The New Organic

Sorry for not updating the blog for a few days. We were extremely busy with two big events last week. Here is our new article...

The year 1996 marked a new era in agriculture. An important change swept over farms in many countries around the world with a new farming technique being adopted. The new technique allowed farmers to spray far less insecticides over their farms. In China, for example, when this technique was adopted in the beginning of 1997, cotton farmers reduced their annual use of poisonous chemicals by 156 million pounds. This is almost as much chemicals used in the entire state of California each year. Besides this benefit, there was increase in cotton yield and reduced production costs. Other positive environmental and socioeconomic impacts were also recorded – increase in the number of beneficial insects in the farm and fewer workers and family health problems from exposure to chemical pesticides.

This success story has been repeated around the world reflecting the aspirations of organic-farming advocates. But the winner in this case is not organic farming but genetic engineering or genetic modification (GM) technology. The first generation of GM crops was engineered to protect itself against insects. The plants carried a protein from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). This protein kills pests but is safe to mammals, birds, fish, and human and has been a favourite among organic farmers.

Growing population, shortage of food, increase in food price, climate change, and the need to conserve the remaining pristine wilderness are enourmous challenges that we face today. And the agriculture sector has been the biggest culprit to the eroding condition of the environment with drastic expansion of acres under cultivation, emission of green house gasses through the use of chemicals, fuel, and tilling exercise. Permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions through reduced use of fossil-based fuels, associated with fewer insecticide and herbicide sprays was estimated to be 962 million kg in 2005. This is equivalent to reducing the number of cars on the roads by 0.43 million. Along with the reduction in the use of chemicals, come other benefits to the consumers. Our food is less tainted with chemical residues and free of fungal toxins such as aflatoxin. Aflatoxin, produced by fungi is a known cancer-causing agent and is highly toxic to human and animals and is a big problem to the feed industry. Fungi infestation occurs when crops, for example corn is attacked by insects causing injuries which become entry points to these fungus.

The organic sustainable farming methods are labour and energy intensive and they require far more land to produce the same yield. By 2050, the number of people on earth is expected to increase from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion and organic farms are unable to feed the increasing population neither are they sustainable. With only 4 percent of cropland in Europe is currently being farmed organically and less than 1 percent in America, organic produce is far from market demand. Organic food also fetches higher price than its counterparts and therefore, is not affordable to everyone. In contrast, GM technology produces far higher yield and cheaper produce. The benefits of GM technology is evident with an increase of 12% in acreage in the last five years, with 114.3 million hectares planted with GM crops globally. GM crops represent 50 to 90 per cent of total crop acreage in countries where they are cultivated.

Today 70 percent of all processed foods in the United States have at least one ingredient from genetically engineered corn, cotton, canola, or soybean. Unlike the well-documented adverse effects of some pesticides, there has not been a single case of illness associated with these crops. Every year there are a few fatal cases reported in the US and Europe due to consumption of unhygienic organic vegetables, but none on GM foods. A report by the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that the process of adding genes to our food by genetic engineering is no riskier than mixing genes by conventional plant breeding. In Malaysia, we have been consuming GM soybeans and its derivates for more than a decade and no health hazards has been reported. Since all our feed for our livestock industry is imported and the bulk of it is made of corn and soybean, it is highly likely that they are GM, and that too has not posed any health problem to us. The reality is without GM feed, our livestock industry will collapse.

The remarkable success of GM crops should not be overlooked but should be considered as one of the alternatives to the current agricultural practice. It is undeniable that GM crops will play an increasingly important role in agriculture in spite of all the negative propaganda against this technology.

-by Mahaletchumy Arujanan

Organic vs GM: Comparing apples to oranges

Time and again I have encountered arguments or comparisons between organically grown crops/plants and GM crops. The recent one was in a local newspaper sometime during the Chinese New Year. The article was about a homemaker who rears chicken in her backyard to serve a sumptuous meal during the New Year celebration. She prefers chicken that are not hormone-fed. Great idea, I thought.

But as I read further, I realized the ignorance when she said the chicken cannot be termed “organic” as she feeds them with imported corn that is GM.

One has to understand that when they compare organically produced crops and GM crops, they are actually comparing apples to oranges. Organic agriculture is a matter of agronomic practice. The crops in anyway have been modified either through traditional methods such as breeding, selection or even modern biotechnology methods such as marker assisted selection. It could even be GM, for that matter.

How about this situation: if a farmer grows GM corn organically, and this corn is fed to the chicken – does that make the chicken “organic chicken”? (Though, as a matter of fact, I have not heard about inorganic chicken. All edible stuff is organic anyway…)

I have written before on how GM crops make the best candidate for organic agriculture practices.

I hope time will come when the organic lovers realize that this agriculture practice actually does more harm to the environment than introducing GM crops. Farmers would require more land area to produce the same amount of yield organically as loss of yield to pest and disease would be higher. On the other hand, GM crops have managed to reduce the use of chemicals and the yield has been much higher, thus reducing the pressure to open up new forest land for cultivation.

And when the phytase corn is introduced which will reduce the amount of methane produced by livestock, will ardent organic lovers embrace the technology?

I hope those who are against GM in the pretext of environment safety will do good to the environment by really understanding the science behind GM technology.

This is what Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace in 1970s and left the organization in 1986 due to ideology differences has to say:

“Farmers planting Bt cotton have experienced dramatic improvements in yields and in reduction of chemical application. Bt cotton is really promising, and farmers want to use it. They know how important this is, and yet you have these intellectuals and academics claiming that they're speaking on behalf of the small farmer and the poor. It's just a complete hoax”.

By

Mahaletchumy Arujanan

Zero risk... Anyone?

I have a passion for driving especially on long distance routes. My first preference would always be to drive (within the peninsular) than to fly but unfortunately my mother hates the idea of me driving long distance. According to her it is dangerous to drive long distance but surprisingly she is fine with me riding bike to work every day (25km one way). I have attempted many times to explain to her that her risk perception is different than mine, but she keeps insisting that driving long distance is riskier and I should avoid it if possible. Clearly my risk perception is different than my mothers.

Different group of people often perceive risk differently depending on their depth of understanding in a certain technology. For example, physic experts may view nuclear technology as generally safe compared to public who considers the technology as dangerous. Significant portion of the public also believes that everything that is natural and from nature is safe but they fail to understand that most known toxic to men are from natural ingredients available freely from nature.

Despite the high number of road accidents and casualties, we don’t give up driving because we see more benefits than risks. Besides that we understand that car makers are consistently trying to make cars safer by introducing various safety features such as EBD, ABS, and airbag among others. This step is vital to mitigate or reduce risk and to increase acceptance among public that driving is made safer with these new technologies.

Well, how is this related to biotechnology? As we all know, biotechnology is a collection of various tools to modify and improvise living things for a better world. One of the products of this technology is GM Food (Genetically Modified Food). General public often feel that something that has been modified from nature is most often bad and dangerous, but they have failed to understand that GM food are made to be safer (through stringent biosafety regulations) than even conventional food that we have been consuming since time immemorial. One may say that this technology has not been tested enough, but haven’t we been eating GM soya for the past twelve years. There has not been a single report on GM food toxicity since GM products went on shelf more than a decade ago but yet some are worried that GM food is harmful. Lay person perceive that GM food are riskier than conventional food due to lack of understanding on the technology. Well, I wouldn’t drive a car if I am not aware of the safety features available in it. Imagine driving a car without brakes!!!.

The same goes for GM technology, the public should have an open mind on this issue; enrich their knowledge on the technology, its benefits, risks, and the safety measures taken before jumping into conclusions. What is more important is to make decisions based on accurate, science-based evidence and not merely on sentiments and beliefs. The benefits of this technology to Malaysia may differ from those to Europe and our priorities and national policies too may differ from some African countries.

On a hypothetical scenario, if petrol prices were to go below RM1.00 per liter, I will definitely start driving to work and not ride my bike. This is where we put our risk-benefit analysis to work. For a rich country that can afford to feed their people, GM food may not be necessary, they can even fully sustain on organic food but GM food may be the only answer for poor and developing countries to feed their growing population. The consequences of not adopting certain technology can pose a risk on its own. There's no such thing as zero risk. Risk-benefit analysis is a must for all technology and clearly GM technology shows more benefits than risks and is definitely going to be one of the drivers in the move towards a cleaner and a healthier world.

Acceptance of a technology is most often based on the understanding of the technology. As per my motto, “A tool that is least understood is often feared: The Unknown is not to be Feared, but to be Understood”

- Joel William

Is this a form of Compulsive Disorder?

I read some time ago that people who have an aversion to math may be less able to understand topics linked to GMOs and other health-related information. This was revealed by researchers at Penn State University. It might be due to their lack of understanding of statistics.

I always felt that there are many reasons for being anti-GMO. Ignorance or lack of knowledge on science, driven by business motives (such as pro-organic, funding from chemical and pesticide companies), genuine concerns on food and environmental safety (though it is unfounded), influence from green NGOs (due to inability to distinguish between science and pseudoscience), and for some it is a cult/religion which they follow blindly.

Here I found a new reason – some sort of compulsive disorder. Just look at the pictures below.

These people need medical help….

By Dr Mahaletchumy Arujanan