National Policy Analysis Logo

 #271  

 December 1999




No Pleasing Environmentalists

by John Carlisle

 

Environmentalists frequently urge industry to adopt "Clean Technologies" that reduce pollution and promote conservation. Why is it, then, that those same environmentalists advocate a ban on agricultural biotechnology that significantly reduces the use of potentially harmful pesticides, can reduce soil erosion by as much as 98% and help prevent the destruction of ecologically important rainforests?

Their opposition makes no sense. Indeed, environmentalists should be stumbling over themselves advocating the rapid development of this amazing new technology.

Agricultural biotechnology is a technology in which scientists employ genetic engineering to create, improve or modify plants and animals. Under traditional crossbreeding methods, which farmers have been doing for thousands of years, it would take 10-12 years to develop hybrid plants and animals. Agricultural biotechnology enables scientists to transfer the desired gene traits much more efficiently and quickly.1

Environmental activists claim that genetically-enhanced crops are poorly regulated and pose a dangerous threat to public safety. However, these arguments are without merit. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require all genetically enhanced products to go through a rigorous regulatory review.2 It takes a company about 8-10 years to bring a genetically-enhanced product from the laboratory to the marketplace.3

In addition to U.S. regulatory agencies, leading national and international organizations have endorsed the safety of genetically-enhanced food, including the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization.4

Already, biotechnology has yielded many benefits. Strains of corn, cotton, potatoes, rice, squash and papaya have been "vaccinated" with genes that make them resistant to a variety of crop-destroying viruses.5 The benefits of such plants are twofold. First, disease-resistant crops mean that farmers can significantly increase the levels of their harvests. So much so that it is estimated that food biotechnology could meet up to 25% of the world's food needs in the next 50 years.6

The other benefit is environmental. Because of the increased productivity of genetically-enhanced crops, farmers will only have to plant on one or two acres of land to insure a one-acre harvest - in contrast to the five acres they must plant using conventional crops. Farmers in developing countries will no longer have to clear as much tropical rainforests for farmland to increase their yields.7 Another environmental benefit is that farmers have dramatically reduced their reliance on pesticides and herbicides. In 1996, corn farmers used 1.5 million fewer pounds of insecticide to fight the European corn borer thanks to "genetically-vaccinated" corn plants.8 Yet another environmental plus is that farmers can preserve valuable topsoil because they would no longer have to plow under harmful weeds before and after harvesting or planting. Estimates of the topsoil that can be saved by no-till farming range from 70% to 98%.9

But environmentalists insist that agriculture biotechnology is a genetic apocalypse waiting to happen. They derisively call disease-resistant corn and vitamin-enhanced tomatoes "Frankenfoods" that could unleash some sort of nightmarish genetic domino effect with dire
ramifications for human health and the ecosystem. However, they never offer credible scientific evidence for their dramatic claims. Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who is considered the Father of the Green Revolution accuses the environmental movement of playing upon peoples' fears for short-term political gain. "You get a few extremists into the [environmental] movement and they stir up controversy and confuse people for their own interests," says Borlaug.10 Former President Jimmy Carter defends biotechnology saying: "Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is."11

But the informed recommendations of Nobel prize-winning scientists and former presidents have no effect on environmentalists. Analyzing their opposition to biotechnology, one gets the impression that it is not really science that motivates many environmentalists but a bizarre brand of New Age-like religion.

Dr. Mae Wan-Ho, one of the most vocal of the small number of scientists who opposes biotechnology, condemned agricultural biotechnology as a morally bankrupt product of a "reductionist-mechanistic science" which has already "taken the poetry out of farming" by turning the farmer into a tractor driver. Taking aim not just at modern biotechnology but all of the farming improvements made possible by science, Dr. Wan-Ho called for a "holistic science" in which farming is once again an "emotional, aesthetic experience produced with love and creativity."12

While Dr. Wan-Ho may find something "aesthetic" in a farmer getting off his tractor and breaking his back using discarded techniques, it is doubtful that many farmers share her quixotic opinions.

Sadly, there is just no pleasing the environmental movement when it comes to technological progress - even if it means a world with less hungry people and a better environment.



Footnotes:

1 "Food Biotechnology," Backgrounder, International Food Information Council, April 1999.
2 "What The Government Says About The Safety and Benefits of Biotech Foods," The Alliance For Better Foods, 1999.
3 Jennifer K. Nil, "The Bucks Behind Biotech," Deseret News, November 21, 1999.
4 "Food Biotechnology Overview," The Alliance For Better Foods, 1999.
5 "Biotechnology and Food," Backgrounder, Food Marketing Institute, 1999.
6 "Modern Biotechnology: Facts and Figures," The Alliance For Better Foods, 1999.
7 "Food Biotechnology," Backgrounder, International Food Information Council, April 1999.
8 Ronald Knutson, "How Would Green Activists Have Us Feed The World," News Update, The Alliance For Better Foods, October 7, 1999.
9 "Food Biotechnology," Backgrounder, International Food Information Council, April 1999.
10 Dan Looker, "Anti-GMO Sentiment Will Fade Shortly Says Nobel Peace Prize Winner," Successful Farming, October 1999.
11 "Food Biotechnology - Benefits For Developing Countries," Food Insight, January/February 1999.
12 Biotechnology Panel, World Trade Organization Meeting, Seattle, Washington, December 1, 1999.

# # #

John K. Carlisle is director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force. Comments may be sent to [email protected].




The National Center for Public Policy Research
501 Capitol Court, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-4110
Fax (202) 543-5975
E-Mail: [email protected]

Web: www.nationalcenter.org



National Center for Public Policy Research Home Page


Project 21 Logo
Project 21

What's Hot
What's Hot!

Envir Policy Logo
Environmental Policy Task Force

Scoop Logo
Scoop

Legal Briefs
Legal Briefs

Relief Report Logo 
 Relief Report

Budget Watch Logo
Budget Watch

Pol Money Monitor
Political Money Monitor

Earth Day Logo
Earth Day Information Center

Campaign Logo
Campaign Reform Information Center


Affirmative Action Resource Center

 Global Warming Logo
Global Warming Information Center