The problems with the arguments against GM crops

新的证据表明，针对通用汽车作物的争论是没有根据的。Margaret Karembu。

The year 2013 marked the 18th consecutive year of commercial cultivation ofgenetically modified organisms (GMOs)或现在通常称为生物技术作物。

And in just under two decades, the volume of land on which biotech crops are grown has increased from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 — the first year of commercial planting — to about 175 million hectares in 2013, according to a global report on GM crops released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) in 2014. [1]

2013年，全球27个国家 /地区有超过1800万农民做出了种植生物技术作物的独立选择。[1]

Yet, despite these figures showing atechnologyon the upward trajectory in terms of adoption, the anti-GMO lobby has continued to hold its position that farmers shouldn’t grow biotech crops due to a myriad of excuses. It is important to note such excuses are perpetuated through the most advanced and efficient use ofinformation and communication technologies。

“与广泛认为通用汽车技术只会受益于跨国公司，并且针对大型农民的看法相反，最新的趋势揭示了其他趋势。”

Margaret Karembu

How then can this contradiction be explained? Is it okay for one segment of society to access the best technology available for theircommunication(or is it mis-communication?) but unacceptable to avail similar opportunities and choices to farmers to make farming more efficient? Could such a large number of farmers be fooled for nearly two decades with a technology that is not delivering? Would thegovernmentsof these countries growing or approving use of biotech crops be so indifferent and reckless as to allow and support application of the technology in their territories?

Differentiating perception from reality

The first problem with the whole debate against biotech crops is differentiating between perception and reality. A German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche once said: “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments”. While I don’t subscribe to Nietzsche’s philosophical theories, this one statement could hold true in this context. Contrary to widely held opinion that GM technology will only benefit multi-nationals and is meant for large-scale farmers, the latest trends reveal otherwise.

At least 90 per cent of the 18 million farmers who grew biotech crops in 2013 were small-scale resource-poor farmers in developing countries. One of the findings in the ISAAA report, for instance, shows that national benefits to Bt cotton farmers in Burkina Faso were estimated at US$26 million, representing 67 per cent of total benefits with only US$12 million accruing to the technology developers.

Other documented benefits of biotech crops go beyond agricultural improvement toclimate changemitigation and environmentalsustainability。GM technology has demonstrated the power to provide a betterbeplay足球体育的微博and breed crops resilient to harsh climatic conditions such asdrought。

For instance, in 2012 biotech crops alone contributed to a reduction of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by 26.7 billion kilograms, which is equivalent to taking 11.8 million cars off the road for one year. [2] By reducing the amount of chemical sprays by more than half for a crop such as biotech cotton, GM technology is probably the only agricultural technology that can boast of making this kind of contribution to environmentalconservation。

Hidden agenda of activists

第二个问题是克服既得利益。看的来源fundingfor anti-GM activities reveals that although they are often portrayed as grassroots movements, many are part of a much larger coalition of social activists, environmental NGOs and social-investment organisations backed by a reservoir of funding from special interest foundations.

Almost all anti-GM activists back, and in turn receive support from, organic or so called ‘socially responsible’ investment industries. Competition from cheaper and safer biotech products is seen as a threat, thus the use of anti-biotechnology rhetoric and support for activist groups to validate their products and grow their markets.

The third problem is a strong desire by some interest groups to romanticise poverty and hunger. Ironically, poverty and food insecurity provide booming businesses and a form of ‘tourism’ for several anti-GM lobbyists who know nothing about农业，特别是在非洲。游说者花了四分之三的时间在全球范围内闲逛，并兜售了针对生物技术食品的未经证实的主张，但农民（尤其是妇女）正在用双手除草，并在无情的炎热的阳光下为害虫搜寻。

Blocking novel technologies may mean an end to dependency on others for food and diminishing control and access to the continent’s natural resources and ‘free tourism’ disguised in numerous ‘monitoring and farming inspection’ trips. Continuing to deny farmers the choice of proven, safe and efficientagri-biotechnologieswould be equated to ‘protecting poverty’ and obstructing them from optimising chances of enhancing their social welfare as well.

Proven to be safe

根据世界卫生组织，国际市场目前可用的通用食品已经通过了安全评估，不太可能提出healthor environmental risks. In addition, no negative effects on human health have been shown as a result of consuming foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

Extensive and independently reviewed health studies — including long-term animal studies — conducted over the past 20 years using the same biotech crops have found no negative results and confirm the safety of biotech foods.

“阻止新颖的技术可能意味着要结束对他人的依赖，以减少对非洲大陆自然资源的控制权以及在许多“监测和农业检查”之旅中伪装的“自由旅游”，并且具有最有效的飞机。”

Margaret Karembu

The few researchers who have made claims on negative effects refuse to share theirdataandresearchprotocols for review with regulators or independent academic authorities. When they have shared the data, food safety, health and regulatory agencies have rejected the findings as flawed and misleading. For example, a study published in 2012 that indicated negative safety effects of GM maize was found to have questionable study design. [3] It was retracted last year. [4]

Impacts of GM crops

A study by the African Development Bank and the International Food Policy Research Institute in 2012 concluded that under ideal conditions, the use of GM crops grown by smallholder farmers could improve gross margins by 114 per cent, reduce pesticide costs by 60 to 90 per cent, and improve yields by 18 to 29 per cent. [5] This could make a significant contribution in lifting farming communities out of abject poverty, subsistence farming and improve their health.

Considering these overwhelming progress and opportunities, regardless of the widely spread fears about GM crops, one thing remains certain: That biotech crops have already demonstrated a crucial contribution in fighting food insecurity and environmental degradation.

Coincidentally, in 2015, as the world leaders will meet to re-assess the success and challenges of meeting the Millennium Development Goals, biotech crops will also be marking 20 years of sustained commercial cultivation.

转基因作物将刚满20 and in a humanly way, can therefore be considered as young adults, ready to help the global community address these three nagging challenges of poverty, hunger and environmental sustainability.

玛格丽特·卡雷姆（Margaret Karembu）是Isaaa的主任AfriCenter and is also the chair of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology (OFAB) Kenya Chapter Programming Committee. She has vast experience in managing, implementing and coordinating technology transfer projects as well as diffusion studies on modern biotechnology. She is a science communication specialist, and holds a PhD degree in environmental science education from Kenyatta University, Kenya.She can be contacted atmkarembu@isaaa.org。

本文是由Scidev.net的撒哈拉以南非洲桌子制作的

SCIDEV.NET的中东和北非办公桌为Scidev.net的全球辩论提出了这一观点：通用汽车有什么问题？单击此处查看辩论页面。