Saturday 04 February 2012
Headlines
Did you find this story interesting? (0) (0)
21/10/2009 07:22:55
Royal Society report on science and agriculture: GM not the only answer
The Food Ethics Council gives a cautious welcome to the Royal Society’s report Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of agriculture.
As well as providing a useful snapshot of the science, it recognises that technology – including GM - is no magic bullet in the fight against hunger.
We are encouraged by the Royal Society’s understanding that social and economic policies must also be in place to ensure food security.
However, the report assumes that feeding people is about growing food, not how it’s distributed and consumed. It fails to face up to the fact that a billion people already people go hungry, while many more are buying – and throwing away – more food than they need.
[Tristram Stuart, author of Waste estimates that avoidable waste of cereal-based foods in the UK and USA would be enough to lift 224 million people out of hunger.]
Dr. Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council, says:
"The Royal Society recognises that consumers and farmers should have a say in the way governments rise to this challenge. But they get ahead of themselves by demanding £2 billion more for science.
"That’s exactly the kind of decision that should be up for wider debate. The money might be better spent tackling the social and economic problems that affect whether growing more food makes a jot of difference to food security.
"Instead of asking ’how can science and technology help secure global food supplies’, we need to ask ’what can be done – by scientists but also by others – to help the world’s hungry?’
"The fact is that our scientific institutions, regulatory bodies, innovation policies and intellectual property regimes are in no fit state to speak for marginal farmers and the world’s hungry people."
The Food Ethics Council recommends that before we can find effective solutions to solving global problems of food insecurity, we urgently need institutional changes.
As a signatory to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) the UK government should already be on the case.
IAASTD found that the incentives for science to address the issues that matter are weak; and that many OECD members don’t consider social and environmental needs when trying to meet agricultural production goals. It calls for institutional, economic and legal frameworks that combine productivity with the protection and conservation of natural resources.
So we urge the Royal Society to take IAASTD’s recommendations to heart in its debates about GM and other technologies, by putting sustainability and social justice at the heart of the way it does research into agriculture.
As well as providing a useful snapshot of the science, it recognises that technology – including GM - is no magic bullet in the fight against hunger.
We are encouraged by the Royal Society’s understanding that social and economic policies must also be in place to ensure food security.
However, the report assumes that feeding people is about growing food, not how it’s distributed and consumed. It fails to face up to the fact that a billion people already people go hungry, while many more are buying – and throwing away – more food than they need.
[Tristram Stuart, author of Waste estimates that avoidable waste of cereal-based foods in the UK and USA would be enough to lift 224 million people out of hunger.]
Dr. Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council, says:
"The Royal Society recognises that consumers and farmers should have a say in the way governments rise to this challenge. But they get ahead of themselves by demanding £2 billion more for science.
"That’s exactly the kind of decision that should be up for wider debate. The money might be better spent tackling the social and economic problems that affect whether growing more food makes a jot of difference to food security.
"Instead of asking ’how can science and technology help secure global food supplies’, we need to ask ’what can be done – by scientists but also by others – to help the world’s hungry?’
"The fact is that our scientific institutions, regulatory bodies, innovation policies and intellectual property regimes are in no fit state to speak for marginal farmers and the world’s hungry people."
The Food Ethics Council recommends that before we can find effective solutions to solving global problems of food insecurity, we urgently need institutional changes.
As a signatory to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) the UK government should already be on the case.
IAASTD found that the incentives for science to address the issues that matter are weak; and that many OECD members don’t consider social and environmental needs when trying to meet agricultural production goals. It calls for institutional, economic and legal frameworks that combine productivity with the protection and conservation of natural resources.
So we urge the Royal Society to take IAASTD’s recommendations to heart in its debates about GM and other technologies, by putting sustainability and social justice at the heart of the way it does research into agriculture.
No Comments
Nobody has posted any comments on this story.
|
Farming items for Sale
|
John Deere 7530 PREMIUM - Maidstone(GBP 58500)
Ford 4630 - Garvagh(GBP 7950)
Case IH MX310 - Norwich
(Price on Application)
(Price on Application)
Massey Ferguson 6170 Dynashift - Tiverton(GBP 11500)
John Deere - 8650 - Byfield
(Price on Application)
(Price on Application)
Related News
Reduced milk supply is not the answer says MDC report - 16 Aug 2006The NFU has endorsed a report by the Milk Development Council which explodes the theory that a massive cut in production would be the best way forward...
NFU backs 'balanced' Royal Society report on biofuels - 14 Jan 2008The NFU has given its backing to the conclusions of a Royal Society report on sustainable biofuels. The report, published today Monday, calls on th...
Cattle movements ‘relatively unimportant’ in TB spread – Royal Society report - 13 Feb 2008New research published today (Wednesday, February 13) by the Royal Society shows that cattle movements are responsible for just 16 per cent of bovine ...
Chickens fed GM feed do not produce GM meat, scientist says - 25 Nov 2009A very public attack on poultry producer Inghams Enterprises could all be based on a technicality with some scientific evidence indicating birds fed o...
Sound science debate needed on GM technology - 14 Jun 2010Both UK consumers and the fresh produce industry need an informed debate on the potential of GM technology to decide if this technology can and should...
MEP vote on GM ignores science - 06 Jul 2011The European Parliament is setting a dangerous precedent for EU legislation by ignoring scientific advice on genetically modified crop varieties, the ...
Bio-fuels using corn may not be the answer - 21 Oct 2007The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports the largest corn crop ever this year - 13.3 billion bushels -to meet the nation's demand for eth...
Organic subsidies 'not the answer' to food security threat - 05 May 2011A proposal by the Prince of Wales for organic farm subsidies would be a huge step backwards for the ability of UK farming to contribute towards food s...
Royal Agricultural Society members flock to visit the Abbeystead Estate in Lancashire - 16 Jun 2003Abbeystead Estate, Lancaster The Royal Agricultural Society of England in conjunction with the Duke of Westminster's Abbeystead Estate nr Lancaste...
Royal Agricultural Society of England consultation has communications at its core - 16 Oct 2006The agricultural sector is to be given the chance to have its say, and influence the way its industry communicates, in one of the biggest independent ...
