Shut up and eat your genetically modified corn

In conventional breeding, the biologist promotes good genes (genes that express physical traits that make the organism economically more valuable) through natural reproduction. The breeder though gets to choose who mates whom. The end product is a genetically modified organism.

In genetic engineering, the biologist shortcuts the reproductive process. She isolates the gene of interest, and inserts it (I'm an economist, don't ask me how) into the DNA of a subject organism. The end product is a genetically modified organism.

So should you eat your genetically modified corn? Your already are!

Now a mad scientist could set up an experiment where, by conventional breeding, he develops a really tough termite that resists the usual pesticides. Or he could try to do the same thing using genetic engneering. If he has access to facilities and personnel, the latter would probably be faster. But the end productive is the same - an unusually destructive termite that could inflict billions of dollars of untold damage.

Now suppose our biologist grows a conscience and instead chooses to develop a type of corn that resists pests. Similarly the latter would probably get her there faster, but with similar results.

But wait! Isn't genetic engineering dangerous? Might as well ask: is conventional plant breeding dangerous?

Actually, YES - the products of conventional breeding have inflicted great costs on the environment. Monocrop agriculture is the global norm, with the resulting erosion of genetic variability, intensification of chemical application, etc. Not good. But yields are up, way up. Not bad. We take the bad with the good. That's why even environmentalists don't paddle a canoe to attend their global confabs.

And genetic engineering? A faster way to get the benefits - and costs - of conventional genetic modification.

Don't believe me? This Reason page has plenty of links to get you started on the science of GMOs. Happy enlightening!

Agriculture, development, and the Green Revolution

Johnston and Mellor’s vision of a broad-based yet labor-intensive technological change in Asian agriculture was to materialize in the form of the “Green Revolution”. The ex post impact of the Green Revolution have been evaluated by Evenson and Gollin (2003), in a Science paper. The Green Revolution began with the introduction of varieties of wheat and rice that could respond to greater application of fertilizer and water with much higher yields. Dissemination of improved varieties of rice, wheat, and corn became widespread in the 1960s and 1970s, while varietal improvement programs also began for other crops.

Yield of cereals, roots and tubers, and pulses jumped dramatically. From 1961 to 1980, production of these crops grew by 3.65% per year in developing Asia; only 14% of this can be attributed to area expansion – the rest is due to yield increases. Of the latter, the contribution of the improved variety was 22%, and the remainder is attributed to input intensification.

Food model simulations indicate that in the absence of a Green Revolution, crop yield and production in developing countries would have been much smaller compared to the actual figure for 2000, and agricultural area higher. Conversion of natural habitats to farm area would have had adverse environmental impacts: Lower supplies would have meant more expensive food and decreased calorie intake.

Agriculture optimism and pessimism: the perrenial debate

I dusted off a copy of the classic article by Johnston and Mellor in 1961 on The Role of Agriculture and Development (in the American Economic Review). Reading it now I realize how remarkable it was - much of the later insight on agriculture and development were presaged in its pages. The emphasis on broad-based technological change; the possibility of financing industrial investment through agricultural savings; and the compatibility of high labor use with a modernized, high-yielding agriculture (departing from the Western model of highly productive, but also highly mechanized farms).

Just to let you know: there is an ongoing debate in the literature between agriculture optimism (or agriculture fundamentalism) and agriculture pessimism (or agriculture skepticism). The former advocates an agriculture-led strategy of growth; the latter holds that in some (or perhaps many) cases agricultural development can essentially be bypassed in the process of economic development. Johnston and Mellor themselves were not so fundamentalist in their advocacy of agriculture (though later Mellor was to turn hardcore).

The IAAE

I did get back from Brisbane last Saturday, but spent the next few days recuperating and attending to some backlog. During the IAAE conference I had concentrated on attending the symposium on Sustainable Development in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Challenges for Economists, which ran for a couple of days in the afternoon. I had a presentation, mostly on my engagements in supply-demand modeling for fisheries for the WorldFish Center. Interestingly, that was the only conference session on fisheries and aquaculture for the IAAE.

Aside from that I was in several plenary sessions, including the opening one with the Presidential Address by Prabu ("Agricultural Development through the Globalization Lens") and the Elmhirst Lecture by Hans Binswanger (on empowerment of the rural poor). Both interesting and stimulating, but not the best. Prabu I think should have devoted some time discussing whether the conventional arguments for the priority role of agriculture in development (Johnston-Mellor-Kuznets-Chenery, et al) still hold water in an open economy setting. Hans should have focused on his main topic, but his second half got diverted into agricultural investment and the usual issues favored by economists (market-led development, getting prices right, focusing on public goods, etc.) Another interesting session was the Impact Assessment of Integrated Natural Resource Management in the CGIAR, chaired by Herman Weibell. (Yes, the soft stuff can get some increasingly "hard" treatment from the econometricians and modelers.)

So that was pretty much it for me. (Oh, I got to see sheep shearing in the field trip. Fun, in a tourist trap sort of way!)

It was my first IAAE meeting, and it was said to be the best. It may well have been. Congratulations to the organizers, especially the Program Committee led by Kei Otsuka (that enormous program must have induced much vertigo). Here's to a thought-provoking - and healthy! - conference in Beijing 2009.

IAAE meeting (1)

I scrolled down the economics roundtable and found no one blogging about the 26th International Association of Agricultural Economics Conference. Not even John Quiggin, who chairs a session. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this is interesting? I'm not even a member. (My previous memberships, aside from local associations, were with the IIFET and the Asian Fisheries Society, but alas both have lapsed.)

Today is just the preconference workshops (for which I haven't registered). So the actions starts tomorrow.

Contributions of agricultural economics

The International Agricultural Economics Association (IAAE) holds its triennial conference in Gold Coast, Brisbane, Australia. Numerous luminaries will make their appearance. Needless to say, plenty of juicy topics to bite into - just check out their site.

Unfortunately as some of you may have noticed, I've been a bit remiss with this weblog in between deadline pressures and preparing papers and presentations for conferences like this. (And this weblog - for the second time - is being prepared in Changi airport. Free internet is fabulous!) Though no question, it's a great opportunity for me to attend. Anyway, lemme see if my posting can pick up with this.

Rice quotas forever

According to this report, the Philippine Department of Agriculture has bucked (again) a recent call for rice import liberalization. The proposal mind you is far from free trade: it simply proposes to convert current import quotas to tariffs from July to September, which is the cropping season (waiting time for the rice harvest). The move will earn government some much-needed revenue. It would also extend practically the same protection to our precious "food security" as the current restrictions.

The DA opposes it ostensibly because it would send a "mixed signal", undermining our WTO negotiating stance. What exactly is the position our negotiators are defending? That of quantitative restriction on rice right up to 2012 (under the Uruguay Round, the right to impose quotas for the basic staple expired in 2005). Of course it begs the question of whether the position is right in the first place - if not, then it is only proper to correct the position as early as possible.

Incredibly, the reporter swallowed the line right up to the sinker: "Volume limits are intended to protect farmers especially during harvest seasons, as imports may result in a glut that would cut selling prices." And I thought that the very rationale of importing was to take advantage of a cheaper foreign price!

Now what's the real reason why the DA is opposed to the innocuous move? Simple - the removal of quotas would transfer the monopoly rents earned by the National Food Authority to the general revenue fund. Now since the NFA is government-owned, one would think this should hardly matter. In fact though the distinction matters the world for the NFA. Incidentally, negotiations towards continued rice quotas are led by - surprise - the NFA chief.

In the Philippines, dogs (and monkeys) have tails - but the body is the one wagging.