(3 of 4)
Toward the end of a war, a simple truism applies: it is better to negotiate a surrender than to fight to the death for a losing cause. Though environmentalists may be loath to admit it, this is their choice in the battle over genetically modified foods. Despite the best attempts by European activists to seal off the Continent from what they call Frankenfoods, the new science of farming is here to stay. So if environmentalists want to help shape the future of agriculture, it's time to raise the white flag and ask the world's bioengineers for a seat at the bargaining table.
What could be better for the environment than a cheap, simple way for farmers to double or triple their output while using fewer pesticides on less land? According to Rockefeller University environmental scientist Jesse Ausubel, if the world's average farmer achieved the yield of the average American maize grower, the planet could feed 10 billion people on just half the crop land in use today. Of course it's possible that some genetically modified foods may carry health risks to humans (although none have so far been proved in foods that have been brought to market), and it's unclear whether agricultural companies will be able to control where their altered-gene products end up. But what's needed now are not crop tramplers and lab burners but powerful lobbyists able to negotiate for more effective safeguards and a greater humanitarian use of the technology.
Bioengineering has tremendous potential in the developing world. The U.S., Canada, China and Argentina contain 99% of the global area of genetically modified crops, whereas yields of sorghum and millet in sub-Saharan Africa have not increased since the 1960s. Green groups hoping to earn the trust of the developing world should lobby hard for the resources of Big Agriculture to be plowed into discovering crop varieties that can handle drought and thrive on small-scale farms.
NO MORE EXAGGERATIONS
A shattering piece of news came over the press wire of the Rainforest Action Network in May: "One-quarter of mammals will soon be extinct." An Associated Press story made a similar claim: "A quarter of the world's mammal species--from tigers to rhinos--could face extinction within 30 years." Problem is, the story isn't true.
The source of the number was a report issued by the United Nations Environment Program. It cites the World Conservation Union's most recent "Red List," which indicates that about 24% of mammals "are currently regarded as globally threatened." This figure comprises not only the approximately 4% of mammals that are "critically endangered" but also those that are merely "vulnerable," a category including animals with only a 10% chance of extinction within 100 years. The U.N. report makes this distinction clear--and even cautions against relying on species data from the Red List. But those caveats didn't make the news.
Fuzzy math and scare tactics might help green groups raise money, but when they, abetted by an environmentally friendly media, overplay their hand, it invites scathing critiques like that of Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, whose book The Skeptical Environmentalist debunks environmental exaggerations (see box).