Climate Bills and a Green Economy

Corporate Agriculture Industry Plans “Organic” Genetically-Engineered Crops to Fight Climate Change

November 11, 2009

Freshinfo.com - Concern was raised over the organic agriculture industry’s ability to cope with the onslaught of climate change while spurning GM technologies, at a high-level debate in the capital last week.

A panel of experts discussed the possibilities for organic food to become “more robust” in front an audience including the government’s chief scientific advisor John Beddington, who last month called for genetically-modified (GM) crops to ensure global food security.

The panel, in discussing the role of GM in 21st Century Farming at last week’s Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum, suggested that if GM could overcome issues relating to its public image and the vandalism of trials, it could make real progression in replacing fertilisers, which continue to increase in cost and tackling food security.

Dominic Dyer, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association, said:

“In the US they are way ahead of the game on organic genetically modified foods and then there was a whole load of opposition.

“That was the last opportunity we had on that front before trench warfare set in. It is my concern that you can have a few organisations that scaremonger and make the governments back off.”

Julian Little, chair of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, told delegates that GM could be vital with changes to the environment impacting on agriculture. He said:

“Drought tolerance will definitely be important. Climate change means there will be insect problems in the UK that we have not had to deal with before.

“There were trials into blight tolerance in potatoes in the UK which were trashed twice, but if we could find a potato that gave true blight tolerance then organic growers would have a real option to continue in a difficult climate.”

But Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, hit back at suggestions the lobbying body harness the opportunity. He said:

“We looked at the option of GM with interest when it was first debated, but the more we looked at it the more concern grew. The GM debate is a distraction and it is a dangerous issue with the possibility of some of the larger developing companies having a vice-like grip over agriculture. I see no future for GM in the future of UK agriculture, and the answers lie in things like plant breeding tactics.”

The debate comes as the Foods Standards Agency embarks on a 12-month consultation exercise looking into the various challenges surrounding GM food. Dyer added:

“A lot of what the Soil Association says is about lifestyles and we are not going to stop people eating meat and creating food shortages tomorrow, so we need to use the world’s resources well. We need to get realistic about the problems we face.”

Green Inc.: Organics Called 'Worse' for Planet

November 25, 2009

New York Times - When Michael Mack, the chief executive of Syngenta, a Swiss agribusiness giant that makes pesticides and seeds, hears people say that organic food is better for the planet, he has one response: “Au contraire.”

“Organic food is not only not better for the planet,” he said, in an interview at The New York Times building on Tuesday. “It is categorically worse.”

The problem, Mr. Mack said, is that organic farming takes up about 30 percent more land, on average, than nonorganic farming for the same yield (though this varies by crop, of course). If the world wants to feed its fast-growing population on existing cropland — and Mr. Mack is clear that he does not want forests chopped down to clear more land for biofuel production, let alone food — then productivity becomes a key factor, he said.

“If the whole planet were to suddenly switch to organic farming tomorrow, it would be an ecological disaster,” he said.

In terms of yields, he continued, organic food is the “productive equivalent of driving an S.U.V.”

Mr. Mack also addressed what he called the “mistaken belief that natural is always better.”

Pesticides that help crops to grow more efficiently in this country, he argued, “have been proven safe and effective and absolutely not harmful to the environment or to humans” and have been certified as such by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency.

The implication of not believing that pesticides are safe, he said, is that you don’t trust the government’s findings.

“Once you go down that path, I don’t know where the guardrails are,” he said.

Mr. Mack dismissed the notion that Syngenta, a company that sold nearly $12 billion of seeds and “crop protection” technologies last year, felt threatened by the organic movement.

His concern, he said, was to make people aware of the limitations of organic food.

“It underplays the significance of agricultural productivity,” he said.

'Stop Eating Meat to Save the Planet from Global Warming,' Britons Warned

November 26, 2009

Daily Mail - Cutting a sausage a day from the average British diet is necessary to save the planet, scientists claim.

Their controversial report, which partly blames meat-eaters for climate change, was backed by Environment Secretary Hilary Benn's department last night.

The scientists called for a 30 per cent reduction in the number of farm animals bred for meat to prevent rising temperatures and rising sea levels.

The average meat intake in men is 970g a week and in women 550g a week. A 30 per cent reduction in men is equivalent to seven 40g sausages, two 130g chicken breasts, four 70g lamb chops or 12 bacon rashers of 25g. Such a reduction would also bring significant health benefits, the scientists said, by reducing premature deaths from heart disease in Britain by 17 per cent - equivalent to 18,000 lives a year.

They claimed food production from animals was a major source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and that by 2030, rising demand for meat was expected to drive up livestock production globally by 85 per cent from 2000 levels, leading to substantial emission increases.

The authors, led by Dr Alan Dangour, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Dr Sharon Friel, from the Australian National University in Canberra, wrote in the medical journal The Lancet that improvements in agricultural efficiency were 'necessary but not sufficient to meet targets to reduce emissions'.

Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it would not comment on the 30 per cent figure, it released a statement to say:

'There are lots of ways people can cut their carbon footprint and impact on the environment - and reducing the amount of meat in our diets is one option.'

But the backing of vegetarian Mr Benn's department, which is specifically responsible for promoting farming, drew strong criticism from farmers and scientists who said cutting meat consumption was not the way to combat climate change.

Peter Kendall, president of the National Farmers' Union, said:

'Farmers will be angry that yet again we have an ill-informed and simplistic report which appears to completely misunderstand agriculture's emissions and its role in climate change.

'This report advocates a 30 per cent reduction in livestock numbers in countries that have the most efficient production systems and hence the lowest emissions.

'What we need to do is look at doing things more efficiently rather than simply cutting livestock numbers.

'The car industry is praised for producing more efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles rather than being told to cut production.

'Other governments that value their livestock production are looking at exciting and innovative ways to reduce agriculture's environmental impacts while understanding the need to produce more food for an expanding global population.'

Professor Ian Crute, chief scientist at the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which advises the meat industry, said:

'A large fall in meat eating or turning vegetarian is not the solution to climate change - it would make only a marginal difference to greenhouse gas emissions.

'The challenge is to produce meat more sustainably - which is already happening in countries such as the UK, which is leading global thinking in this area.'