| Manjit K. Misra, Director of Seed Science Center at Iowa State, introduced Tom Vilsack, saying that he worked with Vilsack from Oct 2007-Dec 2008 when he was a lecturer at ISU in a course called "Science, Policy, and Food." He commended Vilsack for caring about women, children, and farmers, saying, "he is always looking out for the ones who are overlooked or underrepresented."
Then Vilsack began speaking, starting with some nostalgia for his time at ISU and his joy at being in Iowa for this event. He transitioned to the subject at hand by saying that food policy, the subject of the course he lectured on at ISU and now his daily reality as Secretary of Agriculture, "is extremely complex and food policy impacts every single one of us."
Then he got to the talking points that made up the remainder of his speech. First, we must double food production by 2050, due to the increase in population, rising income, and urbanization around the world. Second, this will be difficult to do because of climate change, extreme weather, and limited water. Third, while we do this, we must also protect the environment and biodiversity. This will not be solved simply, he said. And, above all, "solutions must be built on strong science."
Now - aside from the FAO estimate that we must double food production, which assumes that more people will be eating grain-fed animal products - most of these points are not terribly controversial. Who among us does not want to solve world hunger, protect the environment and biodiversity, and accomplish our goals in a scientific way? However, in the remainder of his address, Vilsack made it clear which types of science and technology he is supporting.
He noted that the Green Revolution is credited with saving a billion lives [insert homage to Norman Borlaug here], and here in the U.S., it was the willingness of farmers to embrace science that has helped us produce food so well. In 1950, a farmer produced food for 19 people. Today, a farmer produces enough to feed 155 people while using no more land than the 1950 farmer did.
Next, Vilsack brought up the potential conflict between producing more food and preserving the environment. He said increasing the amount of arable land used for agriculture can have a negative impact on wildlife habitats like forests and grasslands. Thus, we must find ways to increase productivity that would suit the needs of nations around the world. And he does not believe there is a conflict between farmers using technology and safeguarding the environment. When technology is managed appropriately, farmers and ranchers that embrace science can produce more while protecting the environment.
This is more or less the theme of his entire talk. Yes, you can use science to produce more food without harming the environment. And that's a statement I think most people would agree with. But his examples to back up his thesis show what kind of science he wants to use.
He noted a study in the journal Science that was published last week (I assume it's "Economic Benefits of Bt Maize" in the October 8, 2010 issue) that found that Bt corn can provide "collateral benefits," by protecting non-Bt corn planted adjacent to it from pests. This, says Vilsack, shows that we can maintain biodiversity by reducing our use of pesticides that endanger beneficial insects. And, he's proud that the team that worked on this included a USDA scientist. This conclusion does not sit well with me - and it's something I need to look further into to confirm - but I don't think farmers typically use pesticides on corn for the pests that Bt is used for. And if that is the case, there is no decrease in pesticide usage achieved here.
Vilsack continued, saying that farmers understand the need for a "balanced approach" that includes new technology and smart management. He said you cannot continually take from the soil without giving something back, and then - I think - intended to make an analogy between that, although it didn't quite work, saying "neither can you ignore scientific advances" and "we cannot afford to ignore" new technologies.
I agree with him there. All technology should be examined and assessed. Don't ignore the technology. But all technology should not be used. Imagine if we tried that in a war, using targeted missiles AND nukes - or worse - because we can't afford to ignore any new technologies. The truth is that using some technologies makes the use of other technologies impossible. Therefore, while it's good to assess everything, we should also have a smart strategy of assessing which ones we should actually use, so that Farmer A's genetically engineered seeds don't screw up Farmer B's agroecological polyculture.
Over the decades, said Vilsack, we made progress with conventional breeding, but now we need to embrace new approaches. We now have other goals like environmental protection, food safety, and "energy reduction" (you know what he means). Biotechnology "with or without" genetic engineering "gives us the opportunity to feed a hungry world while preserving or even restoring our natural resource base." Emerging technologies create the promise of resisting new threats like drought, pests, toxicity, and salinity, said Vilsack. Pests previously seen in one area will spread across the world in the coming decades, and biotechnology can help us breed traditional crops and livestock lines better and faster, helping us respond to these new challenges.
So there you go. Vilsack endorses biotechnology. What I would love to clarify is what he means by "biotechnology" since he makes it clear that he is not using the term as a synonym for genetic engineering.
His next example came from South Africa, where there is a new GE corn variety that is resistant to maize streak virus, "a virus that stunts growth and yields." Not only can technology help produce more food, he said, it can also help increase food quality. "Modern corn varieties are healthier, have less damaged kernels, and lower amounts of dangerous toxins" compared to older varieties.
Given his endorsement of biotechnology, the USDA has a "new strategic approach" he said. A "science based effort to regulate while touting benefits of increased productivity and protection of the environment." USDA "stands ready to provide technological assistance" to countries that are ready to use science and technology.
He then named off several groups that he thinks "encourage dialogue about benefits of these new technologies:" The North American Biotechnology Initiative, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, and the
African Growth and Opportunity Effort.
At this point, Vilsack backtracks, so we all know that he doesn't hate other types of agriculture. "This is not about picking one vision for agriculture over the others," he said. We must work to make sure all types of agriculture can co-exist. "We must use ALL of the appropriate tools in our toolbox." (These are all favorite statements of proponents of pesticides and biotech. Oh, go ahead and have your organic heirloom tomato, but we need to feed the world here! We're in favor of all kinds of agriculture.)
At this point, Vilsack made clear what he means by "protecting biodiversity." The U.S. Plant Germplasm Program - with 20 locations in the U.S. - stores over 20 million seeds, tissues, and whole plants. He called it one of the "most extensive efforts to preserve crop diversity in the world" and "an insurance policy by holding source material needed to meet challenges of evolving pests and climate changes."
He gave two examples of how this has worked. First, they provided the plant material basis for most common variety of sorghum in Africa which increased yields by 100%. Second, they helped restore 100 varieties of apples that have been wiped out by disease.
But the NEXT thing he said blew me away. Now the USDA is looking to preserve animal genetics in a Fort Collins facility. The US has 4 million Holstein dairy cows, said Vilsack but there are only about 36 individual cows represented among them. That lack of genetic diversity makes them incredible vulnerable. If the genetics of these 4 million cows were destroyed, USDA's store of genetics would help reconstitute them. What? Why not call for more biodiversity among the U.S. dairy herd???
Next, Vilsack mentioned the Feed the Future initiative, repeating that "we know that the best science will allow us to respond." He noted that the USDA is trying to create new markets for farmers through its Ecosystem Markets Office.
Last, he summed up his points once again and then concluded by introducing the next speaker.
Later, during the Q&A, Vilsack was asked by an Indian man how he deals with unfounded, emotional protests by anti-GMO activists. He answered:
Well, there are a couple of responses to that question. I mean, first of all, I think it's important for us to do a better job of educating people about the benefits associated with genetically modified or genetically engineered crops, specifically the fact that you can grow with less reliance on water resources, or you have the opportunity to use less chemicals and pesticides, which may be helpful to the environment. I think we also need to do a better job of building coalitions of those who understand and appreciate those benefits. The USDA is now engaged, as I mentioned, in reaching out to international organizations that are interested in advancing biotechnology, and utilizing those coalitions. I think it's also important for us to recognize internationally that it's probably not as effective for Americans to tell Indian farmers what works and what doesn't. It's far more effective if Indian farmers tell other Indian farmers what works or, more importantly, if Indian farmers can see their neighbors benefiting from technology, they will try to replicate it. So we need to do a better job of creating relationships and exchanges between farmers in this country and farmers in your country, between researchers in this country and researchers in your country, between government officials in your country and myself, and I'm looking forward to the visit that I'm actually going to make to India after the election here with President Obama. We're traveling to India together and I'm looking forward to that visit.
Here in the United States, the challenge is to figure out structures in which folks can coexist. It isn't about choosing one or the other, it isn't about one being right and one being wrong, it's about how do you figure out regulatory structures in which both can coexist. How do you establish protection zones, so that I'm not in a position to tell you what you can do, but you tell me I can't farm in a particular way. You want to farm in a particular way, I want to farm in a different way, we should both be able to figure out how to do that.
It's also about providing what is lacking in our system today, and there needs to be a discussion and conversation about this, and that is the remedy that is available to people when, in fact, there is a contamination issue. If I'm an organic farmer and I've planted a crop and my neighbor decides to plant genetically modified and somehow that impacts negatively my crop, there is no recourse at this point in time, other than farmer suing farmer. We really don't want that. That's not good for community, it's not good for the farming, for agriculture. What we really need to figure out is is there an alternative way to compensate people when there is an inadvertent circumstance or situation where crops are compromised. If we create that kind of system, and we create a dialogue where people are visiting and working with each other, I think we'll have greater acceptance and greater diversity, which is very very important, I think, to maintain profitability of all sized operations in America. |
