Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/22/gmcrops.climatechange
Biotech companies desert international agriculture project
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday January 22 2008

Biotechnology companies developing genetically modified crops have  
withdrawn from a major international project to map out the future of  
agriculture, after it failed to back GM as a tool to reduce poverty  
and hunger.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology  
for Development aims to focus attention on the problem of how to feed  
the world's growing population, as the Intergovernmental Panel on  
Climate Change has done for the challenge of global warming.  
Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF resigned after a draft report from the  
project highlighted the risks of GM crops and said they could pose  
problems for the developing world.

The companies argue the report should say their GM technology could  
secure future food supplies because it can boost yields and make  
plants more resistant to droughts and higher temperatures.

Bob Watson, director of the project, which is based on the work of  
4,000 scientists and experts from around the world, said he was "very  
disappointed" by the companies' move.

He said: "It's very unfortunate that they have walked out even before  
we agreed the final version. If they can bring evidence forward that  
we have not been objective, or that the language is biased, then we  
could discuss that."

He also said the resignations would weaken the final report. "Our  
goal was to have them included. We wanted a multi stake holder group  
that included everyone, that was absolutely essential."

The project was due to agree its final report last week in Nairobi,  
but the meeting was postponed because of the unrest in Kenya. It is  
now expected to finish in April.

Croplife International, the agriculture industry trade body of which  
Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF are members, told the project's leaders  
it was unhappy that the views of its members had not been reflected  
in the draft report, and that they were pulling out.

Denise Dewar of Croplife International said: "We were concerned with  
the direction the draft was taking and that our input was not being  
taken appropriately. We were looking to see references to plant  
science technology and the potential role it can contribute."

The draft report says there is a "wide range of perspectives on the  
environmental, human health and economic risks and benefits of modern  
biotechnology, many of which are as yet unknown". It says it is not  
clear whether GM crops increase yields and warns that use of the  
technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of  
agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved, as  
well as causing problems with patents.

In an editorial criticising Croplife International's decision, the  
science journal Nature said: "The views outlined in the draft chapter  
on biotechnology, although undoubtedly over-cautious and unbalanced,  
do not represent the rantings of a fringe minority. The idea that  
biotechnology cannot by itself reduce hunger and poverty is  
mainstream opinion among agricultural scientists and policy-makers."

Greenpeace, a member of the assessment project, urged the companies  
to reconsider. Jan van Aken, GM campaigner with Greenpeace  
International, said: "This assessment goes far beyond genetic  
engineering, it is about setting solutions for global agriculture and  
the world's poor and hungry. It is such a shame to withdraw from such  
a good initiative, simply because your business plans do not fit with  
sound science and experts voiced a more balanced opinion than yours."