U.S. agriculture assistance abroad should provide a full spectrum of agricultural choices to increase food production without contributing to water pollution and other environmental harm amid global warming. These choices should favor agricultural techniques such as conventional seed breeding as well as breeding enhanced by our increased understanding of seed genomes, both of which are proven to increase yield. Favoring agricultural genetic engineering instead makes no sense

Since the itroduction of genetically altered crops such as RR and Liberty Link seed farmers have been able to dramatically decrees the amount of herbicides being applied and have been able to reduce the amount of cultivation due to less weed pressure reducing your so called impact on global warming, wich as a segway is a bunch of bull considering that the earths tempurature has risen six degrees in the last century

Here’s what the bill would change the Foreign Assistance Act to say:

Agricultural research carried out under this Act shall
(1) take account of the special needs of small farmers in the determination of research
priorities,
(2) include research on the interrelationships among technology, institutions, and economic,
social, environmental, and cultural factors affecting small-farm agriculture,
(3) make extensive use of field testing to adapt basic research to local conditions. Special
emphasis shall be placed on disseminating research results to the farms on which they can be
put to use, and especially on institutional and other arrangements needed to assure that small
farmers have effective access to both new and existing improved technology, and

(4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological
conditions, including genetically modified technology.

The change mentions both biotechnology and “genetically modified technology” (A misnomer but we all know what it means). If you take a look at the wording of this sentence you will notice that the text of the bill clearly considers “genetically modified technology” as a sub-set of biotechnology. As Mary brings up, there are many instances of what are appropriately referred to as biotechnology, but are not genetic engineering. This text, as worded, opens any biotechnological advance to be eligible to receive Foreign Assistance Act funding.

It highlights genetic engineering as one such technology. Perhaps it would be better to specifically mention several more such as marker-assisted breeding, etc, but that’s not a very good objection. Mentioning one technology in-specific does not elevate it to being “mandated” while other biotechnologies are simply “allowed.” They are all made eligible for financial assistance through the act.

Given Doug’s statement about “we should also consider how to spend scare development dollars most effectively…” suggests that he believes, as implicated in many places, that we should not fund genetic engineering reesearch in efforts to address food production issues here and abroad. But he also says that we should “make sure that the countries most affected have the ultimate say in what methods they adopt.” These two positions do not reconcile very well, so quoting the second to say you didn’t suggest anything by the first is logically problematic.

Would Doug like to make a clear, coherent statement to the effect of, should we fund genetic engineering projects in developing countries at all, yes or no? That is what this discussion is about, yet nothing clear is said to that end.

First, “Shall” has well defined legal meaning in most cases, biotechnology does not. Senator Lugar does not provide evidence to the contrary in the op-ed linked above, only an assertion.

Additionally, leaving the language about genetic engineering out of the bill would do absolutely nothing to prevent that technology from being part of the research mix (perhaps you can show us the language in the bill that contradicts this). It would just be another unmentioned technology or method that would absolutely be allowed, rather than mandated.

This is clear also because the amendment in question is added on to a 1961 bill which has been in effect, and has not prevented genetic engineering projects from being developed in recent years by one of the implementing agencies, U.S. AID.

How _convenient_.

By trying to restrict biotechnology from this legislation you are absolutely withholding “the ultimate say in what methods they adopt”. Like a gag order on abortion by Bushies–it’s out there, but we can’t tell you. Ejeta specifically said that science is part of what these farmers and countries need, and that requires funding. I can’t believe you would try to prevent that. That is so anti-science and superior–you know better what they need–that it is appalling.

I am not opposed to genetic engineering, let alone other methods of breeding. What I have written is that other agricultural methods and technologies have proven much more effective so far at improving yield, and therefore these other cost-effective and successful methods should have some priority, if that is what the receiving countries want.

As to being paternalistic, I wrote in my response to you “…and also make sure that the countries most affected have the ultimate say in what methods they adopt”. In other words, the receiving countries should be the ones to decide. I am not sure how that is paternalistic.

In fact, the way the bill is currently written is more likely paternalistic in mandating biotechnology projects. Again, one of the primary points I was trying to make.

And finally the term “biotechnology” has not been defined in the bill, so it is unclear what it means (part of the problem with the bill is that it is poorly worded), but it seems unlikely that the authors meant things like the use of agro-ecology, water-sparing technologies, etc. So again, we are left with genetic engineering (and here again–I am assuming that the awkward phrase “genetically modified technology” means genetic engineering) as the only specifically mentioned and mandated technology in the bill.

http://www.worldfoodprize.org/press_room/2009/june/ejeta.htm

There are many solutions needed to improve food security–and improving the tools of local farmers and scientists are among them. Withholding those tools is wrong.

Furthermore, the issues I raise are not about whether genetic engineering would make up all of the research funding as Mary suggests–it is hard to conceive of that happening. Rather the issues are pressuring governments to accept genetic engineering projects that may not want them–as is currently the case for many countries–and favoring an approach to improving food security that has so far proven to be much less effective than other methods and technologies.

Pressuring countries to accept genetic engineering is contrary to the tone of mutual respect often sounded by the Obama Administration (and many aid groups).

There may well be successful genetic engineering projects for these countries, but we should also consider how to spend scare development dollars most effectively, and also make sure that the countries most affected have the ultimate say in what methods they adopt.

Karl seems to base his entire argument on the assurances of the amendment’s author (Senator Lugar). I would rather trust Webster on what “shall” means.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090610/OPINION04/906100343/1038/Opinion

Here’s the language, that you didn’t provide:
“include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.”

See? _Appropriate_. Not mandatory.