News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 GM crops raising the standard of living 

GM crops raising the standard of living

09 Mar, 2009 12:02 PM
In agricultural-based developing countries, biotech crops are an engine of rural economic growth that, in turn, can contribute substantially to national economic growth.

Global adoption of plant biotechnology continues to grow, according to a recent report released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications showing that 13.3 million farmers in 25 countries grew biotech crops on 125 million hectares in 2008 - a 9.4pc increase over global acreage in 2007.

Notably, 90pc, or 12.3 million, were small and resource-poor farmers in developing countries.

More than half (55pc) of the world's population lives in these 25 countries, equivalent to 8pc of the 1.5 billion hectares of all cropland in the world.

In 2007, biotech crops saved 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 6.3 million fewer cars.

The increase in approvals and adoption demonstrates that countries around the world, especially developing countries, recognise the benefits of plant biotechnology.

Allen Van Deyzne, senior scientist at the University of California-Davis, said the report makes it clear that biotechnology "can be useful for everyone regardless of economic status, with 15 of the 25 countries studied being from developing nations".

"The report shows the continued interest in using advanced tools for sustainable food production worldwide and that innovation in biotechnology is no longer limited to a few countries and corporations," Dr Van Deyzne said.

Denise Dewar, executive director for plant biotechnology at CropLife International, said the increase was a testament to the fact that, "when given the opportunity to choose between conventional or biotech seed, farmers will plant biotech crops".

"In 2008, our industry saw incredible adoption of the technology in many parts of the world, especially in Africa, Latin America and Asia, where farmers stand to gain the most," she said.

"Worldwide, farmers are seeing the tangible benefits of biotech crops, such as increased crop productivity and income and decreased impact on their land."

Increased plantings

Five principal developing countries - China, India, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa, with a combined population of 2.6 billion - are exerting leadership with biotech crops and driving global adoption.

Their benefits are spurring strong political will and substantial new investments in biotech crops in several of these leading countries.

In 2008, in particular, new countries in Africa opened their doors to the possibilities plant biotechnology can bring.

For instance, Egypt became the second African nation to approve the commercial cultivation of biotech crops and planted 700 hectares of biotech maize in 2008.

For the first time, Burkina Faso grew 8,500 hectares of biotech cotton.

Four countries adopted bio-safety guidelines for regulating biotech crops: Kenya, Malawi, Togo and Uganda.

Malawi and Uganda approved field trials for biotech cotton and bananas.

South African farmers planted 1.8 million hectares of biotech cotton and maize last year.

In Latin America, Bolivia became the newest country to grow biotech crops. Last year, Bolivian farmers planted 600,000 hectares of biotech soybeans.

Argentina planted the second-largest area of biotech crops globally last year at 21.0 million hectares, a 10pc increase from 2007.

In addition, the Argentine government approved a stacked event in corn for cultivation in 2008.

In Brazil last year, the Technical Commission on Biotechnology approved three biotech corn hybrids and two biotech cotton hybrids.

Brazilian farmers planted 15.8 million hectares of biotech crops in 2008, including pest-resistant biotech corn for the first time.

Last year, farmers in Paraguay grew 2.7 million hectares of biotech crops.

Farmers in Uruguay grew 700,000 hectares of biotech crops, a 40pc increase from 2007.

Meanwhile, farmers in Chile, Colombia and Honduras continued to grow biotech crops.

Asian governments last year recognized the benefits of plant biotechnology, especially increased crop productivity.

In China, Premier Wen Jiabao has said, "To solve the food problem, we have to rely on big science and technology measures, rely on biotechnology, rely on (genetic modification)."

As a result, China has committed an additional $3.5 billion over 12 years for continued research and development in an effort to feed its 1.3 billion people.

Biotech rice alone, already developed and field tested in China, has the potential to increase food availability and net income by about $100 per hectare for approximately 440 million people in the country.

In 2008, Chinese farmers grew 3.8 million hectares of biotech crops.

India developed a new set of guidelines, standard operating procedures and protocols for conducting safety assessments of biotech crops as part of a science-based approval system for plant biotechnology.

In November, the government also approved field trials of biotech corn.

Indian farmers grew 7.6 million hectares of biotech crops in 2008, a 23pc increase from the previous year.

In 2008, two Australian states - New South Wales and Victoria - commercially cultivated biotech canola for the first time, and Western Australia approved commercial trials of biotech canola.

Australian farmers planted 200,000 hectares of biotech crops in 2008, double the hectares grown in 2007.

Filipino farmers planted 400,000 hectares of biotech crops in 2008, a 33pc increase over 2007.

New Zealand approved field trials of biotech onion plants.

Here's the point

For struggling farmers - especially in developing countries - the benefits of biotech crops are apparent.

Buying or renting more land or taking an off-farm job to increase family income is usually not an option.

Their only hope is to increase yields per acre, increase efficiency and lower input costs.

Biotech seeds or plant cuttings are a scale-neutral technology that allow farmers of all resource levels and economic backgrounds to share in the benefits of their use.

Higher net incomes for farmers mean additional money for education and health, and farmers can have more time for family activities.

In addition, biotech seeds create greater long-term economic stability by reducing production uncertainty due to insect infestations and disease.

Bruce Chassy, professor of food safety and nutritional sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said the latest report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) provides evidence that farmers around the world have seen increases in yield, reductions in costs, improvements in crop management and the sustainability of agriculture, and it has all occurred without any adverse effects thanks to biotechnology.

"It is especially heartening that the technology makes its greatest impact for resource-poor farmers in the developing world," Chassy said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Go Here and see how GM is helping to raise the standard of living http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFarmers.php
Posted by woody, 9/03/2009 7:00:14 PM
It would appear that these figures are significantly fudged. Read a detailed story about this at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCropsExaggerated.php
Posted by john newton, 10/03/2009 5:39:04 AM
What this story doesn't say is that most of the developing countries mentioned have significant corporate farms. These are the "farmers" using GM varieties plus the herbicides and insecticides that go with them. GM varieties and in particular Roundup Ready varieties are of no use to subsistence farmers as they cannot afford the seed royalty payments, the herbicide cost, the herbicide spraying equipment, and the cost of buying seed each year. Subsistence farmers keep a sample of seed for replanting in following years, GM seed companies do not allow farmers to keep their seed.

It's about time the GM lobby told all the facts and stopped using subsistence farmers as a pawn to promote a form of agriculture that is directed towards highly capitalised corporate and family farming in all agricultural countries around the world.

Posted by Julie, 10/03/2009 6:17:05 AM
Once again a whole lot of facts and figures derived from those with a vested interest. The reason why the developing and third world countries have adopted the technology is because they are an easy target. Their governments are easily persuaded and yes they will show great benefits because they are starting from nothing in most cases. I don't understand where the environmental benefit comes in when here in Australia we have a very fast growing problem with Roundup or Glyphostae resistance. This stems from the over use of the chemical and now we are looking to grow RR Canola. My, that makes sense. The increased use of Roundup from such crops only escalates the problem and then what the same company sells you another chemical to fix the problem? Wake up Australia and see what the big corporates are doing. The current economic crisis has proven that big and established is not necessarily the best.
Posted by themule, 10/03/2009 6:56:52 AM
This is like saying the Kalashnikov rifle has been an asset to humanity because the uptake has been so good over the last 50 years and people are still buying them...give us a break...surely the GM spin doctors can use more tact than saying (once again) that the poor and impoverished benefit !!!
Posted by michael, 10/03/2009 6:57:26 AM
More propaganda from the pro GM lobby. No doubt GM crops will raise the standard of living for chemical companies. The simple fact is that as the fertility supplies of essential nutrients elements in the soil supporting all life has been declining has not yet been widely comprehended. The dwindling amount of the soils creative power has encouraged us to search for crop substitutes as soon as a “tried and true” crop indicates its decrease in yield of bulk or bushels per Ha. Rather than rebuild the fertility of the soil to nourish the “tired” crop, we have searched the four corners of the earth for another or have bred or try to genetically modify new cultivars to take its place under this ever declining fertility. By this procedure we have introduced more and more of those crops which are making mainly vegetative bulk but are producing less of real nourishment and nutrition for animals.
Posted by Richard Woolley, 10/03/2009 7:07:15 AM
What a crock! The very reason that Australian primary producers are 'resource poor' is largely due to the avaricious behaviour of the MIDDLE MEN. This third-party group are kept awake at night concocting ways and means to strip-bear any possible GOOD FORTUNE the primary producers may be entitled. This 'good fortune' is usually due to favourable climatic conditions and nothing else, which is beyond manipulation, and is able to theoretically provide a financial and wellbeing 'top-up'. But invariably the endless brigade of snake-oil salesmen and middle-men parasites, disguised as your pub drinking mates, are primed to denude our unsuspecting brothers and sisters by covert means. The fertiliser and farm hardware suppliers are a classic example of churning and gouging. The banks for not passing on RBA reduced interest rates at the same rate as the mortgage market - (the squeaky wheel always get the oil). The MLA returns the worst yields to its embodied levy paying producers in the development and, in some cases, the third world. The supermarket duopoly make an Olympic sport of price versus supply lines, especially in seasonal or perishable goods. This is why our Australian family rural producers are 'resource poor' not from a lack of commitment or initiative but purely from manipulation and targeted greed by parasitic third parties. The day of retribution is gaining traction with such innovations as Community Produce Markets, Organic and/or Chemical-Free produce, on-property produced Humified Compost and Teas, Collaborative Farming and Paddock to Plate trading via the Internet. BUT remember 'snake-oil' is a PERMEABLE substance and exclusively frenzy-feeds of opportunistic and vulnerable enterprise veins!
Posted by Clark Goodwin, 10/03/2009 7:09:01 AM
How come when Australia has only a few 'toe in the water' GM canola crops in only 2 states, we are now a 'biotech crop country'? Unfortunately this is what happens once GM gets a foot in the door!
Posted by Loving Life, 10/03/2009 8:41:45 AM
woody and john newton - I-SIS was set up to promote an anti-GM agenda. Why reference them and not the hundred or so national academies of science that have reviewed GM crops?

Loving Life - we grow a bit of GM cotton as well, you won't hear about its environmental benefits from the anti-GM lobby so have a look at the Cotton Research and Development Corporation website for some independent analysis.

Congratulations to the stock and land for publishing a good factual look at a new agricultural technology.

Posted by Dave, 10/03/2009 9:07:14 AM
ISAAA's report fudges the figures on GM crops again this year. It ignores: GM yields that are lower than the best conventional crops; reports only the area of GM crops (less than 2% of all productive land) and the 25 countries with GM. But 170 countries and 60 territories are still GM-free! It double counts the area of the 20% of GM crop stacked with both GM genes. GM sugar beet has been available for a decade.

ISAAA hypes GM crops being pushed into Africa by Gates and Rockefeller Foundation-funded programs. But broadacre, industrial, oil-based monocultures of GM crops would destroy Africa's capacity to feed its own people and who would be thrown into urban slums. GM would be grown for export, for animal feed and biofuels.

The USA grew 50% of all GM crops in the world again. The area of Roundup Ready GM soy increased in South America, grown for animal feed and biofuels in the North, wrecking the Amazon and South America's capacity to feed its own people. Patented GM crops, animals and plants are just a scam to steal publicly developed resources and enrich the GM industry. Stop spending public money on it!

Roundup tolerance and Bt insect toxins are all that’s been available since 1996. GM cannot deliver on its empty promises of drought and salt tolerant varieties, nitrogen fixing in grains, longer shelf life foods, etc., so let's stop wasting scarce public resources on it.

Posted by Bob Phelps, 10/03/2009 1:06:44 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
MULTIMEDIA
05 March, 2009
09 March, 2009
05 March, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you support SA Premier Mike Rann's High Court challenge to force the removal of water trading caps in the Murray Darling Basin?

Yes
(41.6%)

No
(47.1%)

Undecided
(11.2%)

Total Votes: 490
Poll Date: 08 March, 2009

Most popular articles


Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...