The science is clear on climate change AND modern agriculture

I watched with admiration the recent speech by French President Emmanuel Macron to the U.S. Congress. In particular, I was moved by his call to action in the fight against climate change and his unambiguous defense of science.

President Macron outlined the challenge:

“By polluting the oceans, not mitigating CO2 emissions, and destroying our biodiversity – we are killing our planet. Let us face it – there is no ‘Planet B.'”  

Yes… and our willingness to recognize this challenge should be based on the existing empirical evidence.

He also gave us the answer:

“I believe that against ignorance, we have education; against the threats on the planet, science.”

President Macron is right. Science can stop the crisis facing our planet: hotter temperatures; rising tides; less food for our children and our children’s children. But overcoming these challenges is going to take more science than President Macron admits, especially when it comes to agriculture.

President Macron and I come from different countries, different generations and different walks of life. I’ll be the first to admit that my company is misunderstood and distrusted by many in France. For that, I am regretful. But I genuinely implore President Macron and those of goodwill everywhere to open their minds to a new way of thinking about agriculture. For at its core, modern agriculture is truly an industry built on the bedrock of science. 

What do I mean by the science of modern agriculture?

• I mean precision-farming applications that use sensors, drones, cutting-edge machinery, algorithms and artificial intelligence to help farmers make more efficient data-based decisions – like knowing which seed hybrids to plant in each field, or applying exactly the right amounts of pesticides, nutrients or water needed to maximize each plant’s potential.
• I mean herbicides like glyphosate that enable wide-scale adoption of conservation tillage to reduce soil erosion, sequester more carbon, and enhance soil biodiversity and water quality.
• I mean genetically modified (GM) crops that dramatically reduce the use of insecticides.
• I mean new tools like gene editing, RNAi and scores of solutions that haven’t yet been invented.

All of these tools help farmers to do more with less…not only grow more food, but also do more to protect our planet by preserving soil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and restoring land back into areas for biodiversity.

In my 35-year career in agriculture, I’ve been amazed by the environmental benefits that molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry and other disciplines have helped deliver in agriculture. To cite just a few:

• In 2015 alone, 26.7 billion kg of carbon dioxide emissions were avoided thanks to GM crops – the equivalent to removing 12 million cars from the road for one year.
• 174 million hectares of land were spared from plowing and cultivation from 1996 to 2015 through production gains delivered through the application of technology. That’s an area nearly three times the entire land mass of France.
• A 2014 meta-analysis of the impacts of GM crops around the world found that chemical pesticide use was 37% lower than with non-GMO crops, while crop yields were 22% higher.

We have only scratched the surface of modern agriculture’s potential to help halt climate change. Allowed to flourish, agricultural technology will continue to produce more food in an increasingly sustainable way, for a population that is expected to add 2 billion souls to our planet by 2050.

However, the scientific community continues to see deliberate misinformation, anti-science activism, and fear-mongering, based on unsubstantiated and retracted claims, block some of our most promising discoveries. In my mind, I can still picture the fields of golden rice – a lifesaving source of beta-carotene for malnourished children – being destroyed by activists in the Philippines. Too many outstanding agricultural breakthroughs never make it into farmers’ hands, or children’s bellies, because of a lingering refusal to acknowledge science when it doesn’t align with a specific political or ideological narrative.

There is another line from President Macron’s address that sticks with me.

“I’m convinced that if we decide to open our eyes wider, we will be stronger.”

On that, this farm boy from Illinois and the President of France wholeheartedly agree. We need to open our eyes to the enormous opportunities presented by modern agriculture, as well as the overwhelming data that shows the technology is safe and effective. A couple key examples:

• After 30 years of research and assessments, GM crops have been tested and reviewed more than any other crop in the history of agriculture and have been shown to be as safe as conventional crops. Throughout this time, there hasn’t been a single safety issue with GMOs.
• Glyphosate is a vital tool for farmers with a more than 40-year history of safe use. There are 800+ studies that have found no links between glyphosate and cancer, including a recently published long-term study of U.S. farmers, and exhaustive data assessments by the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency.

Despite the scientific consensus, farmers in Europe are still not allowed to grow GM crops, which has significantly decreased their productivity and profitability compared to farmers in the U.S. and Canada. And President Macron recently announced that he plans to ban glyphosate use in France in three years – although French farmers have protested that denying them this tool would hurt them greatly.

I would urge President Macron to reconsider his position on the science of modern agriculture, using the same unbiased assessment that he has given to the science of climate change. I applaud his strong scientific stance on this topic of global importance. Likewise, a strong stance on the agricultural technology needed to address climate challenges should be based on data, not politics.

To ensure a better future for our grandchildren, we must open our eyes wider to the potential of every technology to be part of the solution. Closing our eyes to science can’t be the answer.

I’d love to have the chance to discuss the science of modern agriculture with President Macron someday. Despite our differences, I think we’d find some remarkable common ground.