|
|
More for lessLast week I had a tremendously enjoyable meeting at a farm landlord appreciation dinner. Tom Farms, of Leesburg, Ind., held its first-ever evening at the farm for all of their landlords. If you think your landlord requires a lot of time and handholding, get this--they work with 160 different landowners. Tom Farms is a somewhat typical Midwestern corn and soybean farm with one little difference; they have incorporated tomatoes into their crop rotation. A significant number of their farmed acres raise parent seed for Dekalb Hybrids, so when Kip Tom told me that they spray their tomatoes every week with a fungicide, it certainly caught my attention. Finding a reason to take polls is not hard to come by in this day and age, but this would be an interesting way to structure a poll on the consumer perceptions of biotechnology: 1. Do you believe that tomatoes too should be genetically modified? 2. Did you know that tomatoes in commercial production are sprayed with a chemical every week? 3. Now that you know that, would you allow genetic modification of the plant if it would eliminate the need for chemical application? Let me start by saying that I do support science and technology, especially when it comes to food production. I believe in both proper chemical application and the responsible use of genetic modification in our quest to feed the world. It appears to me that far too many citizens, elected officials and regulators do not understand the business of food production. I just noticed that atrazine has come under attack after a study that was released by the Illinois Farm Bureau. The results indicated that atrazine was critical to Illinois farmers. Illinois corn farmers and the state's economy could suffer annual losses in excess of $500 million without atrazine. And it needs to be noted that in the past 50 years more than 600 research projects have been conducted on the effect of atrazine, making it one of the most studied components in the world; yet, the fear of the unknown seems to loom. While I have no reservations about the proper chemical usage on earth, it is my personal belief that if we can genetically modify the plant to reduce the need for inputs, we should do it. However, the problem with gaining public confidence about the science and technology of crops is that we must stop talking about the benefits of these modifications to the farmer. I honestly cannot believe the number of people who are genuinely concerned about the ability of our planet to produce enough food to feed 9 billion people. If we could simply implement the basic science we have available to us as food producers, that task could be done by noon and we would have the rest of the day off. Instead, we are hindered by regulations and the activists who don't truly understand the real benefits, of implementing these scientific tools, to both the hungry people and the quest for a green planet. The problem, though, as in every single case involving public acceptance, is that it has very little to do with the consumer and everything to do with our fellow farmers. Already I have seen farmers who are talking about how biotechnology is bad and chemical use is dangerous. Often this is just a marketing ploy to drive their own niche market. When will we understand that the only true challenge we have in agriculture is becoming divided and then being conquered? You don't need to look up any fancy scientific formula to understand the impact of genetic modification, simply look at the cost of chemicals. I was just informed that most chemical varieties are selling for half of what they used to and even Roundup is significantly cheaper than it was five years ago. But forget about all the cost savings and benefits to the farmer. Here is the real moral and ethical obligation that we have to society: It is our job to find the best and most efficient means of converting natural resources into human consumable products. We need to utilize technologies that will allow us to produce the essentials of life for an ever-increasing population while being good stewards of the land and water in our care, so that we can continue to provide these products for generations to come. When we get to this point in our communications, the consumer will truly realize the value of science in both saving the planet and providing for the people on it. Purdue University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have created a tomato variety that contains three times as much of the antioxidant lycopene as the unmodified variety. Lycopene consumption is associated with a lower risk of prostate and breast cancer and decreased blood levels of "bad cholesterol." How can that be a bad thing? These tomatoes look, taste and smell just like the rest of the tomatoes on the shelf, but they are even better for the consumer. Baby carrots have been genetically modified for years and bananas come only as a result of cloning. Does that stop us from eating them? Probably not, but it seems to be the fear of the unknown, capitalized upon by many in their marketing quest, that is keeping our food production system from moving forward and addressing the needs of a hungry world. Edible vaccines, delivered via locally grown crops, could do more to eliminate disease than the Red Cross, missionaries and the United Nations (UN) task forces combined, at a fraction of the cost. You can get the benefits of food and inoculation against deadly diseases in a convenient tasty package. Sounds better then a poke with a needle to me. While gardening was once reserved for the old-fashioned, the hobbyists and those few who were seeking simply to beautify their surroundings, family and community gardens are on the rise. I think that is great and I can't help but revel at how wonderful those tomatoes from my own garden tasted when they were finally ripe enough to land on a big pile of bacon with lettuce, toast and mayo. But gardening is not an easy prospect. Millions of big dreams are planted in the cool spring soil that never amount to "a hill of beans." There are seed problems, germination issues, weed invasions, pest infestations, drought, flooding or wind, courtesy of Mother Nature, visits from wildlife and maybe even an outbreak of goats, any or all of which can quickly send your best laid plans and big dreams for a bountiful harvest straight to the compost pile. Attempting to raise a garden is not for the faint of heart. There is a 100 percent likelihood that some will try, many will not and, therefore, we will still have to raise enough food for not only our own families but also those who can't feed their own. This cannot be done in pots on the terrace or using the techniques of our earliest ancestors. In order to feed the hungry mouths of the world, we must embrace the technology that allows us to do so not only now but for the future, as well. That means using tools that will not only produce food safely and efficiently but also conserve our land and water resources. We have the tools and science to do that; we just need to make believers out of our consumers and let the squeaky wheels find something else to squawk about. We can raise more food, fuel and pharmaceuticals using fewer resources, and have a planet that will survive for centuries, if we utilize our best resources--the great minds of our generation. Editor's note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com, or e-mail Trent at trent@loostales.com.
1
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2011. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
