Agri Econ 24, Greenpeace voodoo science vs GMOs

Greenpeace voodoo science was slam dunked last week by real scientists. GP do heavy political science then call it climate science, bio science. They should be ashamed of what they are doing. 

From the WaPo news last June 30, 2016: 

The letter campaign was organized by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs and, with Phillip Sharp, the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns. The campaign has a website, supportprecisionagriculture.org, that includes a running list of the signatories, and the group plans to hold a news conference Thursday morning at the National Press Club in Washington.

“We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It's easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science," Roberts told The Washington Post. “Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause."

GP is wrong on perhaps 99% of their advocacies. Anti-coal, anti-nuke, anti-fossil fuels (yet their leaders proudly and braggingly announce that they jet set to this and that country and continent for various meetings, riding on planes that use 100% fossil fuel...), anti-GMO, anti-capitalism, etc. The 1% where they are correct is campaign against solid wastes that are thrown anywhere.

"From its early days of dodging harpoons and Japanese whalers in outboard motor boats, Greenpeace has parlayed media savvy, flagrant dishonesty and an ­aptitude for political theater into a $360 million-plus per year empire with offices in more than 40 countries." http://www.forbes.com/.../greenpeace-more-dishonest.../...

GMOs are safe. Most if not all the rice that I and millions of Filipinos have been eating since the 70s are GM rice. 4 decades or more have passed, none has become a frankenstein. And no food riots despite the population rising from around 40+ M in the 70s to 102 M now.

There are some scattered studies that perhaps were not peer reviewed or published in lesser known papers saying that GMOs are dangerous and scary. The 107 scientists who speak up here are top caliber ones, Nobel laureates. Between these 100% scientists and perhaps 100% non-scientist GP militants, the former has more credibility.

I think of more modernity, more prosperity, more food efficiency. The PH will soon have 200, then 300 M people and there will never be food riots. Thanks to modern science, thanks to GM science.

Our farm caretaker (now 62 yo) in Pangasinan told me few years ago that when he was young, he was helping his father in rice farming and the "good" quality rice then, non-GM (no IRRI perhaps yet), could be harvested after 6 months. So after 6 months, harvest was very small -- subjected to heavy rains, typhoons, flooding, rats, birds, wild ducks, kuhol, many other pests.

The key to good rice farming is to harvest the crop in a short period. The dominant varieties are still harvestable after 4 months, but there are many varieties now that are harvestable after 3 months, even 2 1/2 months. Plant quick, harvest quick, reduce exposure to various pests, and farmers' income will be higher, consumers' rice supply will be higher. Thanks to GM rice.

----------------

See also:
Agri Econ 18: Israel's Modern, High Tech Farming, March 17, 2015

Agri Econ 21, Rice protectionism as poverty-maximizing policy, September 25, 2015

Agri Econ 22, Why "peak food" hypothesis is wrong, December 25, 2015 

Agri Econ 23, Why forever Agrarian Reform should stop, March 09, 2016

GM crops and rising population, March 10, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 4: GMOs are good, August 31, 2011
GMOs, Greenpeace and Public Health, January 15, 2014 

Agri Econ 18: Israel's Modern, High Tech Farming

Two weeks ago, I attended an agricultre seminar given by the Israel embassy here in Manila, to interested Filipino farmers and farm owners/managers. A friend and co-parent at TSAA, Noel Sandicon informed me about the seminar. Presentations were made by Eitan Neubauer, Counselor for Intl. Development Corp. (MASHAV), Science and Agriculture, Israeli Embassy in Beijing.

Some data in their dairy farming productivity.

I was amazed by their high tech farming, very high farm productivity.

Water for irrigation is a big problem, rainy season is only 3 months a year. The main solution is using effluent, used water by households and companies, transported several kilometers away for treatment, and use the treated water for irrigation. The share of effluent water is rising.

Since 60 percent of its land area is desert, plus the need for residential, commercial, industrial zones on the remaining 40 percent, agricultural land is very small. Thus, soil less farming via hydroponics is common. Private sector dynamism and innovation is very clear.

One application of biotech, genetic engineering and producing a GMO, long shelf-life tomatoes. Fantastic.

Fertigation means fertilizers + irrigation. So the water that passes through the tubes that nourish the roots contain exact amount of fertilizers that the crops need, depending on their age (in days). One advantage of hydroponics and soil-less farming, is that the crops are automatic organic. Bacteria, fungi, etc. normally live and multiply in the soil. Since there is no soil involved, no bacteria or fungi enters the crops. Zero pesticides, zero insecticides, zero fungicides.

Fantastic how they drastically controlled (but not totally eradicate of course), a big pest that can cause huge crop damage, the Mediterranean fruit fly.

One big problem in PH mangos, big headache actually, is cecid fly or "kurikong manga". When they attack, you can expect up to total crop failure. We have zero mango harvest in our farm the past 3 or 4 years already because of this pest, which is invisible to the naked eye.

Cantaloupe via genetic engineering again, a new GMO. Nice and safe to eat.

I assume that it's all private companies developing these scientific progress. The Israeli government is busy with security matters so the private sector should be busy with innovation and enterprise competition at the global scale.

I am not aware if similar high-tech dairy farms are existing in the PH. Almost all of our powdered milk are imported, the bottled or boxed liquid milk may be locally produced but they are not exactly cheap.

To harvest 600-1,500 kgs of fish on a small, 1,000 sq. m. (1/10 of an hectare) pool is too high. One can feed hundreds of people with just one hectare of land area, continuously, all year round. Fantastic.

I admire the Israeli private sector for these and other scientific breakthrough in agriculture and food production. Food supply will never be a problem in the planet as the trend is rising food output per hectare of land area. "More food for less resources" is the default mode of modern agriculture.

Governments should step back from agri bureaucratism. Like food trade protectionism (DA's rice QR, NFA's rice importation monopoly, etc.), anti-GMO legislation and regulations, and endless, no time table agrarian reform (forced land redistribution) like what we have in the PH until now.

The five presentations by Mr. Neubauer is available here.

-----------

See also:
Agri Econ 14: NO to Further Extension of Agrarian Reform, July 03, 2014 
Agri Econ 15: Why do Thailand and Vietnam Produce More Rice than the PH?, January 27, 2015 
Agri Econ 16: Seeds for Mankind, February 27, 2015
Agri Econ 17: Why NFA Marketing Function Should be Removed,  February 28, 2015

Pilipinas Forum 4: GMOs are good, August 31, 2012
GMOs, Greenpeace and Public Health, January 15, 2014
Sweden Seminar 3: Field Trips, 2003, June 21, 2014 
Kurikong Mangga or Cecid Fly, Huge Crop Losses, March 16, 2015

GMOs, Greenpeace and Public Health

Sometime in July 2013, I had a debate with some Greenpeace activists, about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I initially called them as “anti-CO2, anti-coal, anti-nat gas, anti-nuke, anti-GMO, anti-Bt corn, anti everything”.

The GP guy, Francis, replied that they are “against burning coal and fossil fuels, not only because doing so produces CO2 that causes global warming and nuclear power is beset with a lot of issues, esp. safety issues. but we are not "anti-everything" in fact, we are for other cleaner and safer sources of energy and energy efficiency. our stand against GMOs (e.g. Bt talong) is also a stand for sustainable agriculture. so hindi rin anti-everything.”

Here are the succeeding exchanges….

Nonoy 12 years ago, we have a loooong discourse and debate about GMOs, particularly Bt corn, a cousin of the Bt eggplant controversy. Bacillus thuringensis is a soil-dwellling bacteria, part of nature, that corn borers and other pests dislike and find so yucky. You put the Bt on corn, eggplant, your crop almost become organic -- no need for pesticide, insecticide, as the borers and other pests will simply not attack them. But Greenpeace priests hate natural pesticides, they want what?
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/08/pilipinas-forum-4-gmos-are-good.html

Meanwhile, lawyers and judges at the Court of Appeals (CA) can now decide with finality scientific debates that require deep sciientific expertise? You need molecular biologists, chemists, botanists, zoologists, physicians, and other scientists to make a ruling of "safe" or "non-safe".

Greenpeace hates modern science and products of molecular biology. If GM feeds for chicken and hogs were not developed because Greenpeace opposed them and got Court ruling, the price of chicken and hogs could be P200 a kilo or more. Mass production is the clear solution to drastically raise food output and avoid hyper food inflation and food riots. We are thankful that Greenpeace fanaticism against modern science has not reached this far yet. But who knows, maybe tomorrow or next year.

That is why people should not support Greenpeace. The money you donate will be used to further stupefy and idiotize the public -- from GMOs to "man-made" warming to coal to natural gas and nuke. Nothing personal but the ideology of ecological socialism, of anti-capitalism, is what makes Greenpeace and allies become dogmatic in their environmental nirvana

Ipat commented,

“Brilliant PR work. Step 1: hide the multinational giants behind "FIlipino scientists". Step 2: Hide the multinational billions and highlight Greenpeace's money sourced ONLY from individuals, no corporations, Step 3: Make it a nationalist issue, as if the Pinoy scientists have no other backing and invented the GMO technology themselves (heck they're only testing it and if they think it's okay, farmers would have to keep paying for the intellectual property rights!) But with that, I have to tune out also, I've heard Mr. Oplas on this before and ne'er the twain shall meet.”