Our conversation starts with Britain's King Charles and his past antagonism toward molecular genetic engineering. I emphasize the importance of avoiding such uninformed comments in the future, especially considering the shift towards sustainability in the 21st century.
We discuss the term "sustainable intensification," about which I am skeptical. John references Professor Jules Pretty's definition of sustainable intensification, highlighting its incorporation of principles like cultivating less land and reducing water and energy usage for increased food production – characteristics that align with the benefits of genetic engineering. However, I point out that Pretty doesn't acknowledge genetic engineering in his definition.
I note that the term intentionally excludes genetic engineering, which the most precise and predictable way to improve crop plants. Theories like sustainable intensification that neglect modern genetic modification techniques are like trying to make an omelet without eggs.
We discussed the controversy surrounding the regulation of new gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR-Cas9, and the distinction between them and traditional methods. I believe the modern approaches are more precise and predictable, posing fewer hazards than older techniques.
The conversation then shifts to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). I criticize the UN's ineptitude and antagonism towards modern technologies and highlight their reluctance to embrace sound science and essential agricultural advances. Their term "Agroecology," like sustainable intensification, excludes genetic engineering from their definition.
Genetic engineering is crucial to feeding the world, so the entrenched antagonism towards it, particularly in Europe, is vexing.
You can find the complete audio discussion here
What to read more?
As BBC Spews Organic Farming Propaganda, The World’s Poor Suffer
How Biotechnology Overregulation Harms Farmers, Boosts Food Costs And Fuels Inflation