Food security
Availability of water is said to be falling at an unacceptably high rate.
The writer is Executive Editor of The Express Tribune
The world population is increasing at the rate of one billion every 13 years while arable land is shrinking with equal speed. In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person and the expectation is, by 2039, land availability would go down to 0.53 acres per person. Availability of water is also said to be falling at an unacceptably high rate. The developing scenario does not look too encouraging for all those developing countries, which are already finding it impossible to grow enough food to feed their galloping populations. Rich countries have already started using technology increasingly, to not only keep one step ahead of challenges that their food security systems are likely to face in the foreseeable future, but they have also started exploring nature itself to help their distant future generations avert the dangers of food shortages. But technologies with potential to reduce the cost of production come costly. There is one more reason why these technologies are not likely to be adopted any time soon in most developing countries with surplus labour; they have been designed to reduce the number of farm hands needed to run a farm.
Last week, I visited a 1,300-acre corn farm in the US, which the owner claimed is being managed by just two persons — himself and his 80-year-old father. It was all technology. I felt as if I was witnessing the movie Transformers in four dimensions as he took our team on a walking tour around huge storage shades, as big in size as aircraft hangars. Rodney Schilling and his father perform all kinds of tasks on the Schilling Farms, from planting to managing, harvesting and transporting the produce to the market on their own, sitting in one or the other highly complicated, and in some cases, computerised machines. In fact, I saw one iPad-mounted machine, which does precision planting, reducing land wastage while selecting the right seed for the right soil. One can understand the machines and also comprehend their magical utility. But when it comes to interfering with nature for the genetic modification of seeds for higher yields, even comprehension takes leave of senses. But then today, in the US, 95 per cent of corn, 98 per cent of soybean and 85 per cent of cotton are bio-tech (BT). In India, cotton production has gone up to 30 million bales using BT cotton seeds. In Pakistan, we are still producing no more than 12 million bales because of official resistance to formalising the use of BT cotton seeds. One fails to understand why we have chosen to concede our share of the world cotton market to India and China, both of whom use BT cotton seeds. Of course, a raging debate is still going on the world over on the pros and cons of using BT food crops and their long-term impact on human health. Europe is still reluctant. In the US, the debate is continuing, with opponents of BT food accusing the regulators of indulging in half-truths for career considerations in the private sector on retirement. In India, thousands of cotton growers are said to have committed suicide when yields crashed drastically on reusing hybrid seeds instead of, as advised, buying afresh for each new crop. Supporters of BT-agri in the US oppose the practice of labelling the BT food items, as according to them, this tells the public that there is a problem with bio-technology. According to a report prepared by a task force of the International Life Sciences Institute, the ability to introduce specific DNA directly into crop plants enables a selective plant improvement process that may enhance agricultural productivity, while using more sustainable and environmentally sound approaches.
Numerous traits are being evaluated for their potential, for example, to protect plants against insect damage and fungal, viral, or bacterial diseases; provide selectivity to more desirable herbicides for improved weed control; directly enhance crop yields; increase nutritional value to animals and humans; reduce naturally occurring toxicants or allergens; modify the ripening process and provide superior sensory qualities; use plants to make products like biodegradable polymers or pharmaceutical products; modify food composition for disease prevention; and reduce input of required natural resources (e.g., water, nutrients, fossil energy).
Published in The Express Tribune, September 4th, 2013.
Last week, I visited a 1,300-acre corn farm in the US, which the owner claimed is being managed by just two persons — himself and his 80-year-old father. It was all technology. I felt as if I was witnessing the movie Transformers in four dimensions as he took our team on a walking tour around huge storage shades, as big in size as aircraft hangars. Rodney Schilling and his father perform all kinds of tasks on the Schilling Farms, from planting to managing, harvesting and transporting the produce to the market on their own, sitting in one or the other highly complicated, and in some cases, computerised machines. In fact, I saw one iPad-mounted machine, which does precision planting, reducing land wastage while selecting the right seed for the right soil. One can understand the machines and also comprehend their magical utility. But when it comes to interfering with nature for the genetic modification of seeds for higher yields, even comprehension takes leave of senses. But then today, in the US, 95 per cent of corn, 98 per cent of soybean and 85 per cent of cotton are bio-tech (BT). In India, cotton production has gone up to 30 million bales using BT cotton seeds. In Pakistan, we are still producing no more than 12 million bales because of official resistance to formalising the use of BT cotton seeds. One fails to understand why we have chosen to concede our share of the world cotton market to India and China, both of whom use BT cotton seeds. Of course, a raging debate is still going on the world over on the pros and cons of using BT food crops and their long-term impact on human health. Europe is still reluctant. In the US, the debate is continuing, with opponents of BT food accusing the regulators of indulging in half-truths for career considerations in the private sector on retirement. In India, thousands of cotton growers are said to have committed suicide when yields crashed drastically on reusing hybrid seeds instead of, as advised, buying afresh for each new crop. Supporters of BT-agri in the US oppose the practice of labelling the BT food items, as according to them, this tells the public that there is a problem with bio-technology. According to a report prepared by a task force of the International Life Sciences Institute, the ability to introduce specific DNA directly into crop plants enables a selective plant improvement process that may enhance agricultural productivity, while using more sustainable and environmentally sound approaches.
Numerous traits are being evaluated for their potential, for example, to protect plants against insect damage and fungal, viral, or bacterial diseases; provide selectivity to more desirable herbicides for improved weed control; directly enhance crop yields; increase nutritional value to animals and humans; reduce naturally occurring toxicants or allergens; modify the ripening process and provide superior sensory qualities; use plants to make products like biodegradable polymers or pharmaceutical products; modify food composition for disease prevention; and reduce input of required natural resources (e.g., water, nutrients, fossil energy).
Published in The Express Tribune, September 4th, 2013.