclusions of the risk assessments conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) under EU Plant Protection Products regulations first implemented in 1996 can be found here.
According to the Farmer’s Guardian, EFSA “has approved just 14 of the 27 organic pesticides put before it … although many have received a derogation for continued use.” Still, because more stringent rules are due to be promulgated next year, the European crop protection (i.e. pesticide) industry expects that more of the organic pesticides will be found unsafe.
According to an industry spokesperson, “Organic farmers already have limited options for crop protection and if more products are removed productivity could fall and prices could increase.” Of course, since the organic industry has been touting itself as a “pesticide free” alternative to conventional agriculture, this would just mean that what they’re producing conforms more closely to the hype.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 