Rick Rousch is a rabidly pro-GM US entomologist based in Adelaide in Australia who has attacked Devinder Sharma over his criticism of the recent UNDP report.
Here Devinder replies to RR's most recent attack which centered particularly on an assertion that Devinder has no right to comment on the value of GM crops in feeding the hungry because he has not seen at first hand in China what Rousch claims is the huge success of GM cotton in reducing pesticide use.
Devinder's reply concludes:
Come with me to India. I will show you thousands of farmers who grow cotton without pesticides, and still achieve a higher productivity... But like the Australian agricultural scientists, the Indian scientists too have not been to these farmers and learnt from them. The land grant system, of which I am also a product, has inculcated a false pride in 'improved' technology by denigrating what the farmers were doing. And that is why, the world over, agriculture extension is used to disseminate new technology and to 'educate' farmers but NEVER to learn from farmers. And therein lies the biggest tragedy of modern agriculture science.
---
"Devinder Sharma" This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
My reply follows your statements.
Devinder Sharma
===================
You don't seem to get it. I don't (nor do most critics of the anti-GM hysteria) work for the biotech industry. There are a vast number of us who are actually motivated by doing the right thing for the environment and poor people, and find from our own experience that some types of GM crops will help. We won't sit quietly while inexperienced dabblers like FOE and Greenpeace, and yourself apparently, ruin it. Go to China, look at their Bt cotton crops, listen to the farmers, and open your eyes and soul.
Don't be under the impression that only those who are supporting biotechnology are so-called educated or 'experienced'. I too hold a post-graduate degree in plant breeding and genetics and therefore know what mischief the scientists are upto. Plant biotechnologists are misleading the global community by making wrong assumptions, faulty prescriptions and also using 'science' to push the industry interests. Look at the way they have been changing their stand even on biotechnology? First, they used to say that there is no gene flow in transgenics. Now they are saying the GURTS is the tool to stop gene flow. What a shame. I can go on and on with such examples. But then, as I said earlier, agriculture scientists (and that includes you) have LOST touch with the farming communities and are now ONLY working for the industry.
Why do you think that what you feel from your experience is the right prescription for us in the developing world? Why can't you keep your unsolicited advice to yourself? Was it not agriculture scientists who earlier used to say that pesticides are absolutely essential for improving crop production? Our farmers followed your advice. And look what they are faced with now? And on top of it, now you have changed your stand and want the world to agree to your (ill)advice of using GMOs. First, you people promoted the pesticides industry and now you are hell bent upon pushing the biotech industry. Your interest obviously is not the farmers' benefit or the sustainability of farming but how to protect your own jobs. After all, if you don't promote the biotech industry, you and your colleagues will lose their jobs. Isn't that the harsh truth???
---
I am no fan of the GURTS (as such technologies were called before RAFI invented a good anti-PR name), but the point of the USDA rule, as is clearly stated in plain English, is that they will not be used in ANY variety available before 2003, NOT as you and RAFI want us to believe, that this is only a start date. That means if it is growing now in India or Illinois, those seeds can be carried on forever without GURTS. And just what do you imagine are these varieties that the GURTS are already in? I doubt that any GURT can be commercial even by 2005.
---
If you are no fan of GURTS, have the courage to say that openly. Why don't you write to the USDA and others saying that GURTS should be stopped? You will never do that. We all know why. After all, you are all very 'experienced'. And 'experienced' in what, I don't have to tell you.....
If you are an 'experienced' scientist, stand up in the name of science and say that GURTS is bad science.
---
Sharma, I have seen the truth in cotton fields in China. Hundreds of poor people no longer sick from pesticide use, with more wealth from better crops. Have you ever been there? If not, where have you found the gall to lecture the rest of us about truth?
---
Rick, I have travelled through China. I have a lot of questions about what the Chinese say and the realities. But that's a different question. In China, about ten years back some 10,000 people died from pesticides poisoning in one year. And that was the time when agriculture scientists, including Norman Borlaug, used to assert that there is no way out for China but to use pesticides. They knew the human cost involved but still promoted pesticides.
Now, you people have suddenly shifted to pesticides bashing so as to convince the world of your concern for the environment and human health. And of course the desperate need to use biotechnology. Look at the double standards !!
The conscience of the agriculture scientists didn't stir when thousands were dying from pesticides poisoning. They were telling us that pesticides are like medicines and should be used carefully. Why, because they had to support the pesticides industry. And now, all these scientists have jumped onto the more lucrative biotech bandwagon and have started singing songs in praise of an untested and unproven technology. God alone knows when will that bubble burst?
Come with me to India. I will show you thousands of farmers who grow cotton without pesticides, and still achieve a higher productivity (than the improved cotton cultivation practices). But like the Australian agricultural scientists, the Indian scientists too have not been to these farmers and learnt from them. The land grant system, of which I am also a product, has inculcated a false pride in 'improved' technology by denigrating what the farmers were doing. And that is why, the world over, agriculture extension is used to disseminate new technology and to 'educate' farmers but NEVER to learn from farmers. And therein lies the biggest tragedy of modern agriculture science.
Devinder Sharma
---
'A survey measuring attitudes toward biotechnology among Cornell University agricultural and nutrition-science faculty and extension staff (who advise farmers) found that nearly half have reservations about the health, safety, and environmental impacts of genetically engineered food crops and doubt they are the answer to global hunger... Though their numbers were fewer, the biotech promoters said they felt very comfortable publicly voicing their views, while the concerned majority did not express that sentiment.' - SPINNING SCIENCE INTO GOLD <http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/08/02/index.html>
'They get up and talk as if they are neutral. But they almost always have some share in the company or some self-interested gain for their work.'- Phil Bereano, University of Washington
'For any scientist who wants a good job and a nice home with mortgage payments, he's not going to choose the Union of Concerned Scientists." - Hugh Gusterson, MIT, quoted in Science Good, Nature Bad: The Biotech Dogma http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11105
'There is too much hype. Every gene that is discovered will lead to a cure for cancer.' - Maxine Singer, the National Academy of Sciences, quoted in Big Science: Bloated, Whiny and Self-Important, Book Review from Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/2001/0901issue/0901reviews1.html
'When we spliced the profit gene into academic culture, we created a new organism - the recombinant university. We reprogrammed the incentives that guide science. The rule in academe used to be "publish or perish." Now bioscientists have an alternative - "patent and profit." ' - Paul Berg, Stanford University