
The UK should start funding more research into GM crops, says The Royal Society.
Related Articles
- This week's changes to the Ecologist.org
- Climate change 'will wreak havoc on Britain's coastline by 2050'
- Huhne accused of 'hypocrisy' for promoting offshore oil in Scotland and Arctic
- Tanzania urged to accept World Bank funding of alternative Serengeti highway route
- UK's 'fracking' gas-extraction is not unconventional says industry
Call for publicly funded research into GM crops
Ecologist
20th October, 2009
Technologies to increase agricultural productivity will allow the UK to help feed the world, says Royal Society report
The Government should provide £2 billion worth of funding to increase food crop production in the UK, says the UK's premier scientific institution.
In a new report published today, 'Reaping the Benefits', The Royal Society says GM crops should be among the technologies developed over the next 20 years and that, 'scientific development holds the key to ensuring future food security'.
'The predictions for climate change are that Northern Europe is going to become one of the major bread baskets of the world,' said report co-author Professor Jules Pretty.
'The capacity for our agriculture to be successful is going to be important for us but increasingly for the world as well.'
Biotech giants
Report chair Professor David Baulcombe said public funds were necessary because much of the research needed would not interest large seed or fertiliser companies.
'If you are growing crops that use less fertiliser, that will not be of interest to a company that manufactures and sells fertilisers. So if the research is to be done it is best to be supported by the public sector, at least in the first instance,' he said.
Immediate support
He said the crop science sector in the UK needed immediate public support.
'There is a tremendous opportunity to apply science to develop sustainable and highly productive agriculture that hasn't previously existed,' said Professor Baulcombe.
'But to do it we need resources. If we start now the fruits of that will start coming out in the fields in 10 years time.
'We would be neglectful if we didn't take hold of the opportunity to feed the world,' he said.
Food waste
However, other organisations are already questioning the necessity for publicly-funded crop science.
'The money might be better spent tackling the social and economic problems that affect whether growing more food makes a jot of difference to food security,' said Food Ethics Council executive director Dr Tom MacMillan.
'The report assumes that feeding people is about growing food, not how it’s distributed and consumed. It fails to face up to the fact that a billion people already go hungry, while many more are buying – and throwing away – more food than they need.
'Instead of asking ‘how can science and technology help secure global food supplies’, we need to ask ‘what can be done – by scientists but also by others – to help the world’s hungry?’ he said.
Green farming
Friends of the Earth agrees with this perspective. It said the Government had already invested millions into GM technology with little benefit.
'Any attempt to combat the global food crisis must also address its root causes - such as industrial livestock production and a narrow focus on increasing yields - an analysis which is missing from the Royal Society report,' said food campaigner Kirtana Chandrasekaran.
'A massive increase in investment is needed in agricultural science - but this should focus on supporting traditional farming methods and providing safe, planet-friendly food.'
Useful links
The Royal Society
See also
- Biotech firms thwarting GM research, say scientists
- 10 reasons why GM won't feed the world
- Public needs to be 'educated' into accepting GM
Previous Articles...
Users Comments
Re: Call for publicly funded research into GM cropsRoyal Society - UK urged to lead future food
The Royal Society says the UK should spend £200 million per year on food crop research, yet the report contains nothing new; it states that all technical options should be used, but does not elaborate any further.
But we should not be talking about introducing new technologies or looking to GM for an answer. Yes, people need technology - access to technology that already exists and is proven to work.
Practical Action, an international development charity has worked directly with communities on how appropriate technologies can help lift people out of poverty for more than four decades. These can range from agricultural tools, irrigation techniques, energy technologies to enable production, basic technologies to build better housing to ideas to protect people from disaster to helping people adapt to climate change.
A floating garden in Bangladesh can provide people with a means to grow food, therefore when floods hit the country people can feed their families and also have a livelihood. The garden can then be used as compost to grow pumpkins when the flood water has receeded. A simple technology which is working.
Only a few days ago the United Nations warned more international effort is needed to cut the number of hungry people across the world - why gamble with unproven science when technologies that can make a difference already exist?
| |
Re: Call for publicly funded research into GM cropsThe report does not explain why new research is needed when existing technologies are not being used. | |
Re: Call for publicly funded research into GM cropsFor those interested in an alternative to GM I would like to draw your attention to ‘Crow’s Footing,’ which is a way of planting seeds that was told to me by my grandfather. Instead of planting seeds in a set distance between rows we can use equilateral triangles to plant the seeds. The rows are closer together but the seed rows are planted out of sync with the rows on either side. In this way I found it possible to increase food production by 30%. This is an interesting statistic for those with ‘green fingers’ and I have been campaigning to have it used in the Third World for many years. Not only can the amount of ‘cash crops’ can be increased, but more importantly, so can subsistence crops, which are much more important. | |
Re: Call for publicly funded research into GM cropsThe commenter before this one doesn't understand modern agriculture that already maximizes yields through optimized density of planting amd by the way the data he/she mentioned is meaningless and nonscientific since you need to conduct yield testing on many sites with many replications to show a true difference - just another example of non-scientists with out any training trying to do something incorrectly |


