sign in sign up
<<
Home , Green Revolution, Organic farming

ttzorvr Pl.o,., BeR-c Ihe GruenRevolutlon Cootrovelsy 57 ' bo> i?u-uing s :-u.ldA-r-- but then it grew at a 2.9 percent annual rate for the next two decades.This significant increase inAsia's capacity to produce 6 €ve77.o{9 basic grains came at a critical time, when rates of growth were at a peak. Supporters of these new seeds credit THEGREEN REVOLUTION -v them with saving Asia from what would have been a tragic crisis. In r97o, the American sciAntist who did the most CONTROVERSY to develop and promote the new varieties, , was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. The did not end withwheat and . Signif- icantly improved varieties of sorghum, , and , and improved varieties of root crops such as cassava, were even- Wnatwas the uiglnal greenrcvolution? tually developed in the r98os. Overall, more than 8,ooo new The original green revolution was an introduction of newly seed varieties were introduced for at least 11 different crops- developed wheat and rice seedsinto l-atin America and into Robert Evensory an economist at Yale University, concluded the irrigated farming lands of South and SoutheastAsiain the in 2oof that if these modern varieties had notbeen introduced r96os and r97os. These new seed varieties were createdby after t965, annual crop production in the developing world plant breeders working in Mexico and the with would have been rGrg percent lower in the year zooo. support from the . The seedswere capableof producing much higher yields when grown with adequatewater and . The plant breeders,by crossing Whyis thegrcen rcvolution controversial? different varieties, managed to incorporate dwarfing Despiteoffering dramatic production gains,the new seedsof into the plants, producing short stiff-strawed varieties that the greenrevolution were surroundedby political controversy devoted more energy to,producing grain and less to straw from the start. Somecritics feared they would lead to greater or leaf material. The short stiff straws also heloed hold the income inequality if only larger were able to adopt heavier weight of grain. them. Olhers worried they would make farmers too depen- Wheat farmers in India began planting these new vari- dent on the purchaseofexpensive inputs such asfertilizer Still eties in 1954, and by rg7o, production had nearly doubled. othersfeared environmental damage from excessivefertilizer The new rice seedsgave an equally spectacularperformance. applications,excessive pumping of groundwaterfor irriga- In India, rice production doubled between t97t and 1976\n tion, or excessivespraying of .The new seedswere the statesof Punjab and Haryana. In Asia overall, rice output also criticized on grounds that they would reducebiodiver- had increasedat only a z.r percentannual rate during the two sity when uniform monoculturesof greenrevolution varieties decadesbefore the new varieties were introduced in 1965, replaced diverse of traditional crop varieties. 58 F00DPoltflcs ne GrE€oR€rolutor ContoveFy E9 Critics even tried to argue that green revolution seedswere on total food production and a worsening exclusion and a causeof violent conflicts in India between Hindus and marginalization in the countryside.,, Muslims in the Puniab and of revolutionary struggles that These dramatically divergent opinions about the green swept through Central America in the 198os. revolution can also be explained by the divergent performance At the foundation of much of this criticism is a wide- of the new seeds in Asia versus . people who spread social suspicion, mostly among nonfarmers, of any work in Asia generally like the green revolution, but those new that employs science to alter dorninate or who work in Latin America olten do not. This is because the the biology of traditional farming. It is not an accident that benefits of the new seed varieties in Asia were widely shared green revolution critics also tend to criticize most other by the poor, whereas in Latin America, the poor gahed very 2oth-century agricultural innovations, including synthetic little. Advocates for the green revolution approach usually , chemical pesticides, and of course, draw their arguments from the experience of Asia, while critics genetically engineered seeds.They favor instead traditional refer more often to what went wrong in Latin America. seedvarieties developed and selectedby farmers themselves based on "indigenous knowledge" rather than laboratory science.Most of thesecritics are not farmers themselves,but Didhe origlnalgreen revolution lead to greaterrunt inequatity? they expresssympathy for the smaller and more diversified It did in Latin America but not in Asia. Outcomesdiffer farmers of the past who purchased fewer inputs and sold in these two regions largely due to differing patterns of their output locally. inequality in the countryside. In much of Latin America. the This fundamental queistionof what an ideal farming system ownership of productive land and accessto credit for the should look like explains a great deal of the I modern politics purchase of essentialgreen revolution inputs such as fertil_ of food and . Advocates for the green revolution izer tend to be restrictedto a privileged rural elite. If a highly approachlook for ways to bring a technology I upgrade to productive new technologybecomes available within such an sub-SaharanAfrica, the one region not reached by the original inequitable system,only the narrow elite will make effective revolutiorL but they encounter treen critics arguing against use of the technology,and as a result, inequality will worsen. this objective.When the RockefellerFoundation and the Bill In most of Asia, by contrast,access to good agricultural land and Melinda GatesFoundation formed a partnership in zoo6 and credit was not as narrowly controlled,which allowed called the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the uptake of the new seedsto be more widely shared and the initiative brought immediatecriticism from activistgroups. brought more equitablegains in the end. Peter Rosset,speaking for a nongovernmental organization The history of farming in Latin America is one of social (NGO) in the United Statesnamed Food First, warned that injustice. The indigenous population went into a tragic decline the most likely result of the new initiative ,,higher would be soon after the voyagesof Columbus. dropping an estimated profits for the seedand fertilizer industries,negligible impacts 75 percent by 165odue to a combination of brutal treatment 60 F00DmL|TES Ihe GreenRevolution Conlroversy 6l by the Spanishand Portugueseconquerors plus deadly expo- use of them (the opposite is true for mechanical technolo- sure to unfamiliar Europeandiseases. The Europeansreplaced gies such as tractors).Tenant farmers who rented land could indigenous societieswith vast semifeudalhacienda estates, on also use the seedsas long as they had and could which peasantsfarmed small plots for subsistencepurposes get accessto credit. In fact, in one study of 36 rice-growing without any secure rights to land or anything else. To the villages in India between 1966 and a972,it was found that. present day, ownership of the best land in Latin America small (less than t hectare in size) adopted the new remains in the hands of a small commercialfarming elite, and seedsmore quickly than larger farms (over 3 hectaresin size). largenumbers ofpoor peasantsown very little land or no land The higher yielding green revolution varieties also brought at all. For every roo smallholder farmers who do own some a substantial increasein annual farm labor use per unit of land in the Latin American countryside,8z othersdo not. cropped land, pushing up rural wages to the benefit of the The introduction of green revolution technologieswors- Iandlesspoor. ened these rural inequities.The commercialfarming elite Critics try to ignore these gains. In 1992,long after the adopted the new seedsquickly, partly becausethey received results of green revolution technology were shown in Asia, subsidiesto help purchasefertilizers, pesticides,and the new celebrity activist published a polemic titled seeds.Additionally, they receivedsubsidized credits from the The Violenceof the GreenReaolution depicting the new seedsas a government, researchand extension assistance,new irriga- plot by multinational companies(the seedshad actually been tion canalsfor their land, and exemptionsfrom irnport duties introduced by philanthropicfoundation-s and governments)to on farm tractors.Agricultural land was made more valuable lure farmers away from growing traditional crops,destroying by the new seeds, but this backfired on the poor who had their culture and making them poor and dependent.Poverty previously been allowed to subsiston land they did not own. has declined significantly in rural Asia sincethe greenrevolu- They were now pushed off by the landlords to make way for tion, and farmers have shown no interest in abandoningthe expanded commercial production. Some of the evicted peas- seeds,yet many activist groups remain hostile.In zoo4,a coali- ants gained limited compgnsation in the form of seasonal tion of 6Z0separate NGOs sent an open letter to the director employment as hired pickers,but otherwise they were general of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forced to move their farming efforts onto lands wiih irregular that referred to the greenrevolution as a "tragedy." terrain, no accessto irrigation, and less fertile . Or they becameslum drvellers on the fringes of the urban economy. grcen Asia had a dramatically different experiencewith the green was the revolutionbad for the environment? revolution seedsbecause farming in this region is more often Environmentaloutcomes also differed in LatinAmerica versus dominated by srnall farmers with irrigation, and there are Asia. In Latin America, two different kinds of environmental fewer large estates.Because the new seedswere a biological damagefrom greenrevolution farming tended to emergeside technology,it was not necessaryto lrave a large farm to make by side.On the best lands controlledby politically favored 62 F000Polmcs TheGrcen Bevolution Conlroversy fil

elites, governnent induced farmers to employ too of the electric bill for pumping irrigation water as a reward much irrigation, too much nitrogen fertilizer, and too many to politically powerful commercial farm interests-resulting chemical pesticides, which led to occupational hazards on in excesswater use and a precipitous drop in gro ndwater the farm and the of surfacewaters downstream.In tables.In the early 198os,the govemment of Indonesiasubsi- Mexico between 1961and 1989,fertilizer subsidiesled to an dized fertilizer purchasesby 68 percent,causing fertilizer use ' 8oopercent increase in nitrogen fertilizer use per hectare,and to increaseby more than two-thirds, whlch increasednitrates in the decadeof the 197os, use-agah, subsidized- in drinking water and brought excessivenutrients to streams increasedat an average annual rate of more than 8 percent. and ponds, resulting in damaging algae growth. Indonesia In the Culiacan Valley, commercial tomato growers began also offered an 85 percentsubsidy to farmers who purchased spraying pesticides on their crops as often as 25 to 50 times pesticides, and excessivespraying on rice fields killed the eachgrowing season. good insectsand the spiders ihat had earlier helped keep bad A different kind of environmental damage was done in insects (brown planthoppers) under control, while the bad LatinAmerica bypoor farmerswho were deniedsubsidies and insectsevolved to resistthe chemicalsprays. The government were confined to sloping or nonirrigated lands.These farmers was fina\ forced in 1986to ban the spraying of 57 different used too little fertilizer rather than too much, exhausting the insecticideson rice, a move that allowed the natural enemies and forcing them to move onto even more fragile lands of the hoppers to recover and brought the damage under or into the forest margins. In Honduras, where population contlol. doubled between rgTo and,1990and where the poorest two- As serious as theseproblems were in Asia, the only thhg thirds of all farmers had to sharejust 10percent of the nation's more damaging to the rural environment might have been total farming area, destitute peasantseroded or exhausted to introduce no high- seedsat all. If India had relied on their poor soils and cut much of the remaining forest. In its traditional low-yield farming techniques to achieve the Mexico, where half of all Iarmers were trying to subsist on production increaseit needed during these decadesof rapid only ro percent of the nation's farmland, population growth, it would have had no choice but to cut among the rural poor led to a spread of traditional low-yield more trees,destroy more wildlife habitat, and plow up more farming techniquesthat devastated the €nvironment. In the fragile sloping and dryland soils. In 1964,India produced Mixteca region, Zo percent of the potentially arable land lost rz million tons of wheat on r4 million hectaresof land. Thirty its ability to grow crops due to soil ,and large parts of years later, thanks to the green revolution, India produced rural Mexico came to resemblea lifelessmoonscape, 57 million tons of wheat on z4 million hectaresof land. To In some parts of Asia, the green revolution also brought produce this much wheat using the old seedswould have excessivewater and pesticide use, often due to unwise required roughly 6o million hectares,more than doubling the government subsidies just as in Latin America. In Punjab in areaunder the plow. M. S. Swaminathan,one of the scientists northwest India in the r98os,the government paid 86 percent who led the greenrevolution in lndia, concluded,"Thanks to 64 F00DP0L|T|CS TheGreen Revohtion Controv€.sy 65 , a tremendous onslaught on fragile lands and smaller shareof their land was suited to conventional irriga- forest margins has been avoided." tion. Accessto farmland is generally more equitable than in either LatinAmerica orAsia, but only 4 percentof agricultural land in Africa is irrigated. This forcesfarmers to rely on uncer- whydid theo ginalgreen revolution not reach Aftica? tain rainfall and weakens their incentive to invest in improved Greenrevolution farming has not yet reacheddeeply inlo green revolution seeds,which only do Well with adequate sub-Saharan Africa. Between r97o and 1998, while the share moisture. In addition, the dominant food crops in the region of cropped a(ea planted to modern green revolution vari- included root crops like sweetpotato and cassava,or tropical eties increased to 82 percent in the developing regions of white , rather than the leading green revolution Asia and up to 52 percent in Latin America, only 27 percent crops such as wheat, rice, and yellow maize. Critical as well, of area was planted to such varieties in sub-Saharan Africa. most farmers in Africa are women, lacking the political voice As a consequence, average cereal yields in Africa remained at needed to demand govemment investmentsin rural educa- only 1.1 tons per hectare versus 2.8 tons per hectare in Latin tion, road infrastructure,and electricalpower of the kind that America and 3.7 tons per hectare in Asia. Also as a conse- were essentialto the earlier uptake of the technologyin Asia. quence, growth in per capita food production in sub-Saharan Africa was actually negative between r98o and zooo, and one- third of all Africans remain undemourished. Whatapproaches do greenrevolution c tics favor? Efforts were made to introduce green revolution seed vari- Critics of the green revolution argue that rural poverty can eties into Africa in the 1E6os and rg7os, but there was little be reduced and farm productivity can be increasedwithout adoption because the intemational assistance agencies intro- bringing in new seedsthat rely on heavier fertilizer use-They ducing the varieties had tried to "shortcut" the time-consuming prefer farming models based on , an apptoach that process of identifying and using locally adapted plants as the favors small diversified farms over large specializedfarms, starting point for breeding irnprovements. Varieties not suited polycultures over ,biological controls for pests to African conditions were brought in from Latin America and rather than chemicalcontrols, crop rotationsand manuring to Asia, and African farmers did not like them. This problem was replacesoil nutrients rather than sy'ntheticnitrogen fertilizers, belatedly addressed through breeding programs that were mulching and water-harvestingsystems over large-scaleirri- more location specific beginning in the r98os, but by that gation,and community-basedor indigenousknowledge over time, international assistance for such programs had begun laboratory science.Agroecology advocatesbelieve efforts to to decline because the so-called world food crisis of the r97os engineernatural biological systemswill always produceunin- was deemed by rich donor govemments to be over tended consequences,many of thern bad. Insteadof trying to African farmers also failed to take up the new seed varieties dominate nature, farmers should be learning from and even because they had a more complex mix of agroecologies, and a imitatins nature. 66 F00DP0L|T|CS TheGreon Rcvolution Conlrovorsy 67

In Latin America, where the green revolution is easy Pure agroecological approaches do tend to be far less to attack, the most prominent advocate of agroecology is productive than green revolution approaches because they , an biologist originally from Chile, reject the use of off-farm inputs like nitrogen fertilizer, making who promotes the enhancement of traditional or indigenous soil-nuhient replacement more costly, and they make much knowledge systems as an alternative to exotic, reductionist larger demands on farm labor. Most smallholder farmers in , approaches. The greatest strength of this work is its effort to Africa today practice something that seems suspiciously close balance a search for short-term productivity with an insistence to pure agroecology: They use traditional seeds, plant their on long-term stability, social equity, and . Green crops in polycultures, rainfall, purchase almost no revolution advocates would courter that their approach can inputs such as nitrogen fertilizers or pesticides from off the also be stable, equitable, and sustainable, assurning equal farm, and work from dawn to dusk. The result is that their accessto land and credit plus continuing research investments cereal crop yields are only rezo percent as high as in North to develop new seed varieties so as to stay ahead of evolving America, they earn only $r a day on average, and one-third and disease pressures. Agroecologists doubt the ability of are undernourished. The best approach is usually to combine science to stay ahead of such pressures forever agroecological insights with green revolution seeds and off- Advocates for agroecology have gained prominent farm inputs. For example, integrated pest management (IPM) endorsements for their approach. For example, an Interna- combines important agroecological approaches (biological tional Assessmeni of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and controls and intensive monitoring of pest pressures) with Technology for Development (IAASTD) completed in zoo8 green revolution seeds plus the limited use of chemical pesti- warned that relying on science and technology to increase cides as a last resort. So-called conventional farms in agricultural productivity would bring too many "unin- and North America have long used agroecological techniques tended social and environmental consequences." This assess- such as crop rotations, cover crops, and manuring. As for ment, conducted under the auspices of the and equity and sustainability issues, these are sometimes best the United Nations, asserted that the model of innovation addressed through interventions that go beyond the realm that drove the original grebn revolution "requires revision." of technology, such as programs that give the poor improved It called for more emphasis on agroecological approaches, accessto land and credit. organic approaches, and the incorporation of "traditional and local knowledge." This assessment was rejected by green policy? green revolution advocates, who complained it had been too Howhave rcvolutioncritics shaped international heavily shaped by nonscientists, including environmental Politicalcontroversies over green revolution farming continue advocates from NGOs such as International, to rage in a number of important settings among foreiSn Friends of the Earth International, and the Pesticide Action aid donors and within intergovernmental organizations. In Network. such settings, nongovernmental organizations thai reject the 68 F000PoLtflcs TheGrecn Bevoluiion Conltoversy 69

green revolution fight hard to promote agroecological and would increase yields while at the same time protect the envi- organic approaches to farming and to block green revolution ronment and ensure benefits for the poor, but support for approaches that rely on purchased inputs and modern agri- international agricultural research continued to fall. cultural science. In the r98os, this kind of political advocacy The green revolution approach remains under its political against the green revolution began to have an impact on the cloud despite the momentarily high food prices of zoo8,which foreign assistance policies of donor countries. Assistance to were widely described as the harbingdr of a new world food promote irrigation, new seed distribution, and accessto chem- crisis. Green revolution advocates responded with a call for ical fertilizers was cut back. more investment in to address the looming Between r98o and zoo3, the real dollar value of all bilateral food deficits, but critics countered with an argument of their assistance to help modernize agriculture in the developing own that the crisis revealed the bankruptcy of the green revo- world declined by 64 percent, from $5.3 billion (in constant lution rnodel. The zoo8 IAASTD report that endorsed greater 1999 U.S. dollars) to only $r.9 billion. assistance emphasis on agroecological approaches was unveiled at the to agricultural research in Africa specifically declined by peak of this crisis. 77 percent. This withdrawal of donor support had little effect The green revolution is highly controversial in elite circles, in Latin America and Asia, where agricultural modernization especially among environmentalists in rich countries, yet it was already successfully under way, but it left the aid-depen- remains firmly established as the approach of choice among dent governments in Africa without enough external support most farmers and leaders, including those to begin a confident move down a green revolution path. in the developing world. In Chha and India today, green revo- Criticism of the greeh revolution is pervasive in the environ- lution seed varieties grown in monocultures with nitrogen mental community. tn 1992, Senator Al Gore, soon to become fertilizer are pervasive in food production and are promoted vice president, published a best-selling book Iltled, Esrth in strongly by the state. In fact, China and India are now both the Bnlence that depicted the green revolution as a dangerous moving beyond the original green revolution seed varieties Faustian bargain, one that used environmentally unsustain- to embrace the latest science-based approach to agriculture: able, science-based techniques to secure or y temporary gains improvement of seeds through (discussed in output. In fact, the yield gains were not temporary in Asia in chapter 1j). (yields continue to increase), and in Africa the lack of a green revolution has yielded essentially no gains at all. Yet Gore's view is now surprisingly dominant among those who are not farming specialists. Later in the 199os,one of the architects of the original green revolution in Asia, Gordon Conway, tried to rescue science-based farming from its critics by calling for research investments in a "doubly green revolution" that 34 FOODPOLITICS programs, surgeries,and servicessuch as behavioraland psychological counseling. Heavy lobbying for this clecision camefrom the American ObesityAssociation (AOA), an advo- I cacy group that wants incleasedmedical carefor overweight people funded by insurancecompanies and taxpayersbut THEPOLITIGS OF FARM stopsshort of calling for tighter regulationsor higher taxeson food and beveraeeindustries. SUBSIDIESAND TRADE

Doall governmentsgive subsidiesto farmers? The governments of nearly all rich countries provide subsi- dies to support the income of farmers. In zoo6,according to calculationsby the Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD),government policies in theserich countries transferred$283 billion worth of income to farmers either through trade interventions(e.9., tariffs or export subsi- dies) to boost intemal farm prices,through public spending to purchasefarm commodities(for storage,for domesticFood Stampprograms, or for foreignfood aid), or throrrghdirect cashtransfers. Roughly z9 percentof all farm eamingsin these countriesdepended on such government programs. Levelsof dependenceon goverrunentsupport differ signifi- cantly country by country;those with the leastagricultural potential usually feature the highest levels of support. In alpine Switzerland, where agriculture contributes less than 1 percent to gross domestic prod uct (GDP), 68 percent of all farm income is derived from governmentsupports. In the EuropeanUnion, the portion is J2 percent;in the United States,it is 16 percent;and in , it is just 5 percent.In New Zealand,where agriculture still makes r-rp6 percent of 96 F00DPollTlcs Th€Politics ol Fam Subsidiesand lrade 97

GDP and provides half of all export receipts,farmers depend marketplace,they form lobby groups and take action in the on the government for only l percent of their income.Levels political marketplace,demanding income support throuBh of dependencealso vary by commodity.Farmers who produce import restrictions,government price guarantees,tax breaks exported goods normally get less suPPort than farmers who and subsidizedloans, or direct cashpayments. produce goods that competewith imPorts The countries of Europe were the first to industrialize, so Governments in poor developing countries Provide much they were alsothe first to begin providing subsidiesto farmers, lesssubsidy support to agriculturedespite being far rnore especially during and after World War I. The United States "agricultural." In fact, Poor countries often make a practiceof beganregulating agricultural markets and providing taxing their farmers to help finance subsidiesfor urban food benefits to farmers a bit later, during the Great Depression consumers.They rig their internal markets to oblige farmers of the r93oswith the enactmentof the Agricultural AdjusF to sell food at an artificially low price, thus creatingan income ment Act (AAA) in a93j, as part of PresidentFranklin D. transfer away from farmers and toward food consumers.So Roosevelt'sNew Deal program. Agricultr.rralsubsidy policies while policiesin rich counhies tend to be mral biased,policies were embracedstill later by Japan,when that nation moved in poor countries tend to be urban biased. toward full industrial development in the 195osand r96os, and still later in Taiwan and South Korea, when rapid indus- trial growth reachedthose countriesin the 19zosand 198os. Whatexplains the tendencyof tich counties to subsidizefarmers? The remarkable uniformity of this farm subsidy response Governments usually start subsidizing farmers during to rapid industrial developmenthas been measured by econo- initial industrial development. All economic sectorsbecome mists. One comparative str,ldyof protection offered to farm wealthier in this industrialization process,including the sectorsacross the indushial world fould that 60 to Zopercent farming sector,but the owners and operatorsof lesscompeti- of all variations in protection levelscould be explained solely tive farms feel themselves losing from the processbecause through referenceto the comparativeadvantage that the agri- more of their fellow citizensbegin to earn even higher wages cultural sectorhad lost relative to the industrial sector off the farm in the growing industrial sector And within their own sector,larger and more competitive farms begin buying Dofarmers in rich countriesneed subsidiesto su|ive? up small farms to take full advantageof newly available powered rnachinerysuch as tractorsand harvestingcombines. When farm subsidies were initiated in the United Statesin Srnall farmers see their neighbors and their own children 193j, most farmerswere relatively poor, with an average leave farming to take city jobs. Confronting such changes, income lessthan half that of nonfarmers.At this point in the traditional farmers decide for cultural as well as economic depths of the Great Depression,subsidies to farmershad reasons to organize and seek income supPort from their economicand socialiustification. This justificationdimin- government. Feeling ihat they are losing out in the economic ished,however, during and after World War II, when millions 98 F00DPoL|TICS ThePolitics of FarmSubsidies and lrade gg

of farmers left the land to take higher paying jobs in urban by dividing the reported income of their operation between industrt resulting in a consolidation of farms into much larger themselvesand their spouse. and far more prosperous production units, most of which no longer needed subsidies to survive and prosper Thanks to farm consolidaLions, the greatest share of all food production Whydon't taxpayers and tood consumers join in America today comes from large commercial farmers with to rcsistfam subsidies? an average income level higher than that of most nonfarmers, As industrial development advances, farm subsidy policies and an average net worth much higher because ofthe valuable can become costly both to taxpayers and food consumers. land, buildings, and machinery they own. By r995, roughly go By the middle years of the r98os in the United States, farm percent of all farm commodities produced in the United States subsidies were costing ordinary citizens $3o billion a year as were by farmers with at least r,8oo acres of land and a net taxpayers and an additional $6 billion as food consumers. worth of at least $6oo.ooo. In the European Community that year, taxpayer costs were These large comrnercial farmers do not need subsidies to $16 billion, and consumer costs were $33 billion. In Japan, remain more prosperous than most of their fellow citizens, yet taxpayer costs were $6 billion, and consumer costs were they continue to get the largest share of the subsidies. Farm $28 billion. Consumer costs are larger in Europe and Japan subsidies, typically linked to production volume, are almost because the income transfer to farmers is accomplished more never targeted to small farmers or to those in greatest need. through food import restrictions, which drive up the prices In the United States in one recent year, the largest Z percent of paid by consumers. farms got 45 percent of all agricultural subsidies. In Europe, Consumers and taxpayers seldom make serious demands the wealthiest 20 percent of farmers receive more than 80 to reduce farm subsidies because it is easier for farmers to percent of the subsidies. organize politically to defend subsidies than for taxpayers and Political efforts to improve the targeting of subsidy consumers to organize to attack them. This fits a well-estab- payments are routinely blocked by the entrenched farm lobby. lished rule originally supplied by economist Mancur Olson In zoo8, President George W. Bush proposed to Congress that that smaller groups are easier to organize than larger groups the law should be changed to prevent the delivery of subsidy because the individual share of any benefit secured will be payments to farmers who earned more than $2oo,ooo,but the greater and because it is easier for small groups lo discipline Senate voted that the cap should be set instead at g75o,ooo, free-riding noncontributors. Some studies of farm subsidies and the House of Representatives then said there should be no even show that smaller commodity groups (e.g.,sngar farmers) cap at all. In the final measure that passed, a $75o,oooincome do better than larger groups in securing subsidy benefits. Also, limit was set for receiving some direct payments, but other as the total number of farmers shrhks urder industrial devel- payments continued to go out no matter how much a opment, the average benefit per farmer can 80 up dramati- already earned. Farmers can evade even the $75o,ooo limit cally without generating a higher cost overall. Furthermore, 101 '100 F00DP0llflcs ThoPolilics ol FarmSubsidies and Trade when total subsidy costs do increase, it is scarcely noticed by draft the legislation that Soes to the floor for a final vote, and the minimurn consrlners and taxpayers because consumer income gains and in the drafting Process they take care to satisfy gains from trigher farm productivity have reduced the average needs of both Republican and Democratic members to ensure the farm bill enacted in zooz share of American income spent on food from 41 percent a bipartisan support. For example, century ago toiust lopercent today The drop would have been emerged from the House Agriculture Committee without a treat- a bit deeper without farm subsidies, but consumers can be single dissenting vote. The drafters also give Senerous happy either way. As for taxpayers, because federal spending ment both to northern crops and southern crops, and they and overall has grown more rapidly than farm subsidy spending, take care to attach generous funding for domestic food the salience of farm subsidy spending continues to decline. nutrition programs (like Food Stamps) to lock in support The federal government spends more now on food stamps for from urban district members. Then they add some measures consumers than it spends on subsidies for farmers. to please environmentalists, such as a Conservation Reserve (tempo- Program (CRP) that Pays farmers to leave their land rarily) idle. The final package is what students of legislative What is the farm bill and what is the fam lobby? politics call a committee-based logroll The legislative package that renews America's farm subsidy When the farm bill leaves the committees and reaches the mechanism pushes it loward entitlement system every 5 years or so is known as the/cfln floor, another classiclegislative bill, and the organized groups that promote the bill are known enactment: vote trading. Farm district members implicitly or on multiple measures of future as the farm lobby. The most recent farm bill enacted in zooS explicitly promise suPPort members in return for their carried a 5-year price tag of $286 billion. President George interest to urban and suburban W Bush was not running for reelectiory so he dared to veto single "aye" vote on the farm bill once every 5 years These the bill, calling it wasteful. Congress, however, reenacted the trades always bring in enough nonfarm suPPort to ensure a same bill over the president's veto, passing it by wide margins maiority. process is supported by a of 316 ro8 in the House and 8z-r3 in the Senate. Maly knew This farm subsidy renewal that bill was wasteftil but opted to vote for it anyway so as not formidable nexus of institutions often referred to as an lron to anger the farm lobby in an election year trinngle. At the congtessional corner of the triangle are the The secret to every farmbill's sr.rccessin Congress is the lead House and Senate Agriculture Committees, populated and role played by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, often chaired by strong farm subsidy advocates At the erec- (USDA), where members from farm states and farm districts enjoy a utive corner is the U S DePartment of Agriculture dominant presence and are rewarded for their legislative which administers the subsidy programs and values them efforts with generous campaign contributiorls from the farm as a way to protect the dePdrtment from irrelevance in a lobby, which is built around organizations representing the postagricultural age At the third corner are the private farm farmers who get the subsidies. The Agriculture Committees lobby organizations.Thebest known of theseare two general 102 F00DPoL|I|CS ThePolitics ol FarrnSubsidies and Trade 103 farm organizations. The American Farm Bureau Federation horticultural products. There was something for everybody, (commonly knorvn as the Farm Bureau) represents the inter- making passage over the presiclent's veto a certainty. ests of large commercial farmers, mostly Republicans. The National Farmers Union (NFU) represents the interests of smaller farmers, mostly Democrats. When it comes to shaping Why does the govenment subsidize ethanol? . the details of the farm bill, the most influential private lobby Outside the farm bill process,CongresS since the r97os has organizations are those representing individual commodity also enacted subsidies to promote the use of corn to Produce producer groups, such as tlre National Corn Growers Associ- ethanol, a product that can be blended wit}r gasolineto make ation, the U.S. Wheat Associates,the National Cotton Council gasolroland used as an automobile fuel. Currently, the govern- of America, or the National Milk Producers Federation. ment provides a 45 cents per gallon tax credit (about $3 billion These organizations contribute generously to the reelection a year) to the industries thatblend ethanol with gasoline, while campaigns of their favorite Agriculture Committee members, imposing a 54 cents per gallon duty at the border to block and they send experienced and always affable operatives to the import of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and the Carib- work the halls and committee rooms of Congress durirg the bean. In addition, the Energy Independence and Security Act legislative draf ting process. of 2ooz mandated a "renewable fuel standard" requiring that The continuing clout of the farm lobby is visible in the by zor5 the United Slates will be using r5 billion Eallons of astonishing outcome of the 2oo8 farm bill debate, which took conventional biofuels such as corn-based ethanol-implying place when America's fanners were enjoying unprecedented a significant increase from the zoog level of approximately prosperity thanks to the highest market prices for farm rr billion gallons. commodities in more than three decades. Net farm income in Promoting corn-basedethanol is sometimes depicted as a zooS reached $89 billion,4o percent above the average of the path to energy independence because it reduces the need to previous 10 years. Yet without any sense of irony or sharne, import foreign oil to make gasoline. It is also depicted as a Path the farm lobby asserted that America's farmers were facing to environmental sustainability becausebiofuels are renew- "emergencies" ofvarious kiirds and needed new "safety nets" able, unlike gasoline that comes from . On closer for protection. The new measure pnshed through was an examination, both arguments are weak. Even if the current Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE)program that cleverly ethanol program were scaled up dramatically, it would gain used the high income levels of zoo8 as a baseline from which only a small measure of energy independence for the United farmers would be able to make claims for added comDensa- States. Currently, the United States uses less than one-third of tion in the event prices subsequently fell, which of course they its com crop for ethanol production; even if it were to devote soon did. The zooS bill also included new funding for nutri- all of its corn production to fuel use (which nobody would tion programs, researchon organic agriculture and spccialty dare propose), consumption of gasoline would decline by only crops, conservation measures, and block grants to prunote r3 percent, scarcely redr-rcingtotal oil import requirements. 104 F00DPoLtflCS ThePolitics of FaImSubsidies and Trade 105

The environmental benefits of corn-based ethanol are ancl New Zealand that are far better suited to some kinds of equally dubious. Ethanol from corn may be renewable, but it farming. Sugar markets are one example. Because of guaran- is neither cheap nor clean. If it were really cheap,it would not teesof high sr.rgarprices engineered through import restric- need government subsidies to survive, and the manufacture tions in Eulope and the United States,too much of the world's of sugar beets inside of ethanol causes significant pollution. A zoo8 study in the sugar Production comes from the growing ' journal Screnceconcluded that if worldwide changes these two markets rather than from can'e sugar in the Carib- are taken into account, the from bean, Brazil, or tropical Africa. By one respected calculation, first producing and then burning corn-based ethanol would protectionistfarm subsidy policiescause at least4o percent of exceed those from producing and burning gasoline. It makes the world's sugar to be grown in the wrong place' greater environmental sense, as well as greater commercial The damages done by the farm policies of rich countries ln a formal sense, to burn ethanol produced from sugar rather than corn, to farmers in Poor countries can be quantified yet the American government does not allow that to happen; complaint brought against American cotton subsidies in 2oo2, it keeps sugar-basecl ethanol out of the domestic market with the government of Brazil showed that without Sovernment would have an import duty. subsidies cotton Production in the United States The success of the com-based ethanol lobby in part reflects been 29 percent lower and cotton exports from the United States the fact that every 4 years America's aspiring presidential would have been 41 percent lower-and international cotton candidates compete in early party caucuses in lowa, the prices would haYe been boosted by 13 percent. The elimina- nation's leading corn and ethanol state. It is not possible to tion of such subsidies would benefit cotton farmers in Africa do well in these caucuses without endorsing subsidies, import as well as in Brazil- For many Poor families in West Africa protections, and production mandates for com-based ethanol. who live on less than $r a day per person, cotton sales are the only source of cash income. According to calculations done by were eliminated and Oxfam America, if U.S. cotton programs ' How do tarm subsidies shape international ag cultural trade? by if the international Price of cotton consequently increased The farm subsidies operating in nearly all rich countries have 6 to r4 percent, eight very poor countries in West Africa would long tended to distort production and trade. They cause too be able to eam an additional $191 million each year in foreign much food to be produced in regions not well suited to farming, exchange from their cotton exports, and hor-rseholdincome in such as alpine countries in Europe, desert lands in the Amer- these countries would increase by 2.3 to 5.7 percent- ican southwest, or the municipal suburbs of Japan, and too little to be produced in the developing cor.rntriesof the tropics where agricultural potential is often far more bountiful. Farm Whyhasn't the Wf} beenable to disciplinefam subsidies? subsidies in Europe, the United States, and Japan also take Many farmsubsidy Policies distort international trade either market share away from some rich countries such as Australia by stimulating excessiveproduclion, and hencee\Ports, orby 106 F00DPoL|T|CS ThePolilics 0l FarmSubsidies and Trade 107

blocking irnports. One purpose of the World Trade Organiza- with as many cash subsidies as they wish as long as the tion (WTO) is to reduce such trade distoltions, yet successive payments are "decoupled" from any incentive to Produce rounds of multilateral trade negotiations in the WTO (and more. Payments that supposedly do not incentivize new policies within its predecessor organization, the Ceneral Agreement production are Placed in a so-called green box, while on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT) have failed to make more than that clearly distort production are placed either in a red box modest progress in achieving this goal. As of zoo8, the average (they are banned) or in an amber box (where they are allowed, comPletion tariff applied to agricultural imports around the world (calcu- but only up to a certain dollar value). Since the 1994, lated from the vantage point of U.S. exporters) was nearly of the Uruguay Round of multilateral negotiations in portion of 1Z percent, three times the average tariff on manufactured the has partly decoupled a larger a goods. In some of the largest and most lucrative markets, its farm income support policies, allowing them to fall into the average tariff is even higher. Agricultural products of so-calledblue box. the United States entering the Europear.r Union encounter an Even with these various green box and blue box exemp- to reach an agreement on new average tariff of 3o percent, and American farm sales to Japan tions, it proved impossible the most recent Doha Round of encounter a 59 percent average tariff. amber box disciplines in Barriers to international agricultural trade are difficult to WTO negotiations, initiated in 2oor. In July zoo8, U S Trade r bring down because without import barriers, domestic farm Representative Susan Schwab offered to place a $r5 billion I policies would be far more expensive for govem- cap on trade-distorting amber box U.S- farm subsidies, an i, support billion in hopes of gaining accep- ments to operate, especially in Europe and Japan. It is politi- offer later lowered to $14.5 I cally easy to transfer income to farmers through import tance from Brazil. Schwab was able to make such an offer restrictions because they do not cost anything inbudget terms in zoo8 only because high commodity prices temPorarily to a (they may actually earn government revenues) and because reduced the value of America's trade-distorting subsidies they push some of their costs onto foreign producers (who do level well below $r4.5 billion, which diminished the chances contingent not vote). The agricultural trade policies of the United States the farm lobby would object. Also, the offer was Union, would probably be just as reliant on such import restrictions on an equally significant offer from the European no if America's farmers were less productive and hence more and it was well known that the European Union wanted it vulnerable to foreign competition. new disciplines on trade-distorting subsidies beyond cuts In the ronnds of international agricultural trade negotia- had already made unilaterally. The talks collaPsed without tions that take place periodically within the WTO, a distinc- a result when some developing countries-led by China- tion is drawn between subsidies to farmers that distort concluded that the new access they might gain to agricultural production (and hence, trade) versus those that do not. The markets in the United States and European Union envisioned to current strategy is to negotiate limits on trade-distorting under the proposals then on the table was not enough subsidies only, allowing governments to provide farmers justify the added access they would have to provide to their 108 FOODPOLITICS ThePolitics of tarmSubsidi€s and Trade l0g

more own domestic markets for agricultural and caused by decades of neglect from their own govermnent at the border' 8oods. than because of diminished trade Protection Mexico's overall agricultural trade balance has improved and under NAFTA, as agriculturdl exPorts (high-vdlue fruits DidNAFIA hurt Do1r corn farmers in Mexico? 1994and 2oo1'while' )Erew by 9.4 Percentbetween price Becausemultilateral negotiations so frequentlystall, the agricultural imports increased by only 6 9 percent The lower United States in recent decades has attempted to open of corn did fall inside Mexico under NAFTA, bui this rely markets abroad through bilateral or regional trade agree- price provided significant gains for the urban poor who ments, beginning with the North Arnerican Free Trade Agree- on a corn-based diet, a fact dramatized when a temporary ln ment (NAFTA) completed in 1993. This agreemcnt triggered incrcasein corn prices in zooT prompted Poor constlmers a significant phase out of agriculh.rral import barriers between Mexico City to stage a mass protest' the United States and Mexico, but it was opposed by antiglo- This Mexican case underscores an imPortant point The balization advocacy groups such as the Institute for Agricul- welfare of foocl producers and food consumers usually border ture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Min-neapolis. They argued that depends more on what goverrrments do inside the border the agreement would hurt poor corn farmers in Mexico by than on what they do with their trade Policy at the exposing them to a flood of cheap imports of corn from subsi- Arguments between oPen trade advocates and trade Protec- dized growers in the United States. This would push millions tionists too often miss this Poinl off the land and into urban slums, contributing eventually to larger flows of botl-r legal and illegal Mexican jmmigrants to the United States. Reviewing actual expelience since 1993,Mexico did import much more corn from the United States after NAFTA, but this was mostly yellow corn for animal feed to support expanding hog and poultry production, not the white corn grown by poor farmers in Mexico for tortillas. Corn production inside Mexico itself continued to increase despite higher imports, in part because commercial corn growers in Mexico were also getting subsidies (37 percent of the income of Mexican corn growers came from government supports in zooz compared to 26 percent in the United States).Poor growers of white corn are leaving the Iand in Mexico, but they are noncompetitil'e because of their own deficits in technology and infrastructure 138 F00DPoL|T|CS each restaurant, the Chinese flag is hoisted every morninS, and surveys even reveal that a majority of the young customers believe Ronald McDonald is Chinese and comes from Beijhg. 12 Instead of changing China's family-oriented food culture, McDonald's makes money by catering to it. Entire families are ORGANICAND LOCALFOOD welcomed for celebrations and parties, with paper and pen provided for young children who write and draw. Teahouses and art galleries are common features as well. McDonald's has also enjoyed rapid growth in India, with 2oo restaurants currently in operation and a customer base that increases between 10-15 percent every year. In India, the Whatis oryanictood? restaurants also make salesby blending with culnrres rather than confronting them, In Hindu India, where cows are The label organic tetets to one way food can be produced. revered, beef has been taken off the menu and replaced by Organic are produced without any -made patties or by Maharaja Macs made with chicken. (i.e.,synthetic) fertilizers or pesticides.In place of synthetic In countries such as China and India, growing urban afflu- nitrogen fertilizer to restore soil nutrients, organic farmers ence is rapidly changing traditional family life and altering use composted animal and plant cover crops they can traditional meal patterns. Fast-food chains make money from later turn into the soil. In place of synthetic ( these changes and speed them along, but the chains did not killers), organic farmers use crop rotations, mechanical culti- create the change. vation, and . In place of slrrthetic chemicals to control insects, organic farmers rely on biological controls (birds and beneficial insects that eat bad insects) or on toxins to insects that are naturally occurring, such as Bt (from a soil bacterium). is not free of toxic chemicals, but the chemi- cals used must all appear in nature. For example, the insect toxins that can be used include (produced by chry- santhemums) and sabadilla (clerived from the ground seeds of lily). The disciplines for growing food organically are not ne!v, but the widened popularity of among consumers is recent, dathg only from the r99os. Organically grown foods are not to be confused with foods sold as "natural," which 't40 F00DPoUTrcs organicand tocal Food 141

Prince Charles, who in 1986 converted his own Duchy Home earn that name by being minimally Processedafter Srowing and free from ingredients such as refined sugar, flour, and Farm to a completely organic system. food colors or flavorings. It is possible,of course,for foods to The term orgntic farnting was only coined later by the be both organicand natural. American ferome Irving (J. I.) Rodale (r898-r97r), a New York accountant who had taken inspiration from Sir 's writings. In 1942, Rodale began a new career Whatis the history of oryanicfood? publishing a magazine he titled Organic Gardeningud Farming. The organic food movement began in Etrrope early in Rodale was later also a promoter of alternative healthcare the 2oth centLlry,primarily as a plrilosophicalrejection of methods and founded Preuettion magazine in the r95os. synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use. In r9o9, two German chem- For several decades, organic farming enjoyed only marginal ists, Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch,had finally discovereda popularity in the United States, in part because organic prod- method to capture atmosphericnitrogen for agricultural ucts were not available beyond specialty markets or use by combining it with hydrogen under high temperature stores and cost 10 to 40 percent mo{e than conventionally and pressure,resulting in ammonia. Followers of a "vitalist" grown products. The organic option gaired a new following, philosophy, which assertedthat living things could only be however, after Radrel Carson's compelling critique ofsynthetic properly nurturecl by the products of otl-rerliving things (e.g., pesticide use in her 196z book, Silent Spring. A movement animal manure), reiectedthis innovation- The strongestreiec- that began as a re.iection of synthetic fertilizer was now ener- tion came in Austria, where vitalist mystic Iiudolf Steiner gized by its parallel rejection of synthetic pesticides. Growing (r86r r9z5) championed what he called.biodynarnic (lite force) consumer demand plus organic advocacy in the r98os even- farming, grorving crops with compostedanimal manure plus tually obliged Congress, in 1990, to mandate the creation of a other preparationssuch as chamomileblossom and oak bark. clear national standard for certifying and labeling organically Steiner'sapproach was later promoted in Germanyunder the grown products. It was this credible certification and labeling Third Reichby Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmlet who had standard that triggered the recent and rapid expansion of come to doubt tlre sustainability of using artificial fertilizer organic product sales. and advocatedinstead "agriculture in accordancewith the laws of life." How is organic food regulated in the United States? This early rejection of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers also spread in England, where elementsof the aristocracy Organic foods are regulated Lrndera (including Sir Albert Howard and )took (NOP) created in zooz by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. the lead in arguing agajnstwhat they considered"artificial Under this program, foods can be labeled "organic" only ." To the presentday, organicfarming has strong if grown and handled by certified organic producers and support within the English upper class,most notably from processors. The certification is performed not by the USDA 142 F00DP0UT|CS Organicand LocalFood 143 directly but by third-party government-accredited certifiers expansion came from industrial-scale growers who operate who charge a fee, usually less than $ir,oooper farm for initial outside the oliginal holistic philosophy of the rnovement. The certification. purists also mistrust industrial-scale organic growers because Certification is based on a requirement that only "nonsln- they liave lobbied to weaken the official organic standard for thetic" substances be used in organic production and handling. their own convenience. For example, a 2o06 amendment to Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are generally prohibited, the organic standard created a list of"'synthetic substances along with the use of for fertilizer, the use of allowed for use" in organic crop production over the objec- irradiation to kill food , and the planting of seeds tions of purists from the Cornucopia Institute and the Organic that have been genetically engineered. The USDA s original Consumers Association (OCA). There is nothing in Lheorganic proposal would have allowed the use of sewage sludge, irra- standard to prevent large-scalefarms from being certified, diation, and genetically engineered seeds, but outraged advo- so the OCA has to use boycotts in its efforts to discourage cates for organic food sent z75,ooo letters of complaint, so the consrlmers from purchasing organic products from what it government agreed to exclude all three. Farms must be free calls "factory farms." of all prohibited substances and practices for at least 3 years to qualify for certification. In animal production, any animals used for , milk, or eggs must be fed 1oo percent organic ls organic f)od healthier 0r safer to eat? food, have access to the outdoors, and may not be given Many who buy organic foods believe such foods are healthier or antibiotics. Certified handlers of food must use than conventional foods because they conLail more nutrients. only organic ingredients and must prevent organic and nonor- Others believe organic foods are safer to eat because they ganic products from coming into contact with each other The carry no pesticide residues. Nutritionists and health profes- products marketed by certified growers and handlers are enti- sionals from outside the organic community tend to question tled to use a recognized logo, USDA Organic, when labeling both of these beliefs. their goods. The strongest claim of superior nutrient content has been Once this system began operating in zooz, consumer confi- made by the Olganic Centet an institution founded in aooz dence in the integrity of the organic label increased, and to demonstra[e the benefits of organic products. In 2oo8, commercial sales of organic products in the United States the Organic Center published a review "confirming" the began increasing rapidly at amual rates of r5-zo percent. Even nutrient superiority of plant-based organic foods, showing so, the organic sector remains relatively small in the United they contained more C and vitamin E and a higher States, making up only 2 percent of total food purchases and concentration of polyphenols, such as flavonoids. This review using only o.4 percent of U.S. cropland. was rebutted, however, by conventional nutritionists who OrSanic purists fear the expansion of organic production showed that the Organic Center had used statistical results has in some ways been too rapid because so rnuch of the that were either not peer reviewed or not significant in terms t44 F00DP0L|TICS 0rganicand local Food 145 of human health. from cows raised on grass may where fruits and vegetables are often sold unwashed, straight indeed contain 5o percent more beta-carotene, but there is so from the field. Yet in advanced industrial countries such as little beta-carotene in milk to begin with that the resulting gain the United States,this risk is seldom encountered. In zoo3, is only an extra 1,72micrograms of beta-carotene Per quart the Food and Dmg Administration analyzed several thousand of milk, or less than 1 percent the quantity of beta-carotene samples of domestic and imported foods in the U.S. market- found in a single medium-size baked sweet Potato. place and found that only o.4 percent of the domestic samples Most certified health professionals find no evidence that and only o.5 percent of the imported samples had detectable organic foods are healthier to eat. According to the Mayo chemical residues that exceeded regulatory tolerance levels. Clinic, "No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is What are the tolerance levels? The United Nations, through more nutritious than is conventionally grown food." Euro- the Food arrd Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World pean experts agree. Claire Williamson from the British Nrrtri- Health Organization (WHO), has established acceptable daily tion Foundation says, "From a nutritional perspective, there intake (ADI) levels for each separate pesticide. The ADI level is currently not enough evidence to recommend organic foods is set conservatively at 1/1oo of an exposure level that still over conventionally produced foods." In 2oog, the Anlericotl does not cause toxicity in laboratory animals. Moreover, achlal lournal of Clinical Nutritiotr published a study, commissioned residue levels in the United States on conventional foods are by the British Food Starrdards Agency, of 16z scientific papers well below the ADI level. For example, when FDA surveyed published in the past 50 years on the health and diet bcnefits the highest exposures to J8 chemicals in the diets of various of organically grown foods and found no evidence of benefit. population subgroups, it fourd that for 4 of these 38 chemicals The director of the study concluded, "Our review indicates estimated exposures were less than 5 percent of the ADI level. that there is currently no evidence to support the selection For the other 34 chemicals, estimated exposures were even of organically over conventionally-produced on the basis of lower, at less than 1 percent of the ADI level. Carl I(. Winter nutritional superiority." The acidity of organic produce was and Sarah F. Davis, food scientists at the University of Cali- found to be higher, which enhanced taste and sensory percep- fornia-Davis arrd the Instihrte of Food , conclude tion, but there was no difference for health. from these data, "[T]he marginal benefits of reducing human The claim that organic food is safer due to lower pesticide exposure to pesticides in the diet throrrgh increased consump- residues is also suspect in the eyes of most health profes- tion of organic produce appear to be insignificant." sionals. The Mayo Clinic says, "Some people buy organic food It is true that conventional foods are sometimesnot safe to to limit their exposure to [pesticide] residues- Most experts consume, but organically grown foods can also carry risks. In agree, however, that the amount of pesticides found on fruits zoo6, bagged fresh spinach frorn a farm in its final and vegetables poses a very small health risk." Residues on year of converting to was the sorrrce of food can be a significant problem in many developing coun- E. .oli infections in the United States that kille(-l at least three tries, where the spraying of pesticides is poorly regulated and and sickened hundreds. Lr zooq, there were nine documented 146 F00DPoL|T|CS organicand Local Food 147 fatal episodesof salmonellapoisoning from peanutbutter and farming can block the use of modern no{ill practices, which ground peamrt products traced to peanut plants jn Texasand are a superior method of avoiding and reducing Georgia,both of which had organic certification. greenhouse gas emissions because they allow more and less burning of . The organic standard also makes it impossible to plant genetically engi- ls oeanic tarmingbettet fot the envir1nment? neered crops such as Bt corn and Bf cotton, which have helped Organic food is often promoted as "sustainablefood" because conventional farmers reduce use. These environ- surfacewater and grouldwater near farms areless likely to be mental limitations to the organic standard should be unsur- damaged by synthetic pesticide and fertilizer runoff. Against prising, since environmental protection was not the original this advantage,however, comesan environmental disadvan- motive for developing organic practices a century ago. tage: More land is needed for the anirnals that will provide the manure for , and more land will also be grown neededto offset the lower yields that are typical for organically Could the wo d be fed with organically food? grown field crops. In Europe, organically grown cerealcrops It is no longer possible to feed the world with farming systems have yields only 6rFZopercent as high as thoseconventionally that exclude the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. In the grown. In ihe United Kingdom, organic winter wheat yields past century, the population of Earth has increased from r-6 are only 4 tons per hectarecompared to 8 tons per hectarefor billion to more than 6 billion, and these larger numbers have conventional farms. If Europe tried to feed itself organically, been fed thanks to the higher crop yields made possible by it would need an aclditionalz8 million hectaresof cropland, synthetic nitrogen (since the 193os, wheat yields in conven- equal to all the remaining forest cover of France,Germany, tional farming have doubled). Vaclav Smil, an agronomist from ,and Britaincombined. the University of Manitoba, calculates that synthetic fertilizers Someenvironmentally sustainablefarming practicescannot currently supply about 4tl percent of all the nitroBen used by be used by farmers who stick to the rigid organic standard. crops around the world. To replace that synthetic nitrogen Soil health is often best protected when modest quantities of witll orBanic nitrogen would require the manure prodrrction of syntheticchemical fertilizers are used in addition to cover approximately 7-8 billion additional , roughly a fivefold crops, crop rotations, and manure, but the organic standard increase from the current number of r.3 bitlion. The United makes any synthetic nitrogen Lrseimpossible. Pest control is States alone would have to accept nearly I billion additional bestaccomplished through integratedpest management (IPM) animals and an added z billion acres of crops to feed methods that nse chemicalinsecticides as a judicious last those animals, equal to all the land in America except Alaska. resortin combinationwith natural biologicalcontrols-btrt Advocates for organic farming, such as tlre International once again, the organic standard makes this impossible.The Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), do strict prohibition against synthetic use in organic not address the problem this way. They assert that organic t48 F00DPoUTICS organicand LocalFood 149 practices can increase yields based on farming Projects they take place in supermarkets. By zooz, only r3 percent of organic have carried out in some of the world's hungriest regions, such vegetable sales in the United States were still being made by as Africa. Organic methods do produce yield gains in Africa small farmers through local farmers' markets. In zoo6, Wal- if compared to no improved methods at all, but in Africa the Mart announced it would start offering more organic foods, a most productive methods for restoring soil nutrients r.rsually move that pulled a number of maior commercial food compa- include a combination oI both and synthetic nies-including the manufacturers of Pepsi, Rice Krispies, and nitrogen, and the organic standard makes such combinations Kraft Macaroni and Cheese-into the organic market. These impossible to use. Organic farming has expanded in Africa companies source most of their food from large rather than recently but mostly to supply export markets (certified organic small farms. products destined for supermarkets in Europe) rather than to provide for local food consumption. What is the local food movement? The industrial scale of organic farming in the United States ls otganic farming a way to save small farms? has now driven alternative and sustainable food activists to Mucl-r of the increased appeal of organic farming has come demand something rnore-local food, If food is purchased frorn those who see it as a way to save small farms from a frorn local farmers' markets and community gardens, tluough further spread of industrial-scale factory farms. The organic co-ops, or through CSA subscriptions, it will more likely come movement in the United States was originally led by a cohort from diversified small-scale farms rather than from special- will of smaller farmers that Bfew out of the back-to-theland move- ized factory farms. Many o( these small local farmers ment of the r96os and r97os. These organic pioneers usually also be organically certified or at least inclined to rely less made their sales directly to consumers either at farm stands on synthetic chemical applications. Survey evidence reveals and local farmers' markets or through health food stores that the average food buyer is now willing to pay a premium and subscription serviccs under what came to be known as to purchase locally producecl foods and twice that premium community supported agriculture (CSA). Yet when the USDA when buying local food directly from a grower at a farmers' created the national organic standard, farm size and marketing market. The result has been a significant expansion of farmers' channels were not restricted, Thus, once consumer demand markets in the United States-up fron t,755 total in 1994 to pushed up price premiums for organic products, it was only 4485 by zoo6. Even so, the vast majority of consumer food a matter of time before indttstrial-scale growers would get in purchases continue to be made from nonlocal growers. For the game, switching to organic methods, becoming certified, every small farmers'market in America, there are still approx- and selling through large corporate supermarkets. imately r3 large supermarkets. Most organic milk, lettuce, and spinach now come from Advocates for local food (who call themselves locauores) giant corporate operatiorls, and most sales of these products make convincing arguments for the nutritional benefit of 150 F00DP0|-IT|CS orqanicand tocal Food 151 buying directly from growers or at farmers' markets. Journalist price-reducing advantages that come from specialization and Michael Pollan, a leading voice for this movement, shows industrial-scale production in distant locations plus the short ihat avoiding supermarkets is one of the best protections growing season in so many regions. The ultimate local food against an unhealthy diet of oversalted and oversweetened production system, backyard , is culturally popular foods, foods filted with trans fats, elaborately processed and but also impractical to scale up because of heavy labor require- . highly preserved foods, and foods designed only for micro- ments, urban residential patterns, and short seasons.In the 2oth wave ovens. Farmers' markets do not offer these foods, and century, during World War II, the govemment promoted back- the produce they do sell is more likely to have been picked yard gardens (victory gardens) to help offset a loss of male farm recently and picked ripe, ensuring the maximrrm in both nutri- labor during the war, but even in this extreme instance the back- tional value and taste. Buying food locally also helps preserve yard gardens were never able toproduce more than 4o percent of open space close to urban centers, and it improves consumer national vegetable consumption and far smaller sharesof other awareness of food production practices. foods. Once the wartime emergency ended, purchases from Supermarkets are now competing for customers by selling more distant growers immediately resumed. In zoo9, advocates foods grown locally, but unlike organic foods there is no single for local food were nonetheless successful in persuading First national system for certification, reducing the comrnercial Lady Michelle Obama to plant a vegetable garden on the \A/hite potential of the market. Labels don't work because the same House lawrr (something First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt had done food product can be local in one market but not local in another in r943), ftrrther popularizing the idea. Backyard gardening was Even agreeing on a single definition of local is difficult. Advo- further popularized as a cost-cutting responseboth to the higher cates imagine a geography of natural "foodsheds" comparable food prices of zooS and ttre economic recession of zoo9. By one to watersheds, but the analogy does not go very far because estimate from the National Gardening Association, home food food does not come from the sky and food distribution is not gardening increased r9 percent in zoog alone. gravity driven. Jessica Prentice, the founder of a community- supported kitchen in Berkeley, California (and the person who coined the term "locavore"), hdvocates diets consisting of food D1es l)cal food help slow clinate change? harvested from lvithin a roo mile radius-a so-called roo Mile The claim that locally purchased Iood contributes less to Diet. Ttris has drawbacks for consumers in climate zones with is not well founded. Redr,rcing"" only a short summer growing season and for consumers in may be good for frcshness,but it will do little to reduce carbon temperate zones who have a taste for tropical products such emissions if the local foods are moved about in small quanrities as or chocolate. "Local when possible,, is the sensible rather than in bulk. Bulk shipments of food can be moved over rule most advocates settle for in the end. vast distances by rail, barge, or ocean freight with only a small Locally produced food is unlikely to ever supply more than per calorie of food delivered. [n contrast, if a small share of the national diet in tl-reUnited States,siven the food is moved about h smaller quantitiesby pickup tmck (or 152 F000PoLlrlcs 0.ganicand Local Food 153 worse, by family automobile), it will have a large carbon foot- foods in Europe. Slow-food advocates seek to preserve local print per calorie of food delivered even if it travels fewer miles' cuisines and gastronomic traditions, including heirloom vari- If a local farmer drives a small harvest of fresh tomatoes 1tl eties of local grains and breeds of . They view this as miles round-trip to a farmers' market and if the tomatoes are one way to fight back against both the loss of culture and the then purchased a haU-dozen at a time and driven an additional frenzy brought to us by fast foods, suPermarkets, and corptr- ro miles round-trip by each individual customer, the carbon rate . is now an important international footprint per local tomato eaten can grow surprisingly large' social movement with roughly roo,ooo members organized Greenhouse emissions from the transPort of food off the into more than 1,ooolocal chapters (called "convivia") world- farm tend to be far less significant than emissions from food wide. The United States has far less gastronomic tradition production on the farm. Researclrers at Carnegie Mellon to preserve than Italy, but in 2oo8, more than 6o,ooo people University have found that of atl the greenhouse gases gener- attended a slow-food nation gathering in San Francisco, ated by the average U.S. household when it consumes food, savoring local cuisines at taste pavilions and celebrating the the transport of the food accounts for just rr percent. The best planting of an urban garden in front of city hall. way to reduce the carbon footPrint of our diet is not to eat locally but simply to eat less, especially less meat. Eating one less serving of red meat a week achieves the same reduction in Whatexplains the loyalty of somegtoups to organic,local, emissions as switching to a roo percent local diet. or slowfood? Some locally grown foods will also have a much larger Societieshave always sought solidarity in the foodsthey carbon foo\>rint on lhe farm compaled lo foods transported eator foodsthey agree not to eat.In mostreligious tradi- from a distance. Tomatoes shipped from Mexico in the winter tions, patterns of food consumption are carefully regulated' months have a smaller carbon footprint than tomatoes grown Judaism has strict rules, called' knsl|"rtt, to specify what may locally in a greenhouse. Fot consumers in dre United Kingdom, and may not be eaten.In Islam, foods are divided into haraat lamb meat that travels rt,ooo miles from New Zealand gener- (forbidden) and halal (Permitted). Hindus who embrace the atesonly one-qtlarter tlre carbon emissionsper ton compared concept of aliust do not eat meat to avoid doing violence to to British lamb because British farmers raise lheir animals on animals. In Roman Catholicism, fasting is required and meat feed (which must be produced using fossil fuels) rather than consumption is discouraged at certain times in the religiotts on clover pastureland. calendar. It should not be surprising, in today's more secular age, to find people searching for food rules to follow that express slow food? Whatis the differencebefi een localtood and solidarity around secular vahres. The new rules that emerge Tlne sloru-foorlmovemelrt (logo is a snail) originated in italy (organic, local, or slow) are attractive and practical only for in r986, initially as a backlash against the introduction of fast relatively small subcategoriesof citizens or often for only a 154 F00DPouTtCS small part of the diet of tlrose citizens bu t the exclusivity and difficulty of the rule become part of its attraction- The goal is to find and express through the diets we adopt a solidarity with 13 others who share our identity, our values, or our particular life circumstances. The scientific foundation for these modern FOODSAFETY food rules may be weak, but the social value can nonetheless be strong. ANDGENETICALLY ENGINEEREDFOODS

Howsate is Anerica'stood supply? Food in the United States is generally safe and significantly safer than in the past, but the demand for safety has increased as society has become more affluent, creating a parallel dernand for improved policy. Foocl safety lapses are favorite stories in the popular media, and food companies and food retailers can pay a heavy price if the lapse is traced back to them. More than zoo known diseases can be transmitted through food, caused primarily by viruses, , parasites, toxins, metals, or prions (as in the case of mad cow disease). The symptoms can range from mild gastroenteritis to life-threat- ening neurologic, hepatic, and renal syndromes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, food-borne diseasescause approximately 325,ooohospitalizations and 5,ooo deaths in the United States each year Three pathogens, Sdmotella, Listeriq, and. Toxo- plnsnn, are responsible for approximately 3o percent of the deaths. Children under the age of4 are sickened by food more than any other age group, but adults over the age of 5o suffer more hospitalizations and deaths- 157 FoodSafety and Genetically Engineered Foods 156 F00DPollTlcs

ilhess in any large The changing frequency of food-borne measure Mild cases population is difficult to monitor and counts are heavily of*r, go .^."po.ted, so official frequency Nationally sirce 1996' altereJ by the intensity of surweillance' sickness through the CDC has attempted to track food-bome laboratoriesaround regular surveys of more lhan 65o cli-nical people in ro different th! .o.,ntry that serve about 46 million is less systemahc states.At the state level' however, surveillance comPdre For erample' and produces collnls that are hard to Minnesota discovered between r99o and 20()6,the state of illness outbreaks thanks to an ag'gressive 548 food-borne Kentucky found only r8' surveillance system, but the state of certainly not that much Kentucky's food supply was almost food-borne ilhess can safer, if it was safer at all ln some cases' transmitted by also be overreported because many Pathogens from person to food. are also spread through water or Person ln many cases' the without anything being ingested at all creating a iurther specific pathogens are never identified' to food' p;ssibility that the illness was ltnrelated than it was in the America's food supply is far safer today paclaging past, before lhe era of relriEerdtionand sanilary increasing by the CDC show decades of steadily S.,.","y" magnitude of the problem food safety the actual safet;r up until 2oo5, at which point aggregate of a plateau One in the United States reached something is that nearly all the easy possible explanation for the plateau Howdo toodsbecome contaminated? home had already rneasures waiting to be taken outside the hospitalizations ancl been taken. The vast majority of all linked to fatalities today come not from specific outbreaks al dangerous batches of contaminated Products Purchased background level of supJrmarkets but instead from a steady preparatron illness caused by careless handling and improper cutting boards' inside the home Unwashed hands, unwashed 158 F00DPot-tTtCS FoodSalety and Genetically Engineered Foods 159 can lead to . Pathogens can also be introduced labor between the FSIS and the FDA is particularly problem- by unsanitary conveyor belts or unclean processing and pack- atic. For example , ftozen pizzas are inspected by the FDA if aging equipment. Farther down the chain in wholesale and they are cheese and by the FSIS if they are pepperoni. retail outlets, inadequate refrigeration is a problem. In restau- The FDA budget for food inspections is also a partisan rants, cooks who do not wash their hands introduce a risk. issue, with Democrats calling for an increase and Republicans Private industry increasingly seeks to control such contami- proposing cuts. It is also a problem that the FDA is responsible nation tfuough the use of what are called Hazard Analysis and for both food safety and drug safety, and some have called Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. These systems, first for a separate agency to oversee food safety exclusively. By innovated by the Pi-tlsbury Company in the r96os, identify where 2oo9, more than a half-dozen food safety policy overhaul bills hazards might enter into {he food production process and speci$r had been filed in Congress, most designed to give the FDA the stringent actions needed at each separate step to prevent this more financing and greater legal authority to recall unsafe from occurring. In 1996, the U.S. Department of Agriculture food from the market even without a manufacturer's consent. issued a rule for HACCP systems for meat and poultry, requiring In zoo9, the House of Representatives passed new legisla- systems that are costly for industry, but effective.The USDA esti- tion that contained such a measure and required the FDA to mates that it has cost roughly $3ro million since zooo to reduce conduct inspections every 6 to 12 months at food processing E. coli or57:H7 contamination in beef by 5o percent. plants deemed to be high risk. President Barack Obama had described the government's failure to inspect 95 percent of food processing plants as "a hazard to the public health," Whoregulates food contanination in tfieUnited States? Some of this political concern is driven by a dramatic At the federallevel, food safetyresponsibility is divided increase in the consnmption of imported food. According between the Food and Drug Administration (an office of the to the FDA, the voLurne of FDA-regulated imports doubled U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) and the between 2oo3-2oo8, and 6o percent of these imported ship- Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS),which operates ments were food. Approximately 15 percent of tlie U.S. food inside the Department ofAgriculhrre. The FSIS is responsible supply is now imported, with the import share for fresh fruits for meat and poultry, and the FDA is responsible for every- and seafood reaching 5o-6o percent of total supply. The FDA thing else. State public health agenciesand city and county can physically inspect less than 1 percent of all food imports health departments also play a continuous monitoring role. because funding levels for this activity were cut by zo percent Inadequate coordination among these various agencies is a between 2oo2-o8. Inspections for high-risk food facilities, cause for political concern. In 1998, the Clhton administration including fresh produce firms, declined by a quarter after created a Food Outbreak Response Coordinating Group inside zoo4. The presence of such gaps in government inspection did the Department of Health and Human Services, designed to not prove food had become Iess safe, but it did fuel intense increase communication and coordination. The division of public suspicion. 't60 F00DPoLtTtcs FoodSalety and Genetically Engineered Foods 161

Doesprivate industry have sufficient motive and capacity To strengthen industry's interest in self-policing, larger public to Doliceilself? hvestments need to be made in the surveillance and epide- Private industry as a whole has a strong self-interest in miology of outbreaks and in the traceability of potentially food safety. Although tlre number of Americans likely to be contaminated foods tlrrough the production, processing, and hospitalized with a food-borne illness remains low (roughly delivery chain. As private firms become more certain any. r in r,ooo every year), costs to private industry can be large serious outbreak will be traced, their vdluntary investments following an illness outbreak of any significant size. For in contamination prevention will increase. example, Hudson was forced out of the industry after being implicated in selling contaminated products, Mexican Doesthe industialization of agticultuemake fo,d lesssafe? green-onion exporters suffered a sharp decline in sales after a The industrializationof agricultureand the growingscale of hepatitis outbreak was traced to tlreir products, and in zoo6, most meat and fresh produce processing do not make food American spinach producers experienced a complete loss of more dangerous overall, but they do present new kinds of sales after the FDA advised consumers to stop eating fresh as safety risks. Instead of food contamination outbreaks that are well as bagged spinaclr in the wake of an outbreak of E. coli frequent but localized and small scale, the pattern today is contamination. It was later learned that the contaminated outbreaks that are less frequent (per unit of production) yet spinach came from just one 5o-acre farm and was packaged harder to contain to one local area when they do occur. These in one processing plant (and only on one production shift at nationwide outbreaks quickly attract national media atten that plant), yet 3 years later, spinach sales in the United States tion, creating an impression that our modern has continued to suffer. Litigation costs are another worry for become less safe than the more compartmentalized or local- companies, although many legal cases involving food-borne ized alternative. The rrnderlying problem with compartmen- illness never go forward, and of those that do, only one-third talized and localized systems is that they tend to be less lrighly of all plaintiffs receive jury awards- The commercial incentive capitalized and thus less able to afford state-of-the-art tech- that industry has to police itself was reflected in the HACCP, nical options for food supply protection. which began as a voluntary private initiative. When intro- ducing safety certification plans, private firms often move first, ahead of governrnent regulators. ls hndiatedfood safe? Incentives for self-policing are weakened, however, by the One method for reducing or eliminating harmful bacteria, si8nificant time lag between contaminated product consump- insects, and parasites in food is to irradiate the food with brief tion and the onset of illness, which nakes it hard to find d1e exposnres to X-rays, gamma rays, or an electron beam, This specific food source of an illness, and also by the length of the technology has been known for the better part of a century, food production, processirlg, and delivery chain, which makes yet it remains rarely used in the United States. The Food it hard to trace contamination to a single corporate source. and Drug Administration approved irradiation as safe and 162 F00DPorltcs FoodSafety and Genetically Engineered Foods 163 effective for use on poultry in 1992, and on mea t in 7997,blut a soil bacterium named Bt into a corn Plant or into a cotton the technique is rarely used because it makes the meat more plant. The modified versions of these Plants are known as Bl costly and because the industry fears an adverse consumer corn and Bf cotton. Alternatively, genes that direct a Plant to response to tl.reword radiatiort.In zoor the CDC esttmated prodrrce bela-carotene (a precursor of vitamin A, which helps that if half the nation's meat and poultry supply were irradi prevent blindness) can be moved from a daffodil plant into a ated, the result would be goo,ooo fewer cases of food-borne rice plant, resulting in something called "golden rice." apProved for commercial sale illness and l5o fewer deaths. The first engineered croP tobe Advocates for irradiation observe that the technique has was a tomato with extended shelf life (the FlavrSavr tomato), been judged safe by the government and might have killed the marketed by the Calgene Company in 1994 following regula- salmonella that reached grocery store shelves early in zoog in tory approval by the FDA- Soon after, the Monsanto Company and peanut paste. Critics say irradiation would secured approval for the sale in the United States of RounduP only be used by private companies to hide the filthy condition Ready plants, which had been engineered to resist of their plants. These public and political reactions to the irra- the herbicide glyphosate (sold by Monsanto under the trade diation of food tend to mirror, in some ways, public reactions name Roundup) so as to reduce the cost of . With to genetically engineered food. one application of glyPhosate, the would die, but the soybean plants would not. By r996, Monsanto's varieties of Bf corn and B, cotton had also been approved for commercial Whatis geneticallymoditied food? use in the United States.The European Union then approved a Nearly all foods come ffom plants and animals carrying genes number of genetically engineered crops both for planting and modified over time through human interventions such as seed human consumption in 1995-96, irrcluding soybean, maize selection or . Yet in current usage, the term (corn), and canola; Japan approved soybean and tomato; geneticallymodified has come to be reserved for plants and Argentina approved soybean and maize; Australia approved animals modified through genetic engineering, also known cotton and canola; and in r995-96, Mexico approved soybean, as transgenic science or recombinant DNA (rDNA) science. canola, potato, and tomato. Cenetic engineering, firstdeveloped in r973, provides a rnethod for modifying plants and animals without sexual reproduc- genetically loodsregulated? tion by rnoving individual genes physically from a source Howare engineered organism directly into the living DNA of a target organism. Eachnational government has its own systemfor approving the The power of this technique comes from its precision and planting and consumptionof geneticallyengineered crops and from its ability to use a wider pool of genetic resources when foods.The United States,from the start, has regulatedgeneti- pursuing clop or animal modification. For example, genes cally engineeredcrops and foods in much lhe same mamer carrying a trait to resist insect damage can be moved from that it regulatesconventional crops and foods,based on a 164 F00DP0L|T|CS FoodSatety and Genelically Enginee.ed Foods '165

1982 National Academy of Sciences finding tlrat there was no approve a number of GMO foods and crops along with the evidence of "unique hazards" from the modification of plants United States in 1995-96, as noted earlier. Europe's approach using rDNAmethods versus other methods. All new crops in the changed after a major health scare emerged in the United United States, including genetically engineered crops, are subject Kingdom linked to mad cow disease, which undercut citizen to regulation for biosafety (safety to the biological environment, confidence in government food safety regulators. Mad cow ' especially to other agriculhrral crops and animals) by the Animal disease had nothing to do with GMOs, but European regula- and Plant Health lnspection Service (APHIS) of the Depart- tors needed to restore their credibility with consumers, so they ment of Agdcultnre. If a crop has been engheered to produce became more cautious toward all food technologies. In 1998, a pesticide (such as Bi), the Environmental Protection Agency they imposed an informal moratorium on any new approvals (EPA) must give its approval for use. The FDAis the agency that of GMOs, yielding to demands from groups opposed to the reviews new genetically engineered crops for food safety, and technology such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. it views genetically engineered varieties of familiar foods as no A number of European governmenls even began reiectin8 less safe than conventional varieties of the same foods unless the GMOs completely, including those earlier approved by EU €ngineering process has i.nhoduced a new or unfamiliar toxicant, authorities. Finally, in 2oo4, the European Union introduced nutrient, or allergenic protein into the food. If none of these has a new set of regulations intended to reassure consumers been introduced, the teclrnology developers undertake a volun- through strict labeling ar.rdtracing in the marketplace of any tary consultation with tl-reFDA showing the results of their orvn approved GMO foods. Henceforth, ail GMO products with safety testing and then put the new product on th€ market. as much as o.9 percent transgenic content would have to Governments in Europe have developed quite a different carly an identifying label, and operators in the food chain approach to regulating genetically engineered crops and handling approved GMOs would have to maintain an audit foods, known there by the label genetically rrtodiJiedorganisrus trail showing where each GM product came from and to (GMOs). The European approach is to create separate laws whom it was sold for at least 5 years. These tight regulations and approval procedures for GMOs and to regulate this tech- were affordable in Europe only because,by then, most GM nology by a separate and a higher standard. Regulators in foods had been removed from the market voluntarily. Super- Europe are permitted to block the approval of a GMO without market chains, since the late r99os, had begun competing for any evidence of an actual risk to human health or the environ- customers by promising to be GMO-free. ment. Under what is known as the "precautionary principle," a new technology can be blocked simply on a suspicion of new risks or because of a fear that risks not found in the short How widespread are genetically engineered foods? run could nonetheless develop in the long run. Since 1995,the global area planted to GMOcrops has expanded Despite this more precautionary approach, regulatory at double-digit rates every year, reaching 125 million hectares authorities in Europe, acting through the European Union, did by 2oo8. Still, the uptake remains geographically limited. As of 166 F00DP0L|T|CS FoodSafe9 and Genetically Engineered Foods 167

2oo8, only 25 countries around the world contained significant of zoo9,not a single Asian country had given approval for the commercial plantings of GMOs, and more than 9o percent of commercialplanting of GM rice or wheat. all GMO acreage was confined to five countries: the United Reluctanceto approve GMOs often grows out of commer- States,Argentina, Brazil, India, and Canada. The United States cial or cultural closenessto Europe.Countries ihat depend alone makes up half of the total world crop area planted to heavily on agricultural exports to Europe or who retain close' GMOs. In the United States,at least 70 percent of all foods postcolonial ties to Europe (e.g.,countrles in Africa) tend to commercially sold have at least some CMO content. Many adopt Er.rrope'shighly precautionaryapproach toward the consumers are not awale of this, in part because labeling for regulation of GMO foods and crops. In Africa as of zoo9,the GMO content is not required in the United States. only threecountries to haveapproved the commercialplanting Because of consumer anxieties about GMOs, nearly all of of any GMO crops were the Republic of South Africa, , the transgenic crops apploved so far by regulators have either and Burkina Faso.ln the rest of Africa, planting GMO crops is been industrial crops (e.g., cotton) or crops used primarily still illegal. Countries in the WesternHemisphere closer to the for animal feed (e.g., and yellow corn). As of zoo9, United Statesare generally more willing to approveGMOs. As the only country to have approved a GM variety of a staple of zoo8,seven of the top ten countrieswith significant plant- food crop for human use was the Republic of South Africa, ings of GMOs were Westem HemisPherecountries. Geopoli- which approved the production of a GMO variety of white tics obviously plays a role. It is not an accidentthat the only maize in zooz- Even the United States has so far stopped Asian country to have approved GMO maize,the Philippines, short of commercializing GMO varieties of crops was once an American colony. such as wheat or rice, fearing consumer reiection in foreign markets in Europe and East Asia- Genetically modified pota- toes were grown successfully in the United States between Are geneticay engineeredfoods safe? 1995 and rygg bttt fast-food chains such as McDonald's and As of zoo9, there was not yet any documented evidence of Burger King then began to fear activist campaigns against the new risks to human health or the environmentfrom any of the product, so they asked their suppliers for non-GMO varieties GMO foods and crops that regulators had approved for the only, and the planting of GMO potatoes in the United States market. For a new and controversial technology,this stands quickly died out. out as a remarkable safety record. It suggests that the U.S- In Asia as rvell, GMO varieties of staple food crops have not regulatorysystem, the one that hasbeen used to approvemost yet been approved despite the availability of GMO rice plants of the GMOs cnrrently on the market, has been sufficiently that have becn developed by Chinese and Indian scientists. strict-so far, at least-to ensurepublic safety. China and India have been growing GMO cotton commer- All of the most important scientificacademies around cially since tggT and zooz, respectively, and the Philippines the world have concludedthat the GMO foods and crops l.rasapproved yellow maize (mostly for animal feed). But as approved by regulators have so far presented no new 168 F00DPoultcs FoodSalety and Genetically Engineered Foods 169 scientifically documented risks either to l.rumanhealth or to about corporate control. For some, the idea of moving genes the natural environment. This is now thc official position of from one species to another creates ethical discomfort. the Royal Society in London, the Britisl.rMedical Associa- Consumer resistance to agricultural GMOs also comes from tion, the French Academy of Sciences,the German Academies a deeper source. Consumers find it easy to reject CMO foocts of Science and Humanities, and the Research Directorate and crops because, so far, they have provided almost no direet of the European Union. It is also the official position of the consumer benefit. Genetically modifidd soybeans or corn do International Council for Science (ICSU), the Organization not taste bettet look better, PrePare better, or nourish better for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in than conventional soybeans or corn. They are not noticeably Paris, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Food cheaper becattse most of tl'te economic gains from using the and Agriculture Orgarrization (FAO) of the United Nations. technology are captured by the farmer (who saves money by It would be possible, of course, to use IDNA to develop an using less insecticide or fewer herbicides) or by the Patent- unsafe food (e.9., a soybean with a from a Brazil nut that owning company. In the absence of any clear would indnce allergic reactions among some unsuspecting new consumel benefit, citizens in rich cottntries (few of whom consumers), but the scientific consensus says that the regula- are farmers) typically have little to lose when they reject agri- tory systems currently in place have so far been adequate to cultural GMOs. screen out such risky technologies. Where genetic engineering does deliver a clear benefit, citi- Skeptics are not convinced by this absence of evidence of zens tend not to reiect this new science. For example, there is new risks. They invoke a precautionary slogan; "Absence of virtually no social resistance either in Europe or in the United evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence." Propo- States to recombinant medical drugs made from genetically nents of the technology respond that if you spend a dozen engineered bacteria or from the genetically engineered ovary years looking for evidence of a new risk and fail to find any, cells of Chinese hamsters (despite the fact that these drugs that may not be proof of absence (because nobody can prove are also patented and also sold by profit-making American a negative), but it is in fact evidence of absence. multinationals). Several important differences explain this more welcoming social response.Most important is the fact that GMO drr.rgscan deliver clear benefits to most citizens in genetically Why is there so mucn opposition to engineered foods? rich countries, but the first generation of GMO agricultural Opponents of GMO foods share a range of concerns. Some do crops provided benefits only to farrners, seed companies, and not like the technology because it is new and we do nof yet patent holders. Also, medical GMOs are physically contained know enough about it. Others, especially in Europe, dislike within laboratories, so they arouse no environmental anxi- GMOs becausemost were developed by a U.S. multinational, eties, whereas agricultural GMOs are released as living things the Monsanto Company. The fact that the genetic traits in into the natural environment. Finally, recombinant drugs GMOs can be patented in some countries raises a concern are always labeled and prescribed by a physician with the t70 F000PoltTrcs FoodSalety and Genetically Engineered Foods 171 patient's knowledge, but agricultural GMOs were first intro- It has also been asserted that GMO crops are so prone drrced into the food supply without mandatory labels, making to failure that the purchase of GM seeds has driven cotton consumers uncomfortable about involuntary exposure. farmers in India deep into debt, leading to an upsurge in Another reason for social opposition to agricultural GMOs farmer suicides. An independent investigation of this charge has been a widespread disinformation campaign waged revealed that farmer suicides had not increased in India sinee against the technology by opposition groups. Critics of GMOs the introduction oI Bt cotton and that the technology was in have asserted, without evidence, that the new crops cause more fact highty popular overall and was spreading rapidly because spraying of herbicides rather than less, and are more likely it performed extremely well. than conventional crops to result in pesticide-resistant insects Food safety risks have also been asserted against GMOs. or invasive superweeds. Scientific authorities such as the Inter- In Britain in 1998, the rnedia gave loud play to the results of national Council for Science have discredited these charges, a laboratory experiment in which GMO potatoes were fed yet they continue to be made. Another charge is tl.rat pollen to rats, supposedly wiih damaging health effects, but the from GMO corn kills monarch butterfly larvae, but studies Royal Society later issued a statement saying it was wrong conducted by the EPA revealed that under field conditions the to conclude anything from the experiment due to flaws in its risk is "negligible" because the exposure of rnonarch caterpil- design. The results have never been replicatecl by scientists lars to Bt corn pollen is almost always below a level that could usin8 a proper study design, yet the media attention given to cause any harm. Yet the assertion continues to be made. this caseplayed an importantearly role in driving up consumer Another bogus yet widely circulated assertion is that GMO anxieties. Critics later warned that eating CMO foods would crops contain terndnatbr getrcs,which render the seeds sterile. result in a transfer of antibiotic resistance genes into the human A patented technology does exist that could produce sterile body but again without any sound experimental verification. seeds, but this teclmology has never been used in any of the In zooz, one UK organization named Farming and Livestock GMO crops now on the market, so the seeds have been.just Concern went so far as to wam officials from the government as easy for farmers to replicate as the seeds of conventional oI Zarnbia that it would be unwise to accept GMO maize crops. In fact, the technology has often spread into new coun- from the United States as food aid because inside the human tries, such as Brazil and India, by farmers who freely repli- body it could form a r€trovirus similar to HlV. The Zambians cated and replanted them. It is true that GMO seeds can be were cor.rcerned and decided to refuse the food aid. A more patented in some countries, inclrrding the United States and recent charge emerged from a study done in Austria in zoo8 Canada, and farmers in these countries must sign a pledge that purported to find lower reproduction rates among mice not to replicate the seeds and to instead buy new seeds every that had been fed with GMO corn. When the Scientific Panel year Yet this kind of patent protection does not exist in aly of on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Union the countries of Asia or Africa, so small farmers there would reviewed the study, it found calculation errors, inconsistencies never face such restrictions- in treating the data, and an error in the method of calculating