It’s Futile to Refute ISAAA’s Report on Global Status of Biotech Crops

Soon after Clive James, the chairman, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) released this year’s report on adoption of biotech crops, anti-technology activists had a field day trashing it.

Hours before the report’s release, Greenpeace International released its own version showing that “there is irrefutable evidence that governments, farmers and consumers throughout the world recognize that GE (genetically engineering) is unreliable, unviable or downright dangerous.”

I had a chance to skim through Greenpeace’s report, and my conclusion was it is not field-based. The report has all the hallmarks of armchair research. I figure out that all it was compiled from media clippings, and was solely for publicity purposes. Tactics like these have no place in the debate about genetically modified crops.

Greenpeace is a well-endowed organization, financially. The world would have expected it , just as ISAAA did, to dispatch researchers to the field to obtain first-hand information on the global status of genetically modified crops. It certainly didn’t. Instead it resorted to fabrications which in itself puts its reputation on the line.

On several occasions, I have argued against dragging politics into genetically modified (GM) food debate. GM foods are products of science, and they should be treated as so. Debate on GM foods should delve on the science behind them. This way we will be able to separate wheat from chaff.

Clive James conducted a comprehensive study on the global status of genetically modified crops. He went to the field, interviewed farmers, government officials, community-based organizations, and agricultural scientists, and finally analyzed his data using every available scientific tool. Who can question the validity and reliability of such a study? One would have expected those criticizing James’ report to question his methodologies.

It’s interesting to listen anti-technology activists try to discredit agri-biotech, at a time when a country like Brazil is unveiling plans to invest $5 billion in biotech research. Are they really living in this world?