Asking the Wrong Questions: GM crops claim to increase yields, but the problem is of access and distribution, not production

Speaking at the annual Oxford Farming Conference a few weeks back, the rebel environmentalist Mark Lynas, who went over to the all-powerful GM industry, was quoted as saying: "Research published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests the world will require 100% more food to feed the maximum projected population adequately."

It's not the first time this argument has been used, but considering the emphasis Lynas laid on the capabilities of controversial genetic engineering technology to meet the growing demand for food, a flurry of articles and editorials appeared. The underlying argument is the same. The world needs to produce more for the year 2050, and therefore we need GM crops.

Well, what population projections are we talking of? The planet today hosts seven billion people, and all estimates point to population growing to nine billion by 2050. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), more than 870 million people were chronically undernourished in 2012, with almost 250 million of the world's hungry living in India.

These appalling statistics generate an impression of an acute shortfall in food production. At every conference, the same sets of statistics are flashed to justify the commercialisation of GM crops. But how much food is globally available? Is the world really witnessing a shortfall in food production? Or, for that matter, is there a shortage of food in India? These are the questions that have been very conveniently overlooked.

Let us therefore take a look at the performance of global agriculture in the year 2012. Despite the severe drought in the US and Australia, where wheat production is anticipated to fall by 40%, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that the world still harvested 2239.4 millionmetric tonnes, enough to feed 13 billion people at one pound per day.

In other words, the food being globally produced today can feed twice the existing population. According to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), against the average requirement of about 2,400 calories per capita, what is presently available is 4,600 calories. So where is the crisis on the food production front? The crisis is in food (mis)management, which surprisingly is being ignored.

In the US, Canada and Europe, 40% food is wasted. For example, Americans waste $165 billion worth of food every year, which could very well meet the entire requirement of sub-Saharan Africa. Food wasted in Italy, if saved, can feed the entire population of the hungry in Ethiopia. According to the UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers, almost half the food produced globally is allowed to go waste. Studies show that 50% of fruits and vegetables stocked by supermarkets in US actually rot. If all the food wastage was to be appreciably reduced, hunger and malnutrition can easily become history.

In India too, it is not a crisis in food production. On Jan 1, India had 66 million tonnes of food stocks. As someone has said, if you were to stack all those bags of grain one over the other, you could climb up to the moon and back. That's the quantity of food that has been available almost every year since 2001.

While visuals of food rotting in godowns are fresh in the memory, the government has been merrily exporting the surplus rather than feeding its hungry millions. This fiscal, wheat exports are expected to touch 9.5 million tonnes; rice exports have already crossed nine million tonnes in 2011-12. Instead of propping up food procurement and distribution, the food ministry is actually toying with the idea of withdrawing from procurement operations and using surplus stocks in futures trading, leaving the hungry to be fed by the markets.

Meanwhile, GM crops are being promoted as the answer to growing food needs. In reality, there is no GM crop in the world that actually increases crop productivity. In fact, the yields of GM corn and GM soybean, if USDA is to be believed, are actually less than the non-GM varieties.

Nor has the promise of a drastic reduction in the usage of harmful pesticides proved to be correct. Charles Benbrook of the Washington State University has conclusively shown that between 1996 and 2011, the overall pesticides use in US has risen by a whopping 144 million kg. In addition, as much as 14.5 million acres is afflicted with 'super-weeds' — weeds that are very difficult to control. And such has been the contamination that 23 weeds now fall in the category of 'super-weeds'.

Regarding safety, a few months back the revelations by Giles-Eric Seralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen in France, shocked the world when for the first time he demonstrated long-term studies involving rats fed for two years with Monsanto's Roundup-Ready GM maize. The rats had developed huge kidney and mammary gland tumours, had problems with their body organs and showed increased mortalities.

Against the usual practice of such studies involving feeding rats with GM foods for 90 days, Seralini had for the first time ever experimented with rats for two years, which corresponds to the entire human lifespan. As expected, the shocking results, peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal, have already created quite a furore internationally.

I therefore don't understand the need to take a huge risk with human health and environment when there is food available in abundance. The greater challenge is to curb wastage, provide adequate access and ensure judicious distribution of food.

The writer is a food and agriculture analyst.

Source: The Times of India, New Delhi; Feb 28, 2013.
http://bit.ly/13Y5Zo7

Food produced globally is enough to feed almost double the existing population, Mr Mark Lynas

Pardon my ignorance. After all the ruckus over the 'switching-over' of environmentalist Mark Lynas into the folds of GM industry, I had to make an effort to find who we are talking about. It took me some time to Google search. I now know what the fuss is all about.

I must acknowledge that I had never heard his name before nor have I ever read him. Likewise, I am sure he has never heard of me. That's fair enough.

What drew my attention was the heat generated at the Oxford Farming Conference. Speaking at the conference, Lynas was quoted as saying "research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested the World will require 100 per cent more food to feed the maximum projected population adequately.." This is a common argument that has been doing the rounds ever since the first GM tomato was released in the market.

Well, what population projections are we talking of? The planet today hosts 7 billion plus people, and all estimates point to a population of 9 billion in 2050.

Now, let us look at how much food is available. Only a day before I looked at the USDA calculations. It annually prepares what is called as World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. If you read the 2012 estimates (here is the link: http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf) it tells us clearly that in 2012 the world harvested 2239.4 million metric tonnes, enough to feed 13 billion people at 1 pound per day. And what is the population projection for the year 2099 that the National Academy of Sciences made? I am not aware. But there is certainly no reason to worry about 2099, and instead let's look at the year 2050, which is much closer and realistic. In other words, even at present the world produces enough to meet the food demand that is expected in 2050 and I am sure has enough for the turn of the century (even if the global population touches 13 billion by 2099).

In other words, the world food production today is good enough for double the present population. So where is the crisis on the food front? Aren't we scaring people unnecessarily or with an ulterior motive?

The real problem no one wants to address is the problem associated with food management, its access and distribution. It is true that while the West is overfed (because of the conversion through animal protein), much of the developing world remains hungry. While one part of the world is eating more, the rest of the world is left to starve. What makes it still worse is that more than a third of the food that is produced every year goes waste. In United States, Canada and Europe, 40 per cent food is wasted. For example, Americans waste $ 165 billion worth of food every year. Food wasted in Italy, if saved, can feed the entire population of hungry in Ethiopia. (See my article: The wastage myth. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/289771/wastage-myth.html).

It doesn't require any 'discovery of science' to know where the real problem lies, Mr Mark Lynas. The problem is not with food production. The problem is, as I said earlier, on the distribution front. If the world were to save the food that is going waste, and distribute it judiciously, we would probably have enough food available every year to meet the needs of the population in the mid of the next century. The international leadership as well as the biotech industry should instead put all their efforts in cutting down on food wastage. And believe me, this will keep a cap on global warming, and also help in restricting any further damage to the soils, water and the environment.

Additional Reading: Do GM Crops Increase Yield? The Answer is No.
URL: http://bit.ly/r0Owbr