Fair Standards
Advocates of agriculture seek a science-based evaluation of new and existing technologies.
Agriculture's appetite for technology is insatiable. The widespread adoption of precision agriculture and the drive to produce more from less are fueling a new era of scientific discovery. Unfortunately, claims not grounded in sound science can impact the availability of crop-sustaining innovations.
Environmental activists pushing an anti-technology agenda often promote negative public perception. Their actions can put regulatory authorities in a more difficult position of balancing science, public sentiment and economic well-being. For agriculture, the impact goes beyond philosophical discussions and has a bottom-line effect, determining what technologies are available, how they are used and how much producers must pay for them.
"The activists are making it harder and harder for farmers to have the tools they need to produce food in an affordable fashion," says Angela Logomasini, Ph.D., senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.
Agriculture's Impact
In a recent research paper, Logomasini explores what is known today based on the best available science versus what was known in 1962 when the contemporary American environmental movement was launched. This movement suggested that man-made chemicals affect humans negatively. However, Logomasini notes in her report that today "people are living longer and healthier lives, cancer rates have declined even as chemical use has increased and chemicals are not among the key causes of cancer." (The full report is available at www.cei.org.)
The unsurpassed productivity of modern agriculture experienced around the world is largely due to a broad range of technologies adopted since the 1960s. As the world population increases, the challenge will be for agriculture to keep the innovation machine going for the next five decades.
"Global regulatory standards are becoming less about public health," Logomasini says. "Some go beyond a balanced review and are fueled by a fear of technology."
She cites a 2007 study conducted by Jerry Cooper and Hans Dobson of the University of Greenwich that found negative pesticide stories in the media outnumber positive stories by a ratio of 40:1. Yet in the same study, they report a wide range of social, economic and environmental benefits from responsible use of pesticides.
"We need to balance values, be more pro-technology and support innovation - have a transparent scientific process that fosters fair evaluation and considers the benefits along with potential risks," Logomasini concludes.
Quantifying Safety
At what point does a substance pose a safety concern? How much is too much?
"As toxicologists, we know that even a substance as common as table salt can be deadly if too much is consumed," says Tim Pastoor, Ph.D., toxicologist and Syngenta principal scientist. "The secret to determining whether or not a substance presents a risk is really the amount of exposure. A bit of salt on your food is OK, but a lot is not good for your health, and a vanishingly small amount will not likely affect you."
The same is true for other substances, and Pastoor is quick to point out that just because scientists can measure something doesn't mean it's harmful. "The sensitive equipment available today can measure one grain of table salt dissolved in 50 gallons of water," he says.
The regulatory framework in the U.S. for technologies of all kinds, including pesticides, is extremely protective and rigorous. For example, Pastoor says the standard in the Food Quality Protection Act, which covers pesticide use, is "reasonable certainty of no harm." It's inherently difficult to prove a negative, so historically the process has been determining at what concentration a substance can be shown to trigger no effect, then applying a standard that is many times less, thereby reducing yet again the allowable amount of exposure to ensure public safety.
Supporting Modern Agriculture
Establishing the no-effect exposure level, a complex and comprehensive process, often involves more than 180 required tests.
"For all of our registered products, Syngenta meets those standards," Pastoor says. "And for many products, we go well beyond the call of duty, conducting far more studies to make sure we are current with developing advances in science." The company also is committed to public awareness and education to help counter the ongoing misinformation from environmental activists and to help assure modern agricultural technologies will continue to be evaluated, based on the best available science.
"A perfect example is the herbicide atrazine," Pastoor says. "Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the product is used safely and benefits farmers and ultimately society, there has been a targeted environmental activist battle against it for decades."
Pastoor says in the long history of atrazine, thousands of research studies have been conducted to evaluate its safety and maintain the best product stewardship practices - from watershed management to farmer education - in the industry. With each new challenge, cutting-edge studies by Syngenta have bolstered confidence in atrazine's safety. A comprehensive 12-year review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded with the reregistration of the product in 2006. Other pesticide regulatory bodies around the globe, including the World Health Organization, reached similar conclusions.
To support the tools of modern agriculture, Syngenta works closely with the Agricultural Retailers Association, CropLife America, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Triazine Network as well as state and national grower and commodity groups with expertise in crop production and protection. The ultimate goal of these partnerships is to make sure feeding a growing global population will continue in the decades to come.
"As we push for reasonable, science-based evaluation of agricultural technologies, it's important for all in our industry to engage in the dialogue, so that the complete story is told," says Jessica Adelman, vice president of Syngenta Corporate Affairs.
Environmental activists pushing an anti-technology agenda often promote negative public perception. Their actions can put regulatory authorities in a more difficult position of balancing science, public sentiment and economic well-being. For agriculture, the impact goes beyond philosophical discussions and has a bottom-line effect, determining what technologies are available, how they are used and how much producers must pay for them.
"The activists are making it harder and harder for farmers to have the tools they need to produce food in an affordable fashion," says Angela Logomasini, Ph.D., senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.
Agriculture's Impact
In a recent research paper, Logomasini explores what is known today based on the best available science versus what was known in 1962 when the contemporary American environmental movement was launched. This movement suggested that man-made chemicals affect humans negatively. However, Logomasini notes in her report that today "people are living longer and healthier lives, cancer rates have declined even as chemical use has increased and chemicals are not among the key causes of cancer." (The full report is available at www.cei.org.)
The unsurpassed productivity of modern agriculture experienced around the world is largely due to a broad range of technologies adopted since the 1960s. As the world population increases, the challenge will be for agriculture to keep the innovation machine going for the next five decades.
"Global regulatory standards are becoming less about public health," Logomasini says. "Some go beyond a balanced review and are fueled by a fear of technology."
She cites a 2007 study conducted by Jerry Cooper and Hans Dobson of the University of Greenwich that found negative pesticide stories in the media outnumber positive stories by a ratio of 40:1. Yet in the same study, they report a wide range of social, economic and environmental benefits from responsible use of pesticides.
"We need to balance values, be more pro-technology and support innovation - have a transparent scientific process that fosters fair evaluation and considers the benefits along with potential risks," Logomasini concludes.
Quantifying Safety
At what point does a substance pose a safety concern? How much is too much?
"As toxicologists, we know that even a substance as common as table salt can be deadly if too much is consumed," says Tim Pastoor, Ph.D., toxicologist and Syngenta principal scientist. "The secret to determining whether or not a substance presents a risk is really the amount of exposure. A bit of salt on your food is OK, but a lot is not good for your health, and a vanishingly small amount will not likely affect you."
The same is true for other substances, and Pastoor is quick to point out that just because scientists can measure something doesn't mean it's harmful. "The sensitive equipment available today can measure one grain of table salt dissolved in 50 gallons of water," he says.
The regulatory framework in the U.S. for technologies of all kinds, including pesticides, is extremely protective and rigorous. For example, Pastoor says the standard in the Food Quality Protection Act, which covers pesticide use, is "reasonable certainty of no harm." It's inherently difficult to prove a negative, so historically the process has been determining at what concentration a substance can be shown to trigger no effect, then applying a standard that is many times less, thereby reducing yet again the allowable amount of exposure to ensure public safety.
Supporting Modern Agriculture
Establishing the no-effect exposure level, a complex and comprehensive process, often involves more than 180 required tests.
"For all of our registered products, Syngenta meets those standards," Pastoor says. "And for many products, we go well beyond the call of duty, conducting far more studies to make sure we are current with developing advances in science." The company also is committed to public awareness and education to help counter the ongoing misinformation from environmental activists and to help assure modern agricultural technologies will continue to be evaluated, based on the best available science.
"A perfect example is the herbicide atrazine," Pastoor says. "Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the product is used safely and benefits farmers and ultimately society, there has been a targeted environmental activist battle against it for decades."
Pastoor says in the long history of atrazine, thousands of research studies have been conducted to evaluate its safety and maintain the best product stewardship practices - from watershed management to farmer education - in the industry. With each new challenge, cutting-edge studies by Syngenta have bolstered confidence in atrazine's safety. A comprehensive 12-year review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded with the reregistration of the product in 2006. Other pesticide regulatory bodies around the globe, including the World Health Organization, reached similar conclusions.
To support the tools of modern agriculture, Syngenta works closely with the Agricultural Retailers Association, CropLife America, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Triazine Network as well as state and national grower and commodity groups with expertise in crop production and protection. The ultimate goal of these partnerships is to make sure feeding a growing global population will continue in the decades to come.
"As we push for reasonable, science-based evaluation of agricultural technologies, it's important for all in our industry to engage in the dialogue, so that the complete story is told," says Jessica Adelman, vice president of Syngenta Corporate Affairs.
share this article
