The World Wildlife Fund has formed a Markets Institute which will work with the private sector to “help optimize global food sector sustainabilityâ€. The Institute will bring together groups from the private and public sectors, non-government o rganizations and academic institutions to discuss issues that it has identified as priorities, but its real purpose is to attract high-profile industry leaders into a campaign against modern agricultural technology.
In a stunning development, BASF, the German chemical company, said last week that it will slash its plant biotechnology research activity, eliminating 350 positions in North America and Europe. BASF is effectively cutting this activity, which currently has 700 employees, in half. Scientific labor is by far the biggest part of research costs. The company announcement was vague, but did not leave much doubt that the motive behind this decision is the public and regulatory resistance to new biotech crops and the declining chances that research investment will pay off. BASF said it will discontinue projects that have high technical challenges in favor of more conventional herbicide tolerance and fungal resistance in soybeans. It will also continue development of polyunsaturated omega-3 strains in canola. A multi-year research collaboration agreement with Monsanto reached in 2012, representing a $2.5-billion investment mainly involving drought and other stress tolerance, is also not affected. This is a major win for the bigotry and superstition of the anti-GMO movement and a bad omen for the future of crop biotechnology. BASF has concluded that GMO innovation will be limited to crops where it is already established. It appears to be a prudent business decision but the reason for it is the remarkable, corrosive success the anti-GMO movement has had in convincing consumers and politicians that GMO technology is undesirable. By coincidence, a study at Purdue University to be published in June concluded that if existing GMO crops were eliminated, greenhouse gas emissions would increase and food costs worldwide would rise by $14 to $24 billion a year. US corn yields would drop by 11% and soybean yields by 5%, pesticide use would increase and an additional 1.1 million acres now in forests and grasslands would have to be cultivated just to stay even.
Why cant we all work at getting this message out??
In a stunning development, BASF, the German chemical company, said last week that it will slash its plant biotechnology research activity, eliminating 350 positions in North America and Europe. BASF is effectively cutting this activity, which currently has 700 employees, in half. Scientific labor is by far the biggest part of research costs. The company announcement was vague, but did not leave much doubt that the motive behind this decision is the public and regulatory resistance to new biotech crops and the declining chances that research investment will pay off. BASF said it will discontinue projects that have high technical challenges in favor of more conventional herbicide tolerance and fungal resistance in soybeans. It will also continue development of polyunsaturated omega-3 strains in canola. A multi-year research collaboration agreement with Monsanto reached in 2012, representing a $2.5-billion investment mainly involving drought and other stress tolerance, is also not affected. This is a major win for the bigotry and superstition of the anti-GMO movement and a bad omen for the future of crop biotechnology. BASF has concluded that GMO innovation will be limited to crops where it is already established. It appears to be a prudent business decision but the reason for it is the remarkable, corrosive success the anti-GMO movement has had in convincing consumers and politicians that GMO technology is undesirable. By coincidence, a study at Purdue University to be published in June concluded that if existing GMO crops were eliminated, greenhouse gas emissions would increase and food costs worldwide would rise by $14 to $24 billion a year. US corn yields would drop by 11% and soybean yields by 5%, pesticide use would increase and an additional 1.1 million acres now in forests and grasslands would have to be cultivated just to stay even.
Why cant we all work at getting this message out??
Comment