AAEA Member David Zilberman, professor of agriculture and resource economics, recently Blogged on The Berkeley Blog about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's).
Be sure to participate in a discussion using the comments below.
Recently I was interviewed for an article published in California Magazine.
It is a well-written article about the controversy surrounding
genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I made my usual points: GMOs have
actually done much good by reducing commodity prices, increasing
yields, saving land and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving
the health of farm workers. It has a much larger potential, which is
lost because of heavy regulation.
The day before the paper went to print the journalist asked me
whether my work “was paid by Monsanto”. The answer was a clear and
definite “NO”. I did this research as part of my main research work paid
by the University and my chair. Actually, I had been working on GMOs
before I even heard about Monsanto. I learned about this new technology
and realized its potential, and ended up editing a special issue of a
journal on the potential benefits and limitations of GMOs. Even the
noted environmentalist David Piemental contributed to this issue,
raising concerns about some aspects of the technology. I myself was
concerned about intellectual property rights, access to and control of
the technologies, access for the poor, and appropriate regulation. I
have been working on GMOs now for more than 20 years.
Then I asked myself: Why do people assume that if you are pro-GMO,
you are being paid by Monsanto? One answer might be ‘common knowledge’. I
have heard more than once that “everyone knows that GMOs are bad for
health, the environment and society, and it has made evil companies like
Monsanto rich,” and the implication is that since Zilberman is not
ignorant he must be paid.
My response to this perspective – “Really? Who is everyone?”
All
of the major national academies of science in the US, England and even
in France have officially stated that GM foods are not more dangerous
than other types, and that GMOs have actually had health and
environmental benefits. Even the man that coined the term biodiversity,
E.O. Wilson, and the great Jared Diamond think that GMOs are essential
for sustainable development. Thus when people only listen to their own
circle, they will have a biased perception of the bigger picture.
Another reason why people might assume that I am in Monsanto’s pocket
is that I am a Professor at Berkeley, and “Berkeley only supports the
progressive agenda,” as I am frequently reminded. However, nothing could
be farther from the truth. Berkeley is incredibly diverse: it has noted
anti-GMO scholars, including Michael Pollan as well as Professor Steven
Lindow, who conducted the first GMO field trial in 1987, and his
innovation to introduce genetically engineered organisms to treat plants
was protested heavily by activists. Our plant biology department is the
best in the world and has given birth to innovations that will
eventually benefit humanity. Berkeley was also the center of research
that led to the development of the A-bomb and many important chemicals,
major breakthroughs in computer technology, and the Free Speech Movement
of the 1960’s.
Perhaps people assume that I am paid by Monsanto because I am an
environmental economist. Some of my students have assumed that if you
are an environmental economist, you must take an ‘environmental’
position. But to be an environmental economist or scientist you do not
need to be an ‘environmentalist’. You need to know your science, but are
not committed to any particular perspective, rather you emphasize the
perspective of the potential benefit to society as a whole. A researcher
must be an independent thinker and let the findings speak for
themselves. In my case, my position on payment for ecosystem services
may be regarded as ‘pro-environment,’ but in other areas that may not be
the case.
Environmental groups themselves have their own agendas that include
their own economic survival as well as satisfying their opinionated
donors that may have deep pockets and good intentions but might lack the
technical expertise needed to develop the most effective solutions to
major problems. The irresponsible position of Greenpeace in the Golden
Rice debate is one primary example.
At the same time, support for GMOs does not necessarily equate to
support for Monsanto. I, for example, agree that the heavy regulatory
regime of today might have been implicitly supported by major GM
companies because it allows them tighter control over the technology.
What I am trying to emphasize is that I am an economist that strongly
objects to the assumption that people do what they do only because of
money. In one of my papers, we conjecture that people pursue fame,
fortune, and freedom in their professional choices. Individuals that go
into academia tend to put a heavier weight on fame and freedom. Thank
goodness I am paid well enough by the University to afford to keep my
dignity and integrity while pursuing my own research agenda. Throughout
my 30-year career, my research has been funded to the tune of $10
million + by my salary and research grants and cooperative agreements by
agencies such as the EPA, the World Bank, the USDA, environmental
groups, and various foundations. I once received $10,000 for
contributing to a sustainability report produced by Monsanto (Gustafson et al. 2013). This has not supported any of my other research on GMOs.
While I appreciate the fame and fortune that may come with my work,
it is not at the expense of selling my soul. I believe that this true
for many of colleagues, whether they are pro or anti-GMO.
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/05/even-first-gmo-field-tests-controversial-will-ever-end-fight/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004016259500062F
No comments:
Post a Comment