GM rice and farmer's health
boby...@yahoo.co.uk
Not So Golden Silence on GM Rice
By Thomas R. DeGregori
Recently, I posted a piece on the discovery of the potential for a
serious allergenic response from a foodstuff that was being promoted as
a non-genetically-modified (non-GM) alternative to GM soybeans. There
was almost total media silence on this matter even though the research
itself was published in a leading peer-reviewed medical journal. ACSH
Nutrition Director Dr. Ruth Kava recently noted yet another case of
media silence, but before I describe the parallels and differences in
the two cases, allow me to conjure an imaginary scenario.
Good News Is Only News If It's Genetically Pure
Let us imagine that in a peer-reviewed article in a leading scientific
publication -- one of the world's most prestigious journals -- a
comparison of farmers' health found that those who grew
genetically-modified rice were less healthy than those who grew
conventional rice. Is there any doubt that this would have become a
major media story, with that one study being described as having
"proven" the dangers of genetically-modified crops and closed out the
need for further inquiry? One can almost hear the NPR interviews with
the researchers and the comments of the non-governmental-organization
(NGO) "scientists." One can further imagine the legions of the NGO
environmentalists, back-to-nature, and "organic" enthusiasts contacting
their local media to make sure the story was not ignored and that it
was "correctly" interpreted. Add in letters-to-the-editor and call-in
shows and one could expect a blizzard of publicity and concern over the
health and wellbeing of poor farmers around the world. In fact, one
does not even have to imagine a peer-reviewed article -- a
non-peer-reviewed, NGO-funded study would probably have been sufficient
to cause a ruckus.
In fact, research "assessed" both the "productivity and health effects"
of "insect-resistant GM rice in farmer's fields" in China. The study
was published in Science (29 April 2005) and authored by two
distinguished Chinese scientists and two distinguished American
scientists (Huang et al. 2005). The research was supported by National
Natural Science Foundation of China and the Chinese Academy of Science,
so one could hardly accuse it of having either a corporate bias or for
that matter one favoring the position of the U.S. government on this
issue. On top of all of that, there were press releases from the
universities that were home to the American researchers and very good
stories by the Associated Press and others on this issue, posted on a
number of very popular news groups for agricultural scientists. In case
you haven't guessed it by now, the research found that farmers who
planted insect-resistant GM rice had increased yields and their
households experienced no pesticide-related illnesses in contrast to
those planting conventional rice, who continued to experience these
pesticide-related problems. (The reduced need for pesticide with the GM
variety would obviously lead to reduced pesticide-related illnesses.
And one does not have to accept the anti-pesticide hysterics of the
chemophobes to recognize that dose makes the poison and that what may
be safe levels for consumers might be part of a cumulating dose
received by the farmer applicator.)
The author's words from the article abstract nicely state the research
conclusions: "Farm surveys of randomly selected farm households that
are cultivating the insect-resistant GM rice varieties, without the aid
of experimental station technicians, demonstrate that when compared
with households cultivating non-GM rice, small and poor farm households
benefit from adopting GM rice by both higher crop yields and reduced
use of pesticides, which also contribute to improved health" (Huang
2005).
If you haven't heard about this research, it is quite likely because
its findings were favorable to a GM crop. The study was intelligently
designed and carried out, was useful and informative, and revealed few
surprises to those who knew the scientific issues involved. But it is
not what someone in the media who has been under a steady barrage of
anti-GM propaganda would expect, so it should have been news to them.
It apparently wasn't! We are talking about small, poor, or at least
low-income farmers being better off economically and healthier. These
are the farmers that the anti-biotech NGOs purport to be defending. But
the farmers aren't doing things the way anti-tech NGOs want them to,
through low-tech and "sustainable" agriculture methods -- the farmers
are using cutting-edge technology and science capable of delivering
similar benefits to the poorest farmers around the world.
Science vs. Starvation in the Developing World
The study was very well done. The farm groups for the conventional and
GM planting were carefully matched and no payments or subsidies were
provided other than making GM seeds available at the same price as
conventional varieties. Even more important, there were no special
instructions provided on planting or pesticide use, yet there was an
"80% reduction in pesticide usage and a reduction in their adverse
effects" along with a 6 to 9% increase in yield.
As someone who has been involved in developing-country agriculture in a
variety of locations, including Asia, I was pleasantly surprised by a
number of points. I have talked with farmers in countries where
extensive pesticide use was a relatively recent event either in their
lifetime or in the village memory. They remember the frequent crop
failures that preceded pesticide use and are therefore reluctant to cut
back on pesticides. So-called tradition-bound farmers were quick to
adopt the technology of the Green Revolution and having experienced its
enormous benefits were justifiably concerned about losing them. An
integrated pest management (IPM) project that I studied actually "paid"
selected farmers to use less pesticide by guaranteeing his or her crop.
Guaranteeing the crop is often a good way to introduce an agricultural
innovation to an area. I once asked a farmer outside of the IPM project
what he would say if I told him that a farmer across the valley was
spraying about one fifth (about the same reduction as the China study)
the pesticide that he was and getting the same crop. He replied that he
simply would not believe me.
I have often argued that farmers want to use as little pesticide as
possible, since it costs them money. This is even more true in poor
countries, where pesticide costs can be a significant fraction of
household income. But farmers also don't want to lose their crop. Thus,
the study published in Science was a pleasant surprise, showing us how
quickly farmers can develop an understanding of the potential of
insect-resistant rice and reduce their pesticide use without any
technical assistance or advice in their decision-making process.
Farmers aren't stupid, but they are cautious and there must have been a
number of solid indicators of plant health and protection, or insect
resistance, that led them to reduce pesticide use so significantly.
Modern Farmers Are Healthier Farmers
In the late 1980s and early 1990s (with a few echoes to the present),
there were any number of unsubstantiated reports of thousands of deaths
from pesticide use by those opposed to its usage -- though these
accounts routinely include deaths where the pesticide was used to
commit suicide. Still, consistent with my view of the lack of dangers
from pesticide residue on food, I recognize that the level of exposure
for farm workers can be a problem. Even if one argues that most
estimates exaggerate the sickness and deaths, one characteristic
pervades virtually all estimates, namely, illness and death associated
with pesticide use is vastly greater in poor countries than in
developed countries.
My experience in Asia and elsewhere leads me to believe that the health
benefits from the reduction in pesticide use in China would be easily
matched in most of the developing world. I have observed farmers
spraying without protective clothing and, in one case, a farmer
spraying a cabbage patch starting from the top of a hill and working
his way down, spraying right on top of what was drifting down from his
spraying the previous rows. I have worked with farmers who finished
spraying and sat down to eat with their hands without the option of
washing them, except in a canal with floating fecal matter.
Since pesticide use is an essential component of getting yields to feed
the world's population, I have long favored programs for teaching safer
methods of pesticide application -- and for very labor- and often
knowledge-intensive programs of insect-"scouting" and IPM -- to try to
reduce pesticide use without loss of output. Now, with the help of
biotechnology, small farmers can reduce pesticide use, increase yields
and income, and protect their health.
Many of those now silent on the latest study are precisely those who
have been screaming about the dangers of pesticide use. They should be
on the rooftops shouting hosannas to biotechnology and promoting the
use of insect-resistant crops. Undoubtedly, there will be some attempts
to refute or discount the study by those who refuse to accept any
positive evidence on GM. However important the recent study may be --
and it is important -- it is also consistent with a series of studies
on reduced pesticide use as a result of GM crops. Unfortunately, the
silence on this study will in no way be matched by a corresponding
silence over the next NGO-funded claim of GMO harm -- that report will
inevitably come and be widely reported as fact. Those of us who are
supportive of efforts to use science and technology to help the poor
improve their lot in life (and the world's population to improve the
conditions of life) need to find new ways to reach the media to get our
side of the story reported.
REFERENCE:
Huang, Jikun; Ruifa Hu; Scott Rozelle, and Carl Pray. 2005
Insect-Resistant GM Rice in Farmers' Fields: Assessing Productivity and
Health Effects in China, Science 308(5722):688-690 , 29 April.
Dr. Thomas R. DeGregori, Professor of Economics, University of Houston
and Board of Directors of the American Council on Science and Health,
has extensive overseas experience as a development economist, including
work as a policy advisor to donor organizations and developing
countries.
[END OF ARTICLE]
If anyone knows of a peer reviewed article in Science or an equivalent
journal, which demonstrates that the health of farmers has been
adversely affected by growing GM crops, please let me know.