LUDWIGSHAFEN, GERMANY, November 8, 2011 – Consumers’ interest in agriculture and personal respect for farmers is high, even in countries where less than two percent of the population works in agriculture, according to the BASF Farm Perspectives Study, which surveyed 1,800 farmers and 6,000 consumers. Yet farmers and consumers also agree that farmers’ reputations remain low. The study, which outlines the way farmers and consumers view the farming profession, its challenges and its support network, revealed surprisingly strong agreement on major issues, including the role of farmers and the major challenges farmers are facing in the 21^st century.

The study was carried out in Brazil, India, the United States, Germany, Spain and France in cooperation with the global market research firm Synovate GmbH and Professor Dr. Ulrich Oevermann, Professor for Sociology at the University of Frankfurt.

Both farmers and consumers view farming as a vocation, one that is dedicated to providing nourishment, supporting rural culture and caring for the land. “Steward of the land” or “Caretaker of the land” is farmers’ favorite self-description in all six countries (over 80%), but registers significantly lower with consumers (50-60%). In a related question, many consumers blame farmers for environmental problems, with concerns strongest in Brazil, India and France (38-43%), the U.S. and Germany (23%).

Introducing the study at the BASF Agricultural Solutions Press Info Day, Dr. Stefan Marcinowski, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, explained: “Many farmers take the consumers’ concerns very seriously and do their best to address them properly. For us this is an important finding since it clearly shows us where we can help farmers to overcome this gap with more sustainable products and solutions.”

21^st century challenge: Feeding the world

Around 80 percent of farmers and consumers from all countries agree that farming’s primary objective is to feed the world. Even so, a majority of farmers believe that consumers do not understand the full dimension of the food supply challenge or the reality of farming. Agreement on the contribution of plant biotechnology was strongest among farmers and consumers in countries with high adoption of genetically-modified crops, such as India (76% of farmers and 62% of consumers), Brazil (78% and 29%) and the USA (53% and 25%).

Interest-understanding gap

Consumers show a high level of interest in farming (from 84% in India to 50% in France), but also admit that they do not know enough about farming to judge it properly. Although farmers also see an understanding gap among consumers, many (ranging from 40% in the USA to 74% in India) take consumers concerns seriously and say they should do more to meet consumers’ expectations.

Price an obstacle, little support for subsidies on environment

The price of food and, conversely, the price of conservation remain obstacles for both farmers and consumers. A large majority of farmers believe consumers are not willing to pay higher prices for food produced in an environmentally-friendly way. Though some consumers (30%) say they would pay higher prices, a slight majority in France, Spain, Germany and the USA would not. Subsidies are seen by both groups largely as a means to keep food prices low, especially in India (74%), Brazil (67%) and Germany (64%) rather than as environmental lever (around 30%).

Farmers believe that industry and consumers should do more to support agriculture: More environmentally-friendly products and representation in public from industry; better grasp of farming and willingness to pay for environmental benefits from consumers.

“These results are a clear message that farmers expect support on challenges that go far beyond their business success. At the same time, it’s also a signal to all of us, industry, consumers and policymakers, that we need to bridge the farm-knowledge gap and give growers broader support going forward,” concluded Marcinowski.

The press release is available at:  http://www.basf.com/group/pressrelease/P-11-492

This article was first published on the IFIC Food Insight Blog on November 4, 2011.

Sustainable is a popular word these days in conversations about the practices used to produce our food.  The word is used and misused extensively.

I have asked many folks what sustainable food production means.  The answers are diverse, and astonishing in some instances.  Relative the latter, some convey that sustainable food production is the only “way” and that unsustainable agriculture doesn’t work.  The latter response is more than puzzling to me.  If the business is not economically sustainable then it is unsustainable.

My perspective is that sustainable should first be viewed through the “lens” of economic sustainability.  Farms are businesses.  If they don’t make money they close…pretty simple.

However, sustainable gets used in a myriad of confusing ways.  For example, some in society talk about sustainable in the context of this being the “best” food production practice to embrace.  I am sure many readers have seen the marketing message:  organic food production is more sustainable than other agricultural production practices and, therefore, better.

There are other sound bites that convey free-range or pasture-fed production practices are more sustainable than conventional ag production practices.  I even went to a restaurant in San Francisco that markets their restaurant as being sustainable because they focus on urban, rustic food that was sourced from a “sense of place”.  By the way, I still don’t know what urban, rustic food is.

The reality is that well managed and profitable farm businesses are sustainable irrespective of production practice.  And, the food is all the same from a nutrient quality and health standpoint.

Some “spin” sustainable in an environmental context to convey that there are ag production practices (think large scale ag) that are not being managed in an environmentally and sustainably effective way.  This is another example of misleading and inaccurate messaging.

Some even use sustainable to attack science…if products of biotechnology are used in agriculture, the food production practice is not sustainable!  In fact, the opposite is the case, use of biotechnology has many benefits on agriculture that range from environmental to improved production efficiency.

The sustainable campaign even spins into the arena of subsidies for farmers.  I have come to appreciate that more than a few individuals believe that without farm subsidies, large farms would not exist.  They rail that we should limit subsidies to big agribusinesses.  This is another deceptive and misleading communication message.  Recent data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) indicates that the level of support to agriculture in the U.S. is much lower than many other developed countries (see Figure).  In the U.S., the Producer Support Estimate was 9% in 2008-2010.  This is dramatically lower than the European Union level of support (22%), which some view as a haven of “sustainable” food production practices.

My encouragement is that we celebrate the contemporary food system that we have evolved, and not get hung up on the use of the word sustainable.  One looming issue that is high on my priority list is to develop and implement new technologies that will help feed the 10 billion individuals that are projected to populate the world in 2050.

The public discussion about the need for adequate food is a luxury that well-fed people in developed countries can afford.  But in developing countries where the population is growing while the supply of farmland shrinks, people are grappling with a much thornier and higher-stakes dilemma.  Unless they can grow more food on less land, they may not have enough to eat.  The scale of this is already daunting – more than 1 billion individuals in the world go to bed each night hungry.

Agricultural biotechnology is helping to solve this by making it possible to grow more and healthier food in conditions and places where it could not be grown before. The new agricultural biotechnologies offer great promise for producing enough food for the growing world population.  The world’s population is expected to increase to 9 to 10 billion individuals by 2050, with more than 60% of the growth occurring in Africa, Southern Asia, and Eastern Asia.  This increase in population translates to a projected increase in annual global food production from 9.9 trillion pounds to about 14.3 trillion pounds in 2050 (see post at Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology at:  http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/).

Some may be amazed at the extent to which plant biotechnology is being adopted in agriculture.  The rate is accelerating impressively.  For example, in 2010, the accumulated acreage planted during the past 15 years (i.e., from 1996 to 2010), exceeded one billion hectares for the first time.  This is equivalent to more than 10% of the total land area of the USA or China.   This translates to an 87-fold increase in acreage planted to GM crops between 1996 and 2010, making biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture.

It is important to appreciate that feeding the growing world population will be a challenge.  As farmers in developing nations clear-cut more land and consume more natural resources to grow the food their mounting populations need to survive, the world faces an environmental dilemma in addition to a humanitarian one.  I don’t think we want to continue to destroy more wildlife habit or tropical rainforest to plant more soybeans.  What is the answer?  One important answer is to invest in science to develop future generations of technology that improve productive efficiency of plant and animal agriculture.  (Food productive efficiency is an increase in the quantity of food produced per acre for crops, and the quantity of meat or milk produced per unit of food consumed by animals.)

Opponents of ag biotechnology contend (incorrectly) that many consumers are opposed to modern biotechnology.  However, the science-based consumer survey evidence clearly shows that the majority of Americans have accepted the benefits of the new food biotechnologies  (see: Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology at:  http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/).

There are many compelling reasons to support and promote ag and food biotechnology for the global village.  These “biotechnologies” contribute importantly to alleviating some of the major challenges facing global society, including: food security and self-sufficiency, sustainability, alleviation of poverty and hunger, and help in mitigating some of the challenges associated with climate change and global warming.  We are fortunate that we are traversing an era where there is so much science that is being applied to pressing societal issues.  Let us celebrate the many positive contributions that ag biotechnology has made to the world, and will make in the future!

BRUSSELS | Tue Oct 11, 2011

(Reuters) – Europe’s biotechnology industry has warned the European Commission that agricultural imports vital to EU food security are increasingly being put at risk, due to the slow pace of the bloc’s approval system for genetically modified (GM) crops.

In a report to be presented to EU policymakers on Tuesday, biotech association EuropaBio said the speed of GM crop authorizations in Europe is slowing — even as governments worldwide seek to step up the pace of their approvals.

“The EU authorization process for GM products takes substantially longer than comparable systems, despite the fact that government processes around the world to assess the safety and impact of GM products are essentially the same,” it said.

EU policy on GM crops has long been politically fraught, with a majority of consumers opposed to modified foods, but the bloc reliant on imports of about 30 million tonnes of GM animal feed each year — equivalent to 60 kg per person.

EuropaBio estimates the EU’s approval process takes 15-20 months longer, on average, than in the three top global exporters of GM crops — the United States, Brazil, and Canada.

The number of GM crops awaiting approval in Europe has risen from about 50 at the end of 2007 to 72 today — 51 for import and 21 for cultivation. Based on current trends, EuropaBio said it expects more than 90 products to be pending approval by 2015.

Only two GM crops are currently approved for cultivation in Europe, compared to 90 in the United States and 28 in Brazil.

As well as blocking EU farmers from growing GM crops, the lack of approvals increases the risk of import disruptions due to contamination with unapproved GM varieties, the report said.

“It’s a double whammy — we don’t allow farmers to import these GM crops because they haven’t been approved here, and you can’t cultivate them either. We’re putting ourselves into a corner,” EuropaBio Secretary General Nathalie Moll told Reuters.

In its report, EuropaBio urges the European Commission, which oversees GM crop approvals, to set targets for reducing the backlog of applications.

POLITICAL IMPASSE

The Commission said its own analysis of GM approvals found the delays were not as significant as stated by EuropaBio and that it gave extra priority to cases that could disrupt imports.

“The Commission pays particular attention to authorizations which can have a major impact on trade, and looks for efficiency gains whenever they are possible,” EU health and consumer spokesman Frederic Vincent said.

EU environmental groups argue that pro-GM countries in other parts of the world cut corners in safety assessments, and that if anything the EU should beef up its approval system.

“In the U.S., GM crops are riddled with failures, so Europe shouldn’t be compared with a weaker system. EU laws are there to protect the public and environment from the risks of GM crops,” said Mute Schimpf, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

Last month, U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill and agricultural processor Archer Daniels Midland refused to accept grain that had not received EU regulatory approval, for fear that traces in shipments could shut off a key export market.

In a bid to avoid such disruptions to animal feed imports –which totaled more than 50 million tonnes last year, worth some 15 billion euros ($20.5 billion) — the EU adopted rules in June allowing tiny amounts of unapproved GM crops in feed shipments.

In a bid to avoid such disruptions to animal feed imports –which totaled more than 50 million tonnes last year, worth some 15 billion euros ($20.5 billion) — the EU adopted rules in June allowing tiny amounts of unapproved GM crops in feed shipments.

While the so-called “low level presence” (LLP) rules will help, EuropaBio argues that their scope — applicable to feed, but not food — and the threshold for unapproved GM material of just 0.1 percent will not prove an effective long-term solution.

The European Commission drafted rules last year to allow EU governments to decide themselves whether to grow or ban GM crops, which could speed up the process. But opposition from members including France, Germany and Britain — and the biotech industry itself — stalled talks on the plans.

The impasse coincided with a fall in the number of GM crop authorizations proposed by the Commission for approval by governments.

“The processing of approvals has stopped while Europe works on these political issues … and there’s no reason why these two things couldn’t go in parallel,” said EuropaBio’s Moll.

Stefan Marcinowski, executive board member of German chemical giant BASF, said Europe’s slow approach went beyond a threat to imports and a lack of EU cultivation.

“We are not starting any new projects that are exclusively dedicated to being marketed in Europe, despite having many crops which have a special European demand. It makes no sense with this uncertainty to make long-term investments into such projects.”

Ag Progress Days (APD) was held a few weeks ago at Penn State.  Ag Progress Days is a 3-day event that is hosted by the College of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State University. Typically, APD attracts about 50,000 attendees (for additional insights into what APD is, please see: How I Spent a Summer Day at Penn State’s Ag Progress Days).

This year, the College hosted a program that involved short presentations by various Penn State employees about a variety of scientific topics and agriculture.  I was invited to speak about Biotechnology in the Barnyard…a topic near and dear to my heart.  An important aspect of my talk addressed the issue of how are we going to feed a growing world population?  I believe that the development and application of science will play a role in trying to feed the world in the future.  While I have given versions of this talk countless times over the past 30 years, this presentation, actually the question and answer session, turned out to be very different.

Different in what way?

At the conclusion of my talk, an individual in the audience asked if I believed in God.  That has never occurred before!  The closest I had come have been conversations about God and Science but never in a formal meeting.

My response was:  ”I believe in a Higher Power that many individuals elect to call God.”  Her response, was that I didn’t answer the question!

I immediately started processing the thought that the attendee must be concerned that scientists  don’t believe in God.  I didn’t speak to this issue, however, in the question and answer period.

Her subsequent comments veered to her story about deep prayer and “clean” food accounting for her recovery from a serious health condition.   She shared words to the effect “that the biotechnology-based food was dirty…”!  At this point, I thought “oh oh”!!  Viewing certain food production practices as resulting in “clean” or “dirty” food is not a position supported by any science.  We didn’t have time to elaborate on the details of what she meant by using the word “dirty”.

Over the years, I have had more than a few opponents of science and biotechnology in agriculture attack the topic in many ways, ranging from “it isn’t safe” to “we don’t need/want it”, etc.  However, I have evolved a response to the question about the safety of science and biotechnology by asking the person posing the question the following:  Heaven forbid if you have a child with a catastrophic illness…would you take them to the best and brightest physician and use the latest medical science and biomedical biotechnology to help?  Or, would you prefer to use medical technology and healthcare practices from the 1850′s?  For those who answer the question, I have never one individual select “1850′s healthcare”!

Of course, there have been a slew of individuals who have dodged the question.  In fact that attendee at APD said, “what do you mean” and “hmm, that is hard question”, without answering.  I didn’t press for an answer.

My question is intended to “force” a look at a different value system (appreciation) for science.  It is clear that individuals differentiate their value for science in a manner that depends on the application, i.e., ag biotech versus medical biotechnology.  The scientific methods are the same so safety is the same; however, some in society make value judgments about science and technology without truly understanding the underlying science.  We all do this…I don’t have a clue how my computer works but I make value decisions about what to buy based on perceptions.

Confusing isn’t it?

I am grateful that God created the scientific method and scientists.  Imagine where society would be without all of the goods, products and services we use that evolved from science.  Fortunately, the cohort who is concerned about science in agriculture are a vocal, small minority.  And, for that, I thank God.

Speaking of Communicating

The fact that the cohort who questions or doubts the need for science in agriculture is small should not be interpreted that scientists should stop communicating about the need for ag science in feeding a growing world.

I have spent about 30 years traveling down the “road” of trying to communicate science to the public. It has been an interesting journey. I launched my blog, Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology, in 2006 for many reasons, including the idea of providing science-based facts for consumers about many public discussions around food biotechnology in which activists and activist groups try to scare consumers.

During this journey, I have come to appreciate the need for scientists to become more proactive in communicating science. Specifically, the scientific community needs to be much better at conveying what they do and how science and technology benefit consumers.  I have written about this, most recently in Please Explain:  Training Scientists to be Better Communicators imploring scientists to get involved.

In my travels down this “road”, I have become sensitized to the issue of how the information I present is being “heard” by the audience. This can be a real adventure, especially when some in the “audience” share “they don’t believe the message(s) or messenger” (i.e., me). This raises the interesting question of what to do?

Yes, there are those who do not believe in science and technology.

Here is a good example. A colleague (Dr. Ann Macrina) and I wrote an article, Hormones in Milk – Are they Causing Early Puberty in Girls? that was posted on the Best Food Facts blog in June.  Recently, a consumer, “Rachel”, submitted a comment for posting:  “I don’t believe all the information in this article. I think the facts are skewed. There is a great milk lobby out there. Not all they say is true. Hormones are indeed causing younger girls to mature ahead of time. This is true for girls that are not even heavy. I have seen this with my own eyes. More than once.”

Not a shred of what Rachel shared in her post is true based on science. Our blog clearly presented the facts that hormones in food are NOT the cause of early onset puberty. Rachel, however, obviously elected to not believe this!  I have no idea what the basis for her decision was.

And, with this comes the question:  What to do when clear scientific evidence is not believed?

The answer?  We keep communicating – it works. Here are some examples.

It is clear that many Americans value science and technology. In 2010, the National Science Foundation released a report, Science and Engineering Indicators:  2010, showing that Americans overwhelmingly agree that science and technology will foster “more opportunities for the next generation”; about 89% of respondents agreed with this statement (see: Chapter 7, Science and Technology:  Public Attitudes and Understanding).

In the 2010 Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology Survey, conducted by the International Food Information Council, only 2% of respondents listed biotech when asked: What, if anything, are you concerned about when it comes to food safety?

Another recent report, Making Safe, Affordable and Abundant Food a Global Reality, that was posted on the Plenty to Think About Blog  presented compelling evidence that 95% of survey respondents are either neutral or fully supportive of using technology to produce their food.

With this, I shall get back on the “road” and keep communicating what science is and the benefits that science offers to the public. And, as always, do so with great appreciation for the fact that there are different opinions for how best to feed the world, and with immense gratitude for learned minds in science who strive to do their best to develop science-based solutions that are of benefit to the world.

I have  spent about 30 years  traveling down the “road” of trying to communicate  science to the public.  It has been an interesting journey.  I launched  my blog,  Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology, in 2006 for many reasons, including the idea of  providing science-based facts for consumers about many public discussions around food biotechnology in which activists and activist groups try to scare consumers.

During this journey, I have come to appreciate the tremendous need for scientists to become more proactive in communicating science.  Specifically, the scientific community needs to be much better at conveying what they do and how  science and technology benefit consumers.  I have written about this, most recently in Please Explain:  Training Scientists to be Better Communicators imploring scientists to get involved.

In my travels down this “road”, I have become sensitized to the issue of how is the  information I present  being “heard” by the audience.  This can be a real adventure, especially when some in the “audience” share “they don’t believe the message(s)” or messenger (i.e., me). This raises the interesting question of what to do?

Yes, there are some non-believers of science and technology “out there”.

Here is a good example.  A colleague (Dr. Ann Macrina) and I wrote an article,  Hormones in Milk – Are they Causing Early Puberty in Girls?, that was posted on the  Best Food Facts blog in June.  Recently, a consumer,”Rachel”, submitted a comment for posting.  Her comment:  “I don’t believe all the information in this article. I think the facts are skewed. There is a great milk lobby out there. Not all they say is true. Hormones are indeed causing younger girls to mature ahead of time. This is true for girls that are not even heavy. I have seen this with my own eyes. More than once.”

Not a shred of what Rachel shared in her post is true based on science.  Our blog clearly presented the facts that hormones in food are NOT the cause of early onset puberty.  Rachel, however, obviously elected to not believe this!  I have no idea what the basis for her decision was.

And, with this comes the question:  Now, what to do?

The answer?  We keep communicating – it works.  Here are some examples.

It is clear that many Americans value science and technology.  In 2010, the National Science Foundation released a report, “Science and Engineering Indicators:  2010“, showing  that Americans overwhelmingly agree that science and technology will foster “more opportunities for the next generation”; about 89% of respondents agreed with this statement (see: Chapter 7, Science and Technology:  Public Attitudes and Understanding).

In the 2010 Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology Survey, conducted by the International Food Information Council, only 2% of respondents listed biotech when asked: What, if anything, are you concerned about when it comes to food safety?

Another recent report, Making Safe, Affordable and Abundant Food a Global Reality, that was posted on the Plenty to Think About Blog presented compelling evidence that 95% of survey respondents are either neutral or fully supportive of using technology to produce their food.

With this, I shall get back on the “road” and keep communicating science and the benefits of science to the public.

Much has been written by others and myself about the need to feed a growing World population that will increase to between 9 and 10 billion individuals by 2050 (based on estimates from the Population Estimates and Projections Section of the UN). Making projections about the impact of population growth on food production raises the question of just how much food will be required to feed 10 billion people?  While the question is straightforward, developing these estimates is remarkably challenging.  The vast majority of numbers are derived from food disappearance data, that is food for human consumption that is produced is assumed to “disappear” via consumption.  This is problematic, in part, because it has been estimated that 30 to 40% of food in developed and developing countries is wasted (Godfray et al., 2010).  This wastage spans the spectrum of the food system from production to plate waste.

The question emerges, then, of whether there is more accurate approach for estimating projected food needs in 2050? 

Inherent to any approach that is developed to estimate food production needs in 2050 is the reality that this must be considered in the context of the numerous events that could affect food needs and production capacity.  These include aligning food production needs to the rapidly changing demand from a larger and more affluent population; doing this in environmental and socially acceptable ways; and ensuring that the world’s hungry are no longer hungry! Moreover, achieving this goal of adequate food production in 2050 also presumes that future climate change will not hinder food production, and that geopolitical strife will not disrupt food production (and distribution).

As I have written in Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology, growing food production by 2050 to meet population needs will require an increase in funding for science and technology.  This raises the question of “who pays for this”?  Related to this question is another daunting question:  how will private sector companies that develop these new biotechnologies distribute them to developing countries, and at what price?  Another pressure point on feeding the world in the future is the development of biofuels.  The current business model of diverting feed grains, such as corn, to ethanol production is folly.

There have been numerous estimates of future food needs.  In a report published by the World Bank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, it was estimated that cereal production would have to increase by 50 percent and meat production by 85 percent from 2000 to 2030.  This is similar to a report (Reaping the Benefits:  Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture) published in 2009 by the Royal Society.  Other estimates are that we will need 70 to 100% more food by 2050 (Godfray et al., 2010).  In none of these estimates is the percentage increase translated to quantity of food actually needed.

To estimate future food needs, I used information about energy and nutrient requirements for men and women that were published in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, specifically the USDA Food Patterns (Appendix 7).  I used two levels of dietary energy intake for women and men that are commonly used “benchmarks” for individuals at a healthy body weight.  For women, this is 2000 calories per day and for men it is 2800 calorie per day.  The USDA Food Patterns information translates recommended nutrient requirements to recommended daily intake for each food group (i.e., fruits, vegetables, grains, protein foods, dairy and oils) to a mass basis (i.e., cups or oz)..  This approach permits the calculation of the quantity of food needed to meet daily nutrient needs for an individual.

Based on the above, the quantity of food needed daily for a healthy diet can be determined (1.93 kg/day for men and 1.6 kg/day for women) .  This information can be used to calculate current and projected consumption (on an annual basis).  Based on the current population of 6.8 billion people in the World, the estimated food production need is about 9.9 trillion pounds per year.  In 2050, it is about 14.3 trillion pounds per year or an approximate 44% increase, which aligns with other estimates.  If you are “wrestling”, as I am, with how to scale a “trillion”, consider that 1 trillion seconds is equal to 32,000 years!

There are several obvious constraints to these estimates.  First, there are over a billion individuals in the World who are malnourished and are eating a diet that meets neither nutrient nor energy requirements.  Conversely, there is a large and growing cohort of overweight and obese individuals that dramatically over-consume both nutrients and calories.  Nonetheless, the evidence presented herein is based on an approach that accurately quantifies the amount of food we need to produce based on meeting nutrient and energy needs of normal weight individuals.

The results are telling in that considerable progress could be made to meet future food needs by reducing food wastage over the spectrum of the food system.  This, of course, will be enormously difficult to do.  As one example, can you envision a strategy that would effectively “redirect” food from individuals/countries that over-consume food to those who are in an energy and nutrient deficit?  I can’t and this reinforces the reality that meeting future food production needs will be incredibly challenging and, most likely, costly.  This does not bode well for having enough food in the World by 2050.

In the April 6 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dr. David Ludwig concluded in a commentary “Technology, Diet, and the Burden of Chronic Disease” that “reducing the burden of obesity-related chronic disease requires a more appropriate use of technology that is guided by public health rather than short-term economic considerations”.  In the commentary, Dr. Ludwig’s usage of “technology” pertains primarily to food technology.

When I read this article and got to the last paragraph…I thought:  Here we go again!  Another not so subtle condemnation of food technology with a different “slant”…if you make food technology better it could help reduce the burden of obesity! My opinion is that this strategy won’t do much to solve a very serious public health issue…the ongoing obesity epidemic.

As I have written on countless occasions in my blog, we have the best and safest food system in recorded history.  This was achieved by developing and implementing a huge array of food technologies over the past decades that span the spectrum of food production practices, harvesting and processing, product development, food safety, nutrition, packaging, cooking, and shipping so that we have all the food you see at your local grocery store. Research advances in food technology have played an essential role in evolving the current food system, which is a present day “wonder”.  I haven’t found many individuals who wish to go back to the food system and technology used in 1850.

Despite the “wonder” of our present food system, it is a fair point that not all the food available in the market space meets the criteria for “healthy” and can be included in a healthy diet on a routine basis.  However, this is where moderation comes into play.  All foods, in moderation, can be included on occasion in a healthy diet.

My point?

Food technology is not the cause of the obesity in the United States and other developed countries.  And, please don’t think that there is NOT a major public health crisis due to overweight and obesity in the United States.  There is an ongoing obesity-related public health epidemic  in the United States.  The most recent data published by Ogden et al. who work at the National Center for Health Statistics (which is part of CDC) indicate that about 74% of Americans over the age of 20 are overweight, obese or extremely obese!  The medical care costs of obesity in the United States are staggering – totaling about about $147 billion annually.

The argument is not about whether we need to dramatically reduce the incidence of overweight and obesity in the United States but how to fix the problem.

On the face of it, the fix seems simple, individuals who are overweight or obese just need to reduce energy intake and increase energy expenditure (via physical activity).  The difficult reality is that obesity is remarkable difficult to treat.  This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the federal government and various health organizations in the United States have spent billions of dollars over the past decade on population intervention programs and initiatives to reduce the incidence of overweight and obesity, and, yet, about three quarters of the population is still markedly above ideal body weight!

Much of the responsibility for the obesity epidemic reflects choices individuals make relative to the dietary pattern they consume daily (i.e., their daily food choices) as well as the quantity of food (energy intake) they ingest. Public health experts clearly recognize this; however, the problem is that population-based  intervention programs that effectively modify eating behavior of overweight/obese individuals so that they consume healthier dietary patterns, and reduce over-consumption of energy on a life-long basis are difficult to implement and sustain.  I can’t predict what the timeline may be for developing strategies that reduce the incidence of obesity in the American population.  In the meantime, however, I do know that we shouldn’t place the blame for the obesity epidemic totally on the food industry.

Recently, a compelling and persuasive article was published by Dr. Jonathan D. G. Jones in a scientific journal (the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society) entitled “Why Genetically Modified Crops“.  In the article, Dr. Jones shares his exasperation over the widespread misrepresentation of genetically modified (GM) plant science.  Importantly, he presents that rationale (that is widely accepted by the scientific community) that adopting GM crops is essential for agriculture in the future because it reduces its environmental impact by reducing pesticide applications and conserving soil carbon by enabling low till methods.  Dr. Jones concludes with the perspective that “it would be perverse to spurn this approach at a time when we need every tool in the toolbox to ensure adequate food production in the short, medium and long term”.

The paper published by Dr. Jones reaffirms the need for the global village to maximize crop yields going forward.  It is estimated that at least 50% more food production will be needed by 2030.  And, this will have to achieved without “adding” additional cropland (i.e., destroying tropical rainforests and wildlife habitat), with more expensive energy, looming water availability issues (I have not written much about this but shall in the future), and the ever-present uncertainty of climate change.

A report published in 2009 “Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture” by the Royal Society presented the rationale for how science and technology could increase crop yields and made the recommendation that improved farming methods and the use of ALL available and approved biotechnologies be used to increase the yield potential of crop varieties.

My encouragement is that you read the article by Dr. Jones.  Tellingly, the article concludes with a poignant message:

“GM is a method to introduce new genes that can improve crop performance. In the last 14 years, both GM HT (herbicide tolerance) and insect resistance have been enthusiastically adopted by farmers in the USA, Argentina, Brazil, India and China. The outcomes have broadly been positive; easier weed control, better insect control with reduced insecticide applications, increased carbon sequestration by low till agriculture, and increased farm incomes. However, activists in Europe have greatly retarded adoption of GM, and the public has been misled by unwarranted criticisms of the technology from its opponents. This is unhelpful at a time when we need to use all available technology to secure food supplies over the next 20–40 years.

Europeans should consider the following questions about GM. First, why is so little consideration given to the costs of not using GM? For example, in the UK alone, farmers spend  approximately £50 million per year to control late blight, and a 10 year delay in solving the problem thus costs £500 million. The major beneficiaries from any such delay are the fungicide manufacturers such as Bayer and Syngenta, and the major losers are consumers. Second, European politicians generally support the desirability of strengthening the European bioeconomy, but how are we to compete successfully with the USA when our regulatory burden is so much more severe? Companies such as Monsanto are the major beneficiaries from excessive and expensive regulation; it increases the barriers to entry from competitors, and maintains their monopoly position. Third, EU taxpayers spend considerable sums both nationally and Europe-wide on plant science and technology that could result via GM in EU crops with better performance and reduced environmental impact. However, excessive regulation is preventing EU taxpayers from benefiting from their own investment—why? Finally, EU regulations on import of GM crops are influencing policies in developing countries and retarding the deployment of solutions to problems of food availability and quality. How can the harm that results from these European anti-GM prejudices be justified?”

Here is interesting release from the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) about the importance of livestock cloning.  Enjoy reading this.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Monday, March 21, 2011) – Five nations have come out in support of livestock cloning as one of many agricultural technologies that can help meet our growing demand for sustainable food production.

These governments recognize that cloning is one breeding technology that helps farmers and ranchers produce healthier animals and contributes to more consistent food production, said Dr. David Edwards, Director of Animal Biotechnology for the Biotechnology Industry organization (BIO). There is global scientific agreement that foods from livestock clones and their offspring are no different than foods from livestock produced through conventional breeding and are completely safe to eat.

Intergovernmental meetings were held in Buenos Aires in December 2010 and March 2011 where discussions focused on the regulatory and trade-related aspects of livestock cloning in agriculture and food production.  Following these discussions, representatives from the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, New Zealand and the United States signed a document in support of livestock cloning technology, and invited other Governments to sign on as well.

The document identified five key points:

1. Regulatory approaches related to agricultural technologies should be science-based, and no more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill legitimate objectives, and should be consistent with international obligations.
2. Expert scientific bodies around the world have reviewed the effects of SCNT cloning on animal health and the safety of food derived from livestock clones. There has been no evidence indicating that food from clones or the progeny of clones is any less safe than food from conventionally bred livestock.
3. The sexually-reproduced progeny of SCNT clones are not clones. These progeny are the same as any other sexually-reproduced animal of their own species. There is no scientifically justifiable basis for imposing a regulatory differentiation between the progeny of clones and other animals of the species.
4. Restrictions specifically aimed at food from the progeny of clones – such as bans or labeling requirements – could have negative impacts on international trade.
5. Any audit and enforcement measure addressed to progeny of clones would be impossible to apply legitimately and would result in onerous, disproportionate and unwarranted burdens on livestock producers.

World demand for meat and dairy products is forecasted to increase dramatically in the next few decades, and much of that supply will need to come from more efficient livestock, said Dr. David Faber, President of Trans Ova Genetics and Chair of BIO’s Animal Policy Committee. Increasing pressure is being put on limited resources to meet the growing challenges to food security, and agricultural technologies such as cloning are going to play an increasingly crucial role in meeting these challenges.

In January 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a final risk assessment on animal cloning concluding that livestock cloning is safe.  In July 2008, the European Food Safety Authority also issued a scientific opinion that food from clones is safe, and there are no implications of animal cloning on the environment.

• The FDA Risk Assessment on Animal Cloning is posted online at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/UCM124756.pdf.
• The EFSA scientific opinion is posted online at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/ahawtopics/topic/cloning.htm.
• For more information on cloning visit CloneSafety.