Genetically engineered food

<<you might want to look at the case of Dr. Arpad Pusztai (or Puztai), a researcher in Aberdeen who was experimenting with genetically modified potatoes. (they’d had a snowdrop lectin patched in.) Dr. Pusztai found that the rats fed the potatoes had serious organ damage, particularly liver. He reported his findings – and was promptly relieved of his post. Follow up study by 4 other researchers of Dr. Pusztai’s work showed he was, indeed, correct – but no one wanted to hear the bad news.>>

According to a recent issue of Biomedical News, it isn't quite as simple as this. Dr Puzstai was apparently suspended from his post after a research assistant claimed that he was guilty of scientific fraud (on a different experiment than the potato-lectin one). For all I know, this claim is entirely false, and certainly a number of other scientists are supporting him so I can well believe that its pretty dubious. BUT, the national regulations do say that people accused of such offences should be suspended,

so thats what his employers say they are doing.
Secondly, and rather more significantly, all his experiment actually proves is that if you put this type of lectin into potatos (by GE or any other method, for that matter) it makes them toxic. Since no such potatos are on sale, you could argue that this is a case of the safety testing actually working, rather than the reverse. And it has little to do with GE per se.

Please check out the SF Chronicle 5/20/99, front page story: “Gene-Spliced Corn Imperils Butterfly” - “Caterpillars in study die after eating bioengineered plant pollen”.

So now we have the ecodisaster, and who’s to say that the toxins produced by these bioengineered plants don’t adversly affect humans as well?

It’s clear to me that substantial testing over a lengthy period should be conducted prior to allowing Monsanto and/or other techno-greedies to mess with the food supply.

I repeat my earlier question: Why does everyone seem so freaking nonchalant about this issue?

Yup. 2nd-page headline in Chicago Sun Times yesterday: Genetically engineered corn kills butterflies.

The article stated, in essence, pollen produced by bt corn kills Monarch butterfly (not in itself an endangered species) caterpillars. The caterpillars in question feed on milkweed - a plant known for its sticky secretions - and when pollen from bt corn is present on the plants, fully 40% of the caterpillars feeding there die.

Another warning shot across the bow of unintended consequences. (Maybe we can get thos 'pillars to eat Kudzu instead?)

Re: BT Corn, and butterflies

In this case, is the butterfly really a “red herring” with wings? I’ve studied background on this issue.

Much more interesting than the butterfly stories in the papers was the NPR interview on May 21st. This interview included the scientist who did the study, a representative of the biotech industry, and a few others. Here’s a few more data points which were neglected in the press; these are not minor points:

  1. The BT in the corn is designed to kill many types of caterpillars, so it wasn’t entirely surprising to see this effect on monarch caterpillars. It was also known that corn pollen had BT, and how far the pollen might go.

  2. BT spray is used by organic farmers and conventional farmers. According to the scientist who did the study, the spraying is MORE of a threat to monarch caterpillars than the corn BT. So, someone could easily write a story with the headline “Organic Farming Kills Monarchs”…should we ban organic farming?

  3. “Insect resistance” to BT is another issue being raised, but the only documented case so far is by use of the BT spray by organic farmers. Apparently, the biotech industry is already prepared for this, since they can “tweak” the specific type of BT used. On the other hand, the organic farmers would go on using BT until it was used up, leaving no options. It looks like the biotech companies are entirely bearing the cost of research and development in this area.

  4. Unrelated to the call, I did some checking on the amount of pesticide that has been saved related to the use of BT genetics in crops. The numbers are astounding:

  • American cotton farmers saved over 3 million liters of pesticide spray by using insect-resistant cotton over the last three years.

  • The state of Alabama has the lowest pesticide use in 40 years, due mainly to the use of BT.

  • In China, 650,000 farmers planted insect-resistant cotton last year, and needed no insecticide.

How many butterflies, other insects, and humans will live since we saved spraying 3 million liters of pesticide in the US? Where’s that Greenpeace guy?

Next, I will talk about Roundup Ready crops.

Da

Another point that needs to be mentioned is the method whereby corn pollen contaminates other larval-chewing crops (it mostly doesn’t).

The tests for toxicity to monarchs were conducted by rubbing milkweed with BT-bearing corn flowers. This was a specific test to see whether the pollen passed its toxic load to other plants through contact–which it did. However, corn pollen, itself, is a heavy pollen that does not drift, it falls. Pollen counts around corn fields found that there was minimal pollen within three meters of any field’s border and no corn pollen more than three meters from the field. In other words, there is a band of land about 10 feet wide surrounding any corn field which has the potential to contaminate some weeds–and no other effects will be felt. Contrast this to spraying where a light breeze will cause the spray to drift over a much greater area than a 10 foot strip, and if it is applied by air it may go even farther. Unless they discover a moth or butterfly that is not harmful to corn that feeds on the pollen of corn, this is simply information that is good to have, but which does not require us to ban or limit the product. The BT-bearing corn was already tested on bees and wasps and found to not be a threat to them, so we are not at risk for destroying the fruit and grain industries in order to raise maize.


Tom~

I found a source which suggests that corn pollination is only about a two-week process. On the other hand, BT spray or other insecticides would kill caterpillars for the whole season, and beyond the radius potentially affected by the BT pollen. So I agree with the scientist who did the study, when he said on 5/21 that sprays would be a greater problem than the BT corn.

Next, apparently BT pollen isn’t a problem with the cotton or potatoes, since they aren’t as pollen-happy as corn. And from the NPR interview I mentioned, one source mentioned a variety of BT corn which doesn’t have BT in the pollen at all (so there wouldn’t be a problem). Don’t know if this is a new product or what, does anyone else have details on this? I may call one of my sources. So perhaps if there is any negative effect from pollen, we need to switch to crops which don’t express BT in the pollen.

Finally, I question the sanity of the “save the insects” theme which has surfaced here, and everyone seems to be accepting so easily. Many Lepidoptera (targeted by BT) are major pests and do a tremendous amount of damage; it’s important to note, crop loss must be recovered by farming on yet more land. Do we have so few problems, as to find time to worry about bugs? What about people?

OH DEAR, Maybe the BT corn IS better than the (ahem) “organic” sprayed version. Keep this stuff away from me, bring on the Monsanto corn!

From New Scientist, 29 May 1999
Red flag for green spray

[Note: This message has been edited by JillGat

While I prefer that we not succumb to alarmist hysteria (such as the short version of the “Corn kills butterflies” story that made it to too many newspapers), I am not prepared to dismiss the overall concern about biodiversity. We simply do not know the total interaction among species needed to preserve our world. Even leaving aside exotic predictions of “the cure for cancer” being found in an undiscovered blossom or bug in some remote rainforest, I suspect that the world simply works better when it is not forced into a monoculture mode to make some CEO wealthy. I hope it never happens, but I will not be surprised if the experience of 1840’s Ireland is repeated on a world scale in a few years because we have allowed (a limited number of hybrid strains of) maize to force out so many other crops. Insects, small mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, and other critters beneath our notice play a significant role in the overall ecology. I think we harm them or dismiss their roles at our peril.

Tom~

In response to Dan Spillane:

“Where’s that Greenpeace guy?”

Right here, Dan!

Dan says the monarch findings were no surprise. The fact is, EPA never considered or assessed the effects of Bt corn on non-pest butterflies such as the monarch. There are several such other species as well that may be effected. The point is not whether this new finding is “surprising” or not; the point is why has EPA allowed commercial growing of Bt corn before doing these kinds of studies and assessing their risks (which they are required to do by statute).

Second, Dan raises a false comparison between Bt sprays and Bt plants: spraying Bt in corn fields might be a threat if it happened, but it doesn’t. The issue is corn growers, who (whether they are organic or conventional farmers) do not generally spray Bt for control of corn borers, the pest targeted by the Bt toxin. Spraying is considered ineffective and too non-specific to be useful.

It’s important to understand the major differences between Bt sprays and Bt plants. The spray lasts just a very short time in the environment, a matter of days if not hours. Bt plants put out a very high dose of the toxin AT ALL TIMES throughout the growing season. If anything is going to effect the environment over the whole season, it is the plants, not the sprays, contrary to Dan’s nonsense. The constant exposure is why insect resistance is much more likely to develop quickly from Bt plants.

Moreover, the toxin is in an active form, whereas in spray formulas the toxin can only be activated through a multi-step process in the insect gut. The toxin from Bt plants has been shown to persist in soil and damage soil ecology, contrary to sprays which have never shown these effects. Like the butterfly study, EPA failed to consider or assess this problem.

Dan repeats the industry propaganda that the only Bt resistance ever found was from organic farmers’ BT spraying. But resistance has been documented conventional farming, in watercress in Hawaii, and in NJ vegetable production, both in the 1980s.

Dan also repeats the untested assumption that Bt plant technology can be modified to stem-off resistance. Industry BELIEVES they can stay ahead of nature, but with a track record of 50 years of keeping farmers dependent on new “miracle” pesticides, which have an average useful life of 7 years (compared to the nearly thirty years organic farmers have been successfully using Bt), why should we believe them now?

Notice in this debate how casually the industry speaker brushed aside the potential for cross-resistance to the different types of Bt, without giving any evidence for his conclusion that this won’t be a problem.

Finally, industry figures on decreased insecticide use from Bt COTTON don’t relate to the discussion of Bt CORN. In fact, insecticide treatments in US corn production, according to USDA data, have INCREASED since 1995, when Bt corn was approved. Even treatments for corn borer, the target pest of bt, are up.

If there are short-term savings for cotton farmers, these need to be weighed against the long-term reality that once resistance develops, ALL farmers will need to return to toxic insecticides – even organic growers, who will no longer be able to use Bt sprays. In essence, no system that relies on the idea of “one pest – one solution” can work in the long run.

Still waiting for Dan on Roundup Ready crops. I wonder if he will address their potential impact on monarchs? Researchers at Iowa State say that RR crops could be even more destructive to milkweed, the food source for monarchs. But Dan isn’t concerned about biodiversity – since it’s obvious to him that we can get along fine without monarchs (or I guess the other 74 species that are already endangered by Roundup use).

I am a farmer and I believe in Roundup. It is a matter of economics. We have used it for a couple of years and have good results with 1 pint an acre a half rate Our beans went 60 bu a acre with only 2 trips one at planting and one for spraying. I watched a neighbor go organic he moldboard plowed twice ran a soil finisher twice, planted then cultivated twice. Alot of dirt went down the creek beans make the ground loose. He got a smaller yield and bigger price, but his expences were a lot higher diesel fuel and machiney is expensive. I planted some RR corn this year we have some weeds that roundup is the only thing that will work (wirestem muley) Years ago atrazine would do it at 5 lbs an acre but the govt has said that we can not use it that heavy any more. So I think roundup is a little safer, It is a contact herbicide what ever it touches dies and is gone tommorrow. It does not hang around. Alot has to do with a cheap food policy that is in force now we are to produce food today with 25 year old prices. The days of "Old Mcdonald " farming are gone if we cannot compete and use new technology we will not be here. Would any of you be willing to double your food bills to keep us from using a new tool, if not then our costs would increase and when we do not produce a good product Brazil would double or triple their exports… I would like to thank you for letting me express my point of view and as a producer I would like to thank you for using my products …THINK GLOBALY BUT BUY LOCALY

Drat and drek. I was about to compose a long winded response discussing the benefit vs. risk analysis of new technology when my carpal tunnel acted up and my eyes lost focus from gazing at the screen for far too long.

Thanks to the farmer who posted. By the way, I graduated from Iowa State University.

I do have some things to say about Roundup Ready crops, but I’d like to stay on the topic of BT for a bit longer, especially noting the new report about the dangers of BT spray, used widely by organic and traditional farmers. Note, from the story I posted earlier, “commercial strains of Bt (spray) tested by the researchers also killed some mice or caused lung inflammation when inhaled.”

Obviously, such BT spray will kill caterpillars (Monarchs, et. al) quite effectively, more so than the BT corn pollen. However, now we know the BT spores from spraying can infect and kill mice, according to the study. This also means BT spray will kill creatures in or near the field, such as birds or rabbits. And what about spray drift to humans? The H34 strain is lethal, and we can never be sure when that strain might show up in BT spray…BT spray could even cause a plague.

Importantly, it is the BT BACTERIA that cause these additional problems, NOT the BT toxin itself. Therefore, in the case of BT crops (such as the corn), there is no such problem. This is because the BT crops contain only the gene which produces the BT toxin to kill the insects, which has been proven to be safe. On the other hand, the BT spray contains ENTIRE LIVE bacteria, which can infect animals and people, possibly even resulting in death.

What this all means is that we should not be deploying BT via bacteria, since it can have unpredictable and deadly consequences, and affects a wider number of creatures than previously thought, including humans. The controversial BT corn is much safer in this respect; the other crops such as cotton and potatoes (which don’t carry the BT pollen risk to butterflies) are perhaps the best uses of BT yet made.

I’ll get on the Roundup subject soon; however, I feel in-depth discussions are much more appropriate on these topics than simple “canned laundry lists”…

To Charles Margulis:
I noticed Greenpeace called for a ban on BT corn in Europe, based on the butterfly experiment. When will Greenpeace call for a ban on BT spray due to the new evidence that it can infect and kill animals and humans? The public deserves to be protected on this count, infectious spray is way more dangerous than BT corn pollen, since many more creatures (and humans) could be killed or injured. We’re waiting for Greenpeace to protect us on this important matter.

Dan

Dan reiterates the falsehood that “Obviously, such BT spray will kill caterpillars (Monarchs, et. al) quite effectively, more so than the BT corn pollen.” As I noted, this would only be true if there was widespread spraying of Bt for corn borer, which there isn’t. Perhaps he thinks if he keeps saying it it will become true.

Then he goes on to compare the Bt toxin in plants to the bacterial spray formulas, saying “(the) BT toxin … has been proven to be safe.” Really, Dan? Proven by whom? The toxin expressed by the plants is wholly different than the naturally occuring one, and clearly can not merely be assumed to be as safe. In fact, there is mounting evidence, not just the recent monarch study, that it reacts very differently and with greater toxicity in the environment.

Read your own post Dan. The H34 Bt is not used in insecticide formulas. The formulas they did test affected some mice when inhaled – not humans, as you suggest. Bt sprays have been used safely for 30 years; Bt plants have been commercially grown for less than 5, yet we already have evidence of their potential for adverse impact.

Incidentally, is there a reason you failed to note that the numbers you gave on Bt plants saving on insecticide use was straight from a Monsanto press release?

Let’s start unraveling the twisted propaganda of Greenpeace:

(Charles said)
Dan reiterates the falsehood that “Obviously, such BT spray will kill caterpillars (Monarchs, et. al) quite effectively, more so than the BT corn pollen.” As I noted, this would only be true if there was widespread spraying of Bt for corn borer, which there isn’t. Perhaps he thinks if he keeps saying it it will become true.

(My comment)
It’s true that BT spray – used widely by organic farmers – will kill many varieties of caterpillars, including the Monarch. In addition, conventional insecticide will kill caterpillars, as well as bees and other beneficial insects. As you pointed out earlier, insecticide use for corn has gone UP (you said, “In fact, insecticide treatments in US corn production, according to USDA data, have INCREASED since 1995.”)

So, since 1) spraying has gone up for corn, 2) spraying is done all year, and 3) spray goes at least as far as pollen, to surrounding milkweed…we can conclude the far greater threat to caterpillars is spraying, BT or otherwise – just like the scientist said in the NPR interview! So, just where is there a falsehood, unless you think the scientist who did the pollen study is lying?

By the way, I think you’ve added another sneaky twist here…the EPA doesn’t require testing for caterpillar toxicity on any products. Probably with good reason – almost all caterpillars are very destructive to crops!
(Next, Charles said)
Read your own post Dan. The H34 Bt is not used in insecticide formulas. The formulas they did test affected some mice when inhaled – not humans, as you suggest. Bt sprays have been used safely for 30 years; Bt plants have been commercially grown for less than 5, yet we already have evidence of their potential for adverse impact.

(My comment)
“NOPE!” The study says that commercial BT spray kills mice too – here’s the direct quote, “Commercial strains of Bt tested by the researchers also killed some mice or caused lung inflammation when inhaled.” In addition, the new H34 BT is a mutation which can make things all the worse, and there is always a small chance that some could creep in! The “precautionary principle” says we should avoid BT spray altogether. Don’t you agree death to mice and infection of humans is worse than possible injury to butterflies? But then again, maybe not?!? I repeat my demand for Greenpeace to call for a ban on BT spray, to protect the environment, and people as well!

(Finally, another comment from me)
Here’s a quiz question for you, Charles:
“Why has pesticide spraying gone up for corn over the past few years?”

In reply to Dan’s latest:

There’s nothing sneaky about asking EPA to do its job. They are required to do an environmental impact assessment BEFORE approving new products. These assessments regularly take into account impacts on non-target species.

I really don’t understand your reply to my comment re: H34 Bt. I agree that the study found effects on some mice, by a strain of Bt that is not used as a pesticide. That’s what I said.

Regarding Bt corn: according to USDA figures for 1998, just 2% of all corn acreage in the US was sprayed for corn borer, the target pest of Bt. Monsanto claims that because Bt corn was planted on 15 million acres last year, it eliminated insecticide use on 15 million acres. Even if one assumes that ALL the farmers who sprayed for corn borer switched to Bt corn, the plant would have reduced insecticide use (not eliminated, as Bt crops are still sprayed for other pests) on at most 1.4 million acres (2% of 71 million acres).

Overall insecticide use for corn has gone up, not the use of Bt spraying for corn. This is the falsehood you keep repeating. Bt sprays won’t effect monarchs in cornfields because Bt isn’t sprayed in cornfields.

Dan keeps repeating Monsanto’s propaganda, which confuses all insecticide use with a specific use of a specific product. Noit surprising, since Monsanto seems to be his main source of information.

Obviously Dan and I disagree, and I respect his right to have a different opinion. I am unconvinced of the usefulness of repeating myself over and over in response to him, so I will leave this discussion to others.

Charles is getting exposed as a snake, and is fleeing. What a coward!

(Charles said)
I really don’t understand your reply to my comment re: H34 Bt. I agree that the study found effects on some mice, by a strain of Bt that is not used as a pesticide. That’s what I said.

(My comment)
WRONG CHARLES! Now you are playing dumb; otherwise perhaps this explains why you work for a non-profit organization?!? The paragraph is clearly talking about a commercial strain of BT which is sprayed. Once again, a direct quote:
“commercial strains of Bt tested by the researchers also killed some mice or caused lung inflammation when inhaled. The team obtained these strains from Abbott Laboratories, a major supplier of Bt based
in Chicago. Ramisse points out that the strains are sprayed on forest pests at concentrations of 1011 spores per square metre–and so might pose a danger to people in the immediate vicinity.”

(Next, Charles said)
Overall insecticide use for corn has gone up, not the use of Bt spraying for corn. This is the falsehood you keep repeating. Bt sprays won’t effect monarchs in cornfields because Bt isn’t sprayed in cornfields.

(My comment)
You are twisting my words in some attempt to slither by. I asked “Why has pesticide spraying gone up for corn over the past few years?” I did NOT ask what you say. Look up above at my posting.

And you did not answer the question! You are supposed to be an expert on this subject, but you are proving to everyone you are not. Why then do you and your organization run around “educating” the public when you are liars and/or idiots?

Once again, why has pesticide use gone up in corn over the past few years? I’m waiting for an answer from the “expert”…

Just to add a bit of randomness here, let me say that I’ve never trusted anyone who uses Charles as a first name.

Charles won’t be back. He slithered out before I could crush him under my heel.

He wouldn’t acknowledge the study that showed BT spray can harm non-target creatures and people. Yes, that is ORGANIC farmer’s spray we are talking about.

He also told me corn pesticide (non-BT) spraying went up recently. He wouldn’t acknowledge that this would then affect caterpillars, even though chemical insecticide kills caterpillars, bees, and just about everything else, at nearly 100 percent effectiveness. This is as compared to the 40 percent theoretical kill of monarch larvae by the BT pollen, which Greenpeace cites as an awful risk.

Okay, now that the snake is gone, can anyone else tell me why chemical pesticide use has gone up for corn? This isn’t (too much of) a trick question.

Dan

[Great perspective on this issue, from an independent group outside the US.]

(from the story below)
People in wealthier countries such as Britain with their “anxieties about the very small risks” have no right to deny poorer nations the technology that could help them overcome malnutrition and hunger, according to the council.

The Evening Standard (UK)
27 May 1999

West Has ‘Moral Duty’ To Accept GM Food

A leading group of scientists today backed the Government’s stance over genetically modified food, saying that the technology was “hugely promising” and that there was no basis for calling it unnatural or unsafe.

The report - the sixth study of the subject in seven days - is the first authoritative work to support Government ministers against claims by environmentalists and others that GM crops present a huge risk to our food and to the countryside.

The Nuffield Council of Bioethics, a group of independent scientists who look at the moral implications of new medicines and technology, said there was “a compelling moral imperative” to accept GM crops in order to combat world hunger and poverty.

People in wealthier countries such as Britain with their “anxieties about the very small risks” have no right to deny poorer nations the technology that could help them overcome malnutrition and hunger, according to the council.

Third-world farmers could be helped to grow rice enriched with Vitamin A or crops that are salt or drought-resistant, which would do much to combat malnutrition. It could enable farmers in Africa to grow crops in areas where it has previously been impossible to do so, making it easier for local agriculture schemes to flourish.

Today’s publication acknowledges the public’s unease on the subject, but points out that human beings have been modifying food for thousands of years.

“If we value the ethic of ‘to each according to his need’, then the introduction of GM crops on a large scale would be a moral imperative,” it says. "This is because GM crops might produce more food, or more employment income with which to obtain food, for those who need it most urgently.

“More food for the hungry, unlike tomatoes with a longer shelf-life, is a strong ethical counterweight to set against the concerns of the opponents of GM crops.”

However, today’s report calls for careful assessment of the needs of developing countries before crop varieties are introduced, so that it does not reduce the demand for labour or affect other plants. And the study is likely to be slated by Friends of the Earth and others for underestimating the risks of genetic modification.

The council, an independent body of scientists, ethics experts and public representatives, calls for a wider assessment of the environ-mental risks, but says there are no grounds for any delay in the commercial growing of crops.

It points out that the technology has great potential to bring us better flavoured and more nutritious food such as vegetables that contain added vitamins, nuts that don’t cause allergies, or warm temperature crops that could be grown in Canada or Sweden.

Professor Alan Ryan, chairman of the working party and Warden of New College, Oxford, said: " We think that GM crops are not intrinsically morally suspect. We do not think that GM technology violates nature in ways that other modern plant breeding methods do not.

“But we do think that anyone who does believe that GM food is unnatural and immoral should be able to avoid it.”

Looks like Greenpeace and Prince Charles are dead wrong. Some brainy people finally did the math.

Note, soil loss is one of the largest problems for the next 20 years. No-till farming, using herbicide is the best way to save soil.

The Guardian (UK)
03 June 1999

Will The World Starve Itself To Death?

Ban genetically modified crops is the war cry in Europe. Tim Radford on the bleak arithmetic which points to a bigger problem of famine.

In the time it takes to read this sentence, the world population will have grown by about five. There will be another 170 people in the world at the end of the next minute. This is because more babies are being born, and fewer old people dying each year.

There are about 240,000 more people in the world today than there were yesterday. The planet’s population grows by about 87 million every year. A science watchdog, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, last week warned that there was a “moral imperative” to develop genetically-modified crops - higher-yielding, better-nourishing, more resistant - to feed the extra three billion mouths expected in the next three decades.

Never mind the council’s hotly-contested solution, just consider the problem. There are three needs for a harvest: acreage, fertile topsoil - that magic mix of decayed vegetation, rock dust and microorganisms formed at the rate of an inch or so a century - and fresh water. The consensus is that it takes 1.25 acres to provide a sufficient and varied diet for an adult human. Right now, the world average per person is just over two thirds of an acre.

For a while during the so-called Green Revolution food production outpaced population. Yields per acre grew, and the areas under cultivation increased. But the area of harvested cropland reached its peak in 1981, and has been falling ever since: for two reasons. One is that with more people, there is more demand for somewhere to live, which consumes farmland. The other is that farmland is being destroyed by being overworked. The area of grain cropland per person on the planet has shrunk to a sixth of a football field.

The minimum grain diet to keep a vegetarian supplied with bread, rice or cornmeal porridge for a year is 490kg. How much grain you can grow upon a sixth of a football field depends on sunlight, soil and water. The depth of topsoil is critical. The latest estimate, from David Pimentel of Cornell University, New York state, is that farmers are losing 24 billion tons of topsoil every year to wind and water erosion. At this rate, one third of the world’s arable land will be depleted within the next 20 years.

In the last 40 years, under pressure to feed much smaller populations, farmers have already abandoned an area equivalent to one third of the present harvest lands. So every year, they walk off 25 million acres of once productive land. But every year, 12 million acres of new land have to be found to feed the 90 million or so new mouths which arrived that year. Most of the world’s unfarmed land is either too wet, too dry, too steep or too cold for agriculture, which is why tropical and temperate forests are being cleared at a devastating rate.

The word devastating is appropriate: the forests are home to millions of as-yet undescribed and unnamed species, many of which could provide tomorrow’s foods and drugs, and many of which will be extinct in the next few decades. But even as humans colonise new soils, they use them for things other than food. New homes need new bricks, and new tiles, and new roads and sewers, and new landfill sites for rubbish, new pipelines for fuel, new quarries for cement and clay and minerals. About half of all humans will be city dwellers by the year 2000. Humans have become the biggest single earth-moving force on the planet, shifting more soil even than rainfall and rivers.

According to Roger Hooke of the University of Maine, rivers wash 24 billion tons of silt into the sea each year but humans now shift 35 billion tons of soil each year just to make roads, build houses and mine ores. This is six tons per human. So even as the demand for farmland grows, the space available for farms is consumed by, or mortgaged to, cities. This is called the “ecological footprint”.

Rich cities have a bigger footprint than poor ones. The ecological footprint for a Londoner is more than seven acres, according to William Rees of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. So there is a need to get more and more food out of less and less farmland.

The Green Revolution was achieved by new rice, wheat and maize hybrids, watered by newly-engineered irrigation systems, fed by artificial fertilisers, protected by pesticides and tilled by oil-burning machines. Although yields are still high, there has been no increase in record yields for 20 years, and grain output per person is falling.

Oil demand will outstrip supply in about 2020, says John Edwards, once chief geologist with Shell Oil. Farmers use 150 million tons of phosphate each year: the world’s supplies could run out in 2050. And, far more ominous, there are already problems of water. It takes 1,000 tons of water to grow a ton of wheat. But cities and heavy industry are consuming more water than ever. The Colorado River is dry long before it reaches the sea. China’s Yellow river failed to reach the sea for 226 days in 1997: farmers and factories had taken it all.

Gretchen Daily of Stanford University, California, calculates that humans use one quarter of all the rain that falls from heaven and is taken up by plants: one quarter for humans, three quarters for the other 10 million species that share the planet. Half of all the accessible surface freshwater on the planet is consumed by humans. About 17 countries face “absolute” water scarcity. New dams could provide another 10% over the next 30 years, but by then the population will have grown by 45%. That is why the Nuffield Council on Bioethics last week urged the government to race ahead with research on new drought-tolerant, salt-tolerant, pest-resistant, protein-rich crops.

Prince Charles called this argument “emotional blackmail.” The charity Christian Aid condemned it, arguing that today’s hungry are surrounded by plenty, and that fairer distribution was a more urgent problem. This is true. The Worldwatch Institute in Washington recently calculated that if people in the US simply wasted one third less food each day, it would be enough to feed 25 million people, roughly the population of North Korea, recently in the grip of famine.

But in just under four months, the world would be home to another 25 million people, and four months after than, another 25 million, and so on. Two hundred years ago, Thomas Malthus wrote: “The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man that premature death must in some shape or form visit the human race.” Five years ago, David Pimentel of Cornell University pointed out “Based on past experience, we expect that leaders will continue to postpone decisions on the human carrying capacity of the world until the situation becomes intolerable or, worse, irreversible.”