Monsanto, Syngenta pull out of global agric. science assessment project

Monsato and Syngenta have apparently pulled out of an ambitious US$10-million agricultural project because it does not recognise the significant contribution of modern biotechnology in agricultural development and poverty reduction.

The four-year project — the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology — aims to do for hunger and poverty what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done for another global challenge.

When published later this year, its reports promise to map how science, technology and accumulated good-farming practice can be used to reduce hunger and improve quality of life for rural people in developing countries, according to an editorial in the January issue of Nature.

The editorial - Deserting the hungry? - explains that the writing and review teams (some 4,000 experts in all) comprise a grand coalition including scientists, government officials, representatives from seven UN agencies, farmers’ groups, a rainbow of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and industry, including chemicals manufacturer BASF and agri-biotech giants Monsanto and Syngenta.

However, the decision by Monsanto and Syngenta to abandon the project has been widely criticised, even by the anti-GMO crusaders

The editorial in Nature is categorical. "Monsanto and Syngenta are wrong to withdraw from an international assessment on agriculture."

Bob Watson, director of the project for the creation of an International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), is quoted in the Guardian stating that he is "very disappointed" that Monsanto and Syngenta have withdrawn from the project.

The withdrawal decision was prompted by the inability to get industry perspectives reflected in the draft reports. One of these perspectives is the view that biotechnology is key to reducing poverty and hunger, and it is based in part on high (and rising) levels of demand for biotech crops from farmers across the developing world.

Ms Denise Dewar of Croplife International, of which Monsanto and Syngenta are members, is quotedas saying, "We were concerned with the direction the draft was taking and that our input was not being taken appropriately. We were looking to see references to plant science technology and the potential role it can contribute."

A spokesman for the agriculture-industry body CropLife International told Nature, "This is a most reluctant decision."

Insiders agree that the current draft is decidedly lukewarm about technology’s potential in developing-world agriculture. The summary report, for example, devotes more space to biotechnology’s risks than to its benefits. The report says that evidence that biotech crops produce high yields is not conclusive. And it claims that if policy-makers give more prominence to biotechnology, this could consolidate the biotech industry’s dominance of agricultural R&D in developing countries. This would affect graduate education and training, and provide fewer opportunities for scientists to train in other agricultural sciences.

CropLife says that it does not take a "dogmatic" position and remains open to rejoining the assessment if the other team members are willing to be more even-handed.

The Standard