|
 Essay - july/aug 2008
Risks and consequences
James C. Delouche
Professor Emeritus Mississippi State University
Risk is pervasive. In a broad, all encompassing view there is an element of risk in every decision we make. Even when the perspective is restricted for the purposes of this essay, we recognize that there is some degree of risk attached to the implementation of new technologies, new or revised ventures, indeed, to most operational and/or business decisions. And, every activity or action has consequences. In most cases the consequences (hopefully) are as intended or expected, but sometimes they are the opposite of those intended or deviate significantly from expectations. Risk management involves assessing the types and nature of the risks involved and then making plans and taking appropriate steps to minimize the consequences or losses in case things don't turn out as expected. I concede that these perceptions of risk are very much age related. Like most young persons today, I really didn't have any time for risk identification and assessment in my younger years. Everything seemed not only possible but doable. Now, I and most colleagues and friends in my age group are more conservative, overly pessimistic and very conscious of risks. But, being aware that most readers of this essay are somewhere between the young and the old, my generation, I fear that they may feel that "risk" has been an overused theme in my recent essays. It has been and I will put it away after the present one.
A Big Picture Issue
The current and growing world-wide food crisis provides an interesting but rather dismaying situation for a risks and consequences critique. The crisis appears to be the consequences of government policies, inadequate risk assessments and the confluence of developments and events the possibility or potential of which should have been recognized and if recognized given much more attention. It is, of course, simplistic to blame the food crisis, as many are doing, on the diversion of grains and oil seeds from food and fed uses to the production of ethanol and other biofuels as alternatives to fossil fuels. Presently, at least, the crisis appears to be more closely related to affordability than availability. Food prices are rising because of several situations and circumstances: the demand for a greater quantity, variety and better quality of food stuffs is increasing in rapidly developing countries with huge populations such as China and India; grain production in some surplus producing countries has been below average due to unfavorable growing conditions; the enormous increase in the cost of fossil fuels has sharply increased the costs of energy requiring farm operations and critical production inputs such as fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery and so on. The upward momentum of these factors, which were known or should have been known, on commodity and food prices was then strengthened and accelerated by the withdrawal and/or commitment of substantial quantities of grains and oilseeds from food and fed channels to produce biofuels. The psychological effect of the actual and potential conversion of "foods into fuel" probably had as great an effect on food prices as the actual decrease in supplies. There were and are economic, social and political risks attached to any policy decisions to convert food supplies into fuel regardless of other pressures and situations. The consequences of this convergence of economic factors, policy decisions and insufficient attention to risks can be summed up simply as "the betterment of the few to the detriment of the many." Grain and oil seed producers, agricultural input suppliers, and the distillers of ethanol and other biofuels have been greatly rewarded, while the many losers are the consumers confronted by rising food prices that strain the food budgets of the middle classes and are making it increasingly difficult for the lower income classes in both the less developed and developed countries to purchase the basic foods they need.
Organic Farming
Let us now turn to less distressing examples and cases of risks and consequences. There has been a steady increase in the production and marketing, i.e., the demand, for organic vegetables and other foods. There were many skeptics, including myself, when interest in organic food production and products surfaced about 20 years ago. Organic food production was dismissed by many of us as just a "do good, feel good" fad of a few sincere and dedicated environmentalists that would fade away with the reality of low product quality, poor and uncertain yields and high prices. Indeed, many of us looked on organic farming as a sort of fashionable subsistence farming but minus the subsistence since there was no actual dependence on the outcome of production. Oh, but we were mistaken, badly mistaken. Some risk takers assessed the market, the interests, commitment and psychology of consumers for earth friendly, environmentally benign foods, and concluded that the risks were manageable and far less than the opportunities. They made investments and became organic food entrepreneurs. Many but not all have been successful. Most super markets and even neighborhood food stores now have organic food sections featuring fresh vegetables and fruits as well as processed foods. The prices are relatively high but there are buyers. The consequences of the establishment of an organic foods industry have been mostly favorable for both the producers and consumers. A considerable variety of organically produced foods are now readily available for those with a strong commitment to environmental issues. There are a few factors that could affect the long term viability of organic farming. A growing and continuing crisis in food supplies could shift emphasis from the purity of production to yield.which in combination with high commodity prices could cause a reorientation of producer resources from organics to biotech, high yield varieties.
More Complex Weed Control?
The headline for an article in an agricultural magazine caught my attention: Weed control grows more complex. This seemed to be a very ironic statement in view of the fact that simplification of weed control is the major reason for the widespread and increasing use of transgenic crop varieties with traits for herbicide resistance, so I read beyond the headline. The first paragraph illuminated the irony: "The days of backing up to the tank, filling up with glyphosate and spraying it on every Roundup Ready acre for excellent weed control are officially behind us" Weed control is becoming more complex compared to the simplicity that has been the standard since the release of herbicide tolerant crop varieties of soybean, maize, cotton and other crops. But, it has not yet returned to the complexity of the closely scheduled, multiple chemicals and applications prescription system and uncertain outcomes of pre-biotech times. The reason for the "greater complexity" is the development of glyphosate resistant weeds, eight resistant weeds so far in the U.S. The development of herbicide resistance in weeds was not unexpected and indeed was one of the recognized and accepted risks in the herbicide tolerant crop varieties strategy. The immediate consequences are inadequate weed control in areas with herbicide resistant weeds, the use of additional herbicides, the need for better management, and higher production costs. The biotech companies are developing transgenic varieties stacked with several herbicide tolerant traits to permit use of mixtures of several different broad spectrum herbicides which should take care of the problem for at least the near future. Other consequences sure to follow will be higher costs for seeds, technology fees and chemicals.
GM Rice
Herbicide tolerant rice varieties have been released in the U.S. and are in production but the tolerance was achieved without resorting to transgenic technologies. Transgenic herbicide tolerant varieties have been and are being developed but have not been released due to fears, the risk, of crossing with the noxious weedy rices, i.e., red rice, and the aversion of importers to GM products. Yet, trace amounts of GM rice were detected several years ago in two commercial varieties of long grain rice exported to Europe. This caused a furor in the export markets and in the U.S rice industry. The consequences were the temporary loss of markets, the abandonment of a promising new variety, a lot of trait testing of seeds and grain, and many meetings of producers and regulatory officials. The cause(s) of the contaminations are still under investigation but appear to have been the result crossing between an experimental GM variety and a commercial variety grown in proximity in one case and accidental mechanical mixing in a second case. California, a major exporter of rice has reassessed the risks and probable consequences of contamination with GM rice and its Rice Commission recently voted to support a moratorium on all field testing of GM rice varieties and lines for the current and future seasons. The GM rice case is one in which rigorously assessed, widely accepted, risks materialized, despite strong efforts to prevent them. There were no winners, only losers.
Risks are pervasive but they are also challenging and risk taking has arguably been one of the most important gateways to progress taken by the more adventuresome members of the human race.
|
|
............
|
