US Drought: GM crops fails to salvage the epic drought.

US faces 'epic drought' conditions in California and Texas

For the past three years, California and Texas in United States is reeling under a severe drought. Some call it an 'epic drought' whereas some consider the continuing drought to be reminiscent of the Dust-Bowl days. "About 90 per cent of Texas is currently under drought conditions, and the State's northern panhandle and Southwest regions are experiencing 'catastrophic' conditions," says a report on AlterNet (Texas drought spawning fires and Dust-Bowl like conditions, AlterNet May 20, 2014).

In California, the situation is no different. A Reuters news agency report states: "The most populous US State is in its third year of what officials are calling a catastrophic drought, leaving some small communities at risk of running out of drinking water and leading farmers to leave fallow nearly a half-million acres of land." (California drought will cost thousands of farm jobs: Study. Reuters. May 20, 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/20/us-usa-california-drought-jobs-idUSBREA4J01M20140520). As many as 14,500 full time as well as seasonal jobs will be lost this year.

For three consecutive years California and Texas have been ravaged by a severe drought. And yet, the US Department of Agriculture seems so helpless. More importantly, the USDA had been telling the world of the exhaustive drought-mitigation programme it had worked out some decades ago, which I still remember the well-known Indian scientist Dr M S Swaminathan quoting it often to drive home the point as to how and why the country should learn from the US on the need to drought proof the country.

What went wrong?

Before we look into some of the causes, here is an interesting paradox. A Grist news report tells us that while "California is experiencing one of its driest years in the past half millennium, it also happens to be the country's leading dairy supplier." Estimating the water footprint in producing one gallon of milk, the report works out that 683 gallons of water are required for producing 1 gallon of milk just from alfa-alfa alone. For meat, the water footprint is equally worse. According to a study by Mekonnen and Hoekstra, it takes a total of 425 gallons of water to produce a four-ounce serving of beef in America. The same size serving of pork takes 165 gallons of water; for chicken 66 gallons (It takes how much water to make Greek yoghurt?! http://grist.org/food/it-takes-how-much-water-to-make-greek-yogurt/).

There are 5 million dairy cows in California.

 Drought takes a toll of livestock in Texas

Despite putting up a wonderful document on drought mitigation, things have actually not improved in US when it comes to drought preparedness. In 2002 when 26 of the 50 US States were experiencing drought, India too was badly affected. It was then that I had done a comparison. In my article Drought -- Lessons from America, I wrote: "The American agriculture that we studies in the universities and appreciated has crumbled with one year of severe drought. It is well known that Indian agriculture falters because of its complete dependence on monsoons. But with the kid of industrialisation that took place in America, and with the kind of investments made, we were told that the US agriculture is not dependent upon rains. Now though, the drought proofing that we heard so much about appears to be a farce." (You can read the full article here: http://indiatogether.org/agriculture/opinions/dsharma/uslessons.htm).

That was in 2002. We are now in 2014. US agriculture has failed once again to tackle a drought.

More so at a time when the USDA as well as the US biotechnology companies keep on asserting that some genetically modified crop varieties they have developed are drought resistant. Monsanto advertises all over the world to save every drop of water. They have convinced the 'liberal' and educated class everywhere of the great potential that exists for GM technology. Shouldn't we therefore ask a question: Why did the GM crops fail the farmers in California and Texas? Why are the farmers keeping their land fallow if USDA has those varieties hat can be grown under drought conditions? Where are the drum-beaters of GM technology (in the US universities) who tell farmers in Asia and Africa of the virtues of GM crops that can stand water stress conditions?

Isn't that a farce too??

The truth is GM crops have failed to withstand drought like conditions. While the GM crop varieties (including herbicide tolerant crops that Monsanto promotes) have been destroyed by US drought, the non-GM crops have survived. Isn't there a great lesson here for the USDA? Shouldn't it revert back to the native crop varieties that have survived the drought? In an in-depth article GM Crops destroyed by US drought but non-GM varieties flourish (Here is the link: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/US_drought_destroys_GM_Crops.php) Dr Mae-Wan Ho has detailed out how the GM crops failed the drought, and tells us about the inherent ability of native plants to withstand such harsh environs.


Secondly, the US must resorts to water harvesting. Sometimes back, on a visit to Texas A&M University I was shown the Tamil Nadu water harvesting system being developed at the university. I remember telling the scientists that the tragedy is that the Indian policy makers imported the 'Ridge to Valley' system of water harvesting developed at the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has failed to work in India. But it is time the US adopts the Tamil Nadu water harvesting system, which is much better and effective for acute drought conditions. If only more emphasis was laid on building water harvesting structures in Texas/California instead of depending on carrying water from long distances, US wouldn't have been in such a deep trouble.

It is also time to discard your superiority ego and learn from the simple and yet effective drought-proofing systems prevalent in many of the villages in India. It is time to learn from the wisdom that has been passed down from generations to generations rather than remain struck in your own technology cocoon. Sometimes simple technologies work wonders. You can ignore them at your own peril. #

Prime Minister ignores the facts. Openly bats for dangerously risky GM crop technology.

In the 20 years since the first GM crops was introduced in US, there is a spurt in diseases. There is certainly no evidence of a direct link but there is also no evidence that this may not be somehow linked. Why not have a scientific investigation? 

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stirred a hornet's nest when he warned against succumbing to ‘unscientific prejudices’ against genetically modified (GM) crops. Speaking at the 101^st Indian Science Congress at Jammu. He claimed that biotechnology has great potential to improve yields and his government remains committed ‘to promoting the use of these new technologies for agricultural development’.

Prime Minister’s statement lauding the controversial GM technology has not come as any surprise. Two environment ministers – Jairam Ramesh and Jayanthi Natarajan – have been eased out in the recent past essentially because of their opposition to GM crops. Jairam Ramesh was responsible for imposing a moratorium on Bt brinjal which if approved for cultivation would have opened up flood gates for the introduction of many more GM food crops; and his successor Jayanthi Natarajan who is generally believed to have resisted industry pressures to allow field trials of GM crops.

The day after Prime Minister openly came out in support of the dangerously risky GM technology, Monsanto stocks rose by 5.45 per cent. 

The stakes are therefore very high. For the multi-billion dollar industry, India’s refusal to accept GM crops can spell a death knell. Considering that many State governments have refused permission for holding field trials of GM crops, and the swelling opposition from Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture and subsequently the Supreme Court appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) the industry has been mounting pressure through the back channels. But let's first understand how true the so-called ‘scientific’ claims of the industry are; and whether GM crops are actually safe for human health and environment.

Prime Minister says that GM technology has great potential to improve yields. This has been claimed by the industry too. But the fact is that it is now 20 years since the first GM crop was introduced in the United States, and there is still no GM crop that increases crop productivity. US Department of Agriculture’s own studies show that the yields of GM corn and Soybean are less than that of conventional varieties.  Even in India, the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) Nagpur, which monitors the cotton crop, has admitted: “No significant yield advantage has been observed between 2004-2011 when area under Bt cotton increased from 5.4 to 96 per cent.”

The argument that the world needs to produce more for the growing population by the year 2050, and therefore it needs GM crops therefore does not hold true. But let’s look at it. Is there a shortage of food in the world? According to the USDA estimate for 2013, the world produced food good enough to feed 14 billion people. In other words, the world produces food for twice the existing population. The real problem lies in food wastage. Nearly 40 per cent of the food produced is wasted. In the US alone $ 165 billion worth of food is wasted, enough to meet the food requirement of the entire sub-Saharan Africa.

In India, which has close to 250 million people going to bed empty stomach, appalling hunger is not because of any shortfall in food production. In June 2013, India had a record food surplus of 82.3 million tones. It has already exported 20 million tonnes out if it, and there are plans to export another 20 million tones so as to reduce the carrying cost of stored food. Instead of increasing food production, the Food Ministry is planning to reduce food procurement and also use the huge stocks with the Food Corporation of India for commodity trading.

The promise of reduction in pesticides usage has also fallen flat. According to Washington State University researcher Charles Benbrook, between 1996 and 2011, farmers in US are applying an additional 181million litres of chemical pesticides. In 2012, on an average 20 per cent more pesticides were applied by GM farmers. This is now expected to go up by 25 per cent with the introduction of the next range of GM crops which will use a cocktail of herbicides including the deadly broad-spectrum chemicals.

In Argentina, the application of chemical pesticides has risen from 34 million litres in the mid-1990s when the GM soybean crops were first introduced to more than 317 million litres in 2012, roughly a ten times increase. On an average, Argentine farmers use twice the quantity of pesticides per acre than their American counterparts. In Brazil, which has recently taken over Argentina as far as the spread of GM crops is concerned, pesticides use has gone up by 190 per cent in the past decade. 

The Chinese farmers are spraying 20 times more pesticides to control pests. In India, the story is no different. Regardless of what the industry claims, the fact remains that the usage of pesticides too has gone up in India. In 2005, Rs 649-crore worth of chemical pesticides was used on cotton in India. In 2010, when roughly 92 per cent area under cotton shifted to Bt cotton varieties, the pesticides usage in terms of value increased to Rs 880.40 crore. 

Equally more worrisome is the emergence of hard-to-kill weeds, called ‘super weeds’. Estimates show that in US over 100 million acres is now infested with super weeds. Besides using a cocktail of chemical pesticides to control it, some US States are going in for hand weeding since chemicals are no longer effective. In neighbouring Canada, more than 1 million acre is infested with super weeds. Studies show that 21 weeds have now developed resistance after GM crops came. Insects too are now developing immunity against GM crops. In India, Monsanto has already accepted that bollworm pest is becoming resistant.

With no benefits accruing as far as increasing crop yields is concerned or reducing pesticides applications and thereby protecting the human health and environment, I don’t know what promise the Prime Minister sees in GM crops. In fact, all evidence now points to an end of the era in industrial agriculture. With soils poisoned, underground water mined ruthlessly, and with the entire food chain contaminated by chemical pesticides and fertilizers leading to more greenhouse gas emissions, the focus is now shifting to ecological agriculture. 

In Andhra Pradesh, nearly 3.5 million acres today is being cultivated without the use of any chemical pesticides. Out of which, farmers do not use even fertilisers in 2.0 million acres. Production is steadily rising, pollution has come down, soil fertility is rising, farmer’s income has gone up and there are no suicides. Isn’t it a model of farming that the Prime Minister should be advocating? If it can be done in 3.5 million acres I see no reason why it cannot be practiced in 35.0 million acres? That’s where the future lies. #

Further reading: 

1. Time to sow the seeds of sustainable farming. Hindustan Times, Feb 10, 2014. http://bit.ly/1bDlyG8

2. Shifting to organic breeding. Deccan Herald. Feb 7, 2014. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/385133/shifting-organic-breeding.html

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