Documentation for Zero Risk Fiction Defended

ZERO RISK FICTION DEFENDED - ADDED DOCUMENTATION POSTED ONLINE

Excerpts from the final draft of The Environment, Our Natural Resources and Modern Technology by Thomas R. DeGregori, Iowa State Press: A Blackwell Scientific Book, 2002.

The latest decade or so has seen an ever increasing array of emerging fears and a proliferation of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), "civil society" as they call themselves, marketing their own unique brand of fear and using it to create their own particular niche for publicity, membership and fund raising. Closely allied are the authors of books and articles to frighten the multitudes and show the faithful the pathway to health and well being.
Agriculture and food supply have provided a rich field for fear and fund raising. The pre-existence of a plethora of food faddisms has provided the vital ingredients for the generation of these phobias. Some of the all-purpose fear mongers, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have found enough financial nutrient in the fears that they have generated about Genetically Modified food for more than one group to feast on. Some well established practitioners of "civil society" like Public Citizen, not being a leading player in the anti-Genetically Modified food fight, have sought to carve out their role in leading the fight against food irradiation, the one existing technology that could very quickly make a significant contribution to reducing the pathogens in the produce and meat that we eat, thereby making our food supply even safer and our population healthier (Tauxe 2001).

.....

As the developed country NGOs, with their developing country compradors, have become more powerful voices seeking to impose their will on others in the name of defending them against a variety of evils from modern technology to globalization, the ideological basis for their advocacy has become increasingly evident. Though they portray themselves as Davids battling the Goliaths, the reality is quite different. According to a 1998 study, there were by 1993, 28,000 international NGOs with 20,000 NGO networks, employing 19 million people with an income of 1.1 billion dollars. Since many of these are purely lobbying organizations, their discretionary funding for the campaigns is comparable to that of those they oppose (Peel 2001).
On the conflict over the use of genetically modified foodstuffs, for example, with one or two rare exceptions, the NGOs opposing GM foods have had no experience in helping poor people grow food or otherwise helping them provide adequate nutrition for their family, even though some of the NGOs existing for a quarter century or more have had terms like food or agriculture or rural in their name and have been raising money on the basis of their advancing the cause of rural development. As a Financial Times editorial (prefacing a series on NGOs) correctly states, NGOs have a right to "lobby for their arguments, like any other private sector organization." But they have neither a "veto" nor do they have any "monopoly on claims to represent civil society" (Financial Times 2001). In the development community, there is now the term, "bringo" for "bring your own NGO"- as various interests try to claim some legitimacy and appearance of popular support for their cause (Beattie 2001). Clearly, those with the longest and most productive experience in helping the poor feed themselves better have overwhelmingly lined up in support of the use of advanced technologies such as Genetically Modified food. A dichotomy has emerged between those who have efficiently, effectively and productively used resources in helping the world feed itself and those who have opposed them by offering theoretical alternatives. More important has been the use of science and technology to transform and make more productive the agricultural resources available to the world's cultivators.
In recent years, after decades of existence, NGOs who have now ventured out into modest agricultural programs, might tempt to cynics to suggest that these were in response to the criticism that they were making claims about third world agriculture without having any field experience in it. Whatever their anti-establishment slogans may be, many of these NGOs receive government funding that would otherwise have gone for economic development. Currently, one quarter of the development budget of Norway goes to NGOs while the United Kingdom spends close to 16% of its development budget through NGOs and receives complaint when they attempt to shift some of these resources to developing country organizations (Beattie 2001). Funding projects directly through national governments is now a threat to some NGOs in rich countries. Long used to presuming to speak on behalf of those in need, it is now the case, in the words of Clair Short, the UK development secretary, that "the days have gone" when even a very worthy organization like Oxfam "can speak on behalf of the poor" (Beattie 2001). Far less worthy organizations continue to presume to speak on behalf of the developing countries and the world's poor, much to the frustration of these countries' elected leaders, particularly when the NGO agenda is exactly contrary to what they are seeking on such issues as trade and development. However worthy their demands for human rights or for protection of child labor may be, to leaders of developing countries the demands sound like disguised forms for protectionism. NGOs pressuring multi-nationals to promote human rights in a country seems to some like trying to impose change from the outside, which can only properly be done as an internal transformation (Ottaway 2001 and Landsburg 2001). And some NGOs, like Amnesty International, who have been extraordinarily effective in protecting human rights of many individuals, could jeopardize their fine work by trying to compete with other NGOs and extending their mandate too broadly (The Economist 2001a, 19-20).
Somehow NGOs and conservation activities are "privileged" and exempt from responsibility for the consequence of their actions and too often receive the uncritical adulation of the media (Furedi 1999). Currently, there is a rising tide of legitimate concern and protest against the government of Myanmar (Burma) about the construction of an oil pipeline and the use of the military to displace the local Karen population (Solomon 1998). However, there is far less publicity about the use of the military to displace Karen for the "creation of the million-hectare corridor Myinmolekat Nature Reserve south of the pipeline corridor, New York's World Conservation Society and Washington's Smithsonian Institution are under fire over a project that may involve wholesale village relocation" (Faulder 1997, 48). The institutions may be "under fire," but their actions have received far less media attention - in fact virtually none - than have those for the construction of the pipeline. There was a lawsuit to stop a Burma-to-Thailand gas pipeline, even though measures have been taken to avoid a forest (BBC 1998). No lawsuits are reported to prevent the creation of the nature reserve.
.....

However worthy this effort to promote bird friendly coffee - and it does appear to be worthy, it should be noted that the head of the non-profit NGO promoting it also heads a for profit enterprise which markets it. Unfortunately, this is not the only instance where those in leadership positions in non-profit so-called "public interest" groups are involved as consultants to or as owners or executives in organizations that profit from the policies that the NGO (or coalition of NGOs) is promoting. This has been particularly blatant in the various food scares over pesticides or genetically modified foods where those frightening us also have financial ties to the organic food industry. When a product of the modern science and technology they oppose, such as genetically modified food, demonstrates a clear superiority over traditional products, they either find ways and reasons to oppose it or remain deafeningly silent on its benefits.

.................................

Some have assumed the right to speak for those who presumably cannot speak for themselves. The experience of an author exploring the plight of the Huaorani of the Ecuadorian Amazon, is instructive. He speaks of the "many environmental and human-rights" NGOs who claim to be acting in support of the Huaorani and their land.

Letter-writing campaigns, boycotts, lawsuits, grants, and foundations were being pitched and caught by the likes of CARE, Cultural Survival, The Nature Conservancy, the Nature Resources Defense Council, Wildlife Conservation International, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund and dozens of other organizations, including RAN itself.

(Kane 1995, 10-11)

Kane adds that, "in terms of both cost and money, the money involved was substantial-tens of millions of dollars-and the fighting bitter (Kane 1995, 11). In spite of all the "ruckus being raised," when Kane contacted these organizations, he could find nobody who "knew how to contact the Huaorani" nor could he find anyone who "knew what the Huaorani wanted" or "who the Huaorani were" (Kane 1995, 11).

For American environmentalists committed to giving all creatures great and small a voice, few things make green activists more uncomfortable than charges that racism exists within their ranks. (Wilkinson 1999)

Thus begins an article in the Christian Science Monitor titled "Charges of Racial Insensitivity Beset Environmentalists." The article continues concerning "two inflammatory incidents in the past month" (November 1999) in which an executive director of one environmental group and a regional director of another made racist remarks about Hispanics. The executive director "stepped down" while the regional director "was temporarily suspended." "These comments have added to the perception among civil rights activists that the Caucasian-dominated conservation movement has been slow to integrate people of color" (Wilkinson 1999).
_________________________________________________________________

Excerpts from an early draft of book manuscript by Thomas R. DeGregori, tentatively titled Muck and Magic: Anti-Science vs. Science in Agriculture, Food and Health on the History of Vitalism, Homeopathy and "Organic" Agriculture as Ideology (in contrast to the rise of quantitative, scientific Chemistry, Biology, Nutrition and Agronomy to which they are a reaction). I expect to have the manuscript completed before Christmas, 2002.

When respected organizations like CIMMYT (Spanish acronym for the International Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat) analyzed their accessions and could not verify the claims, they and CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) were essentially accused of cowardice by being "silent" on this critical issue. It was CIMMYT which created the wheat HYV (High Yielding Variety) and it was CGIAR members such as IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) that created the other HYVs (or disease resistant varieties) such as those in rice which have allowed the earth's 6 billion people to feed themselves far better than the 3 billion were able to do just four decades ago. Some of the NGOs leading the protest and claiming the moral high ground, have annual budgets in excess of US $100 million and have yet to do anything to help the poor or anyone else feed themselves. Other NGOs carry names with food or rural in them but whose accomplishments in agriculture or rural development if any pale in comparison with their rhetoric. To the extent that they are able to obtain funding from aid agencies (the Scandinavian aid agencies have been particularly generous to them) that might have otherwise used them for development, one might argue that their net impact has been negative even apart from their efforts in opposing the new technologies that offer the best hope that we have of feeding the expected 9 billion people. The best estimates are that the percentage of "total income for development NGOs derived from donors" had risen by the mid-1990s "to around 30 per cent" (Hulme and Edwards 1997, 6-7). For some countries, the percentage terms are far greater - U.S. - 66 per cent, Canada - 77 per cent, and Sweden - 85 per cent as "dependency ratios of between 50 and 90 per cent are common" (Hulme and Edwards 1997, 21). For 1993/94 government funding for NGOs, "the OECD estimate of US$5.7 billion is certainly an underestimate by as much as US$3 billion according to one World Bank estimate" (Hulme and Edwards 1997, 6). In a considerable understatement, the authors conclude that "channeling funds to NGOs is big business." This particularly ironic for groups that like to refer to themselves as "civil society."
_________________________________________________________________

Excerpts from the final draft of Agriculture and Modern Technology: A Defense by Thomas R. DeGregori, Iowa State University Press: A Blackwell Scientific Book, 2001.

The green revolution in Indian agriculture is credited with being a major force in poverty reduction in India. From independence to 1970, the percentage of the population of India living below the absolute poverty line remained relatively steady at 55%. In the over two decades since the introduction of the green revolution technologies, the percentage of the population of India living in absolute poverty has fallen to 35% (IFPRI 1999 and Wood 1998, 378). Throughout most of East and Southeast Asia, the early phases of development involved an emphasis on agriculture and food production. Though the driving forces in Asian development have been many, the green revolution technologies in agriculture have played an important role in the dramatic reductions in poverty rates throughout the region, such as in Indonesia from 58% in 1970 to 8 % in 1993, and in China from 270 million people in poverty in 1978 to 65 million in 1999 (IFPRI 1999). Another author estimates the reduction in rural poverty in China to be from between 596 to 790 million people (75.5%-100%) in 1978 to 57 to 114 million (6.7%-13.2&) in 1996 (Yao 2000, 447). By either measurement, the magnitude off the reduction in poverty in China is extraordinary and without precedent in human history.
In the time period 1969-1971 to 1990-1992, global population was increasing about 45% while the absolute "number of people suffering from chronic undernourishment in developing nations decreased from 917 million or 35 percent of their population to 839 million (or 21 percent (Goklany 2000, 161). From 1990-1992 to 1995-1997, the absolute number of "undernourished people in the developing world" continued to decline, falling to 790 million (UNFPA 1999, 3, see also FAO 1999). The prevalent high number should not be minimized, nor should we be complacent, but neither should the progress achieved be ignored. For we can only finish the job of eliminating undernourishment by recognizing the forces that have brought us this far, thereby gaining some understanding of what still needs to be done. Unfortunately, many wish to deny the progress that has been made, offering anti-technology solutions, which would reverse these gains.

REFERENCES

Beattie, Alan. 2001. Campaigners Offer Moral Integrity for Influence, Financial Times, 17 July.

Bob, Clifford. 2000. Beyond Transparency: Visibility and Fit in the Internationalization of Internal Conflict. In Bernard Finel and Kristin M. Lord, eds., Power and Conflict in the Age of Transparency, pp. . New York: Palgrave/St Martins Press.

Bob, Clifford. 2001. Marketing Rebellion: Insurgent Groups, International Media, and NGO Support, International Politics 38(3):311-334, September.

Bob, Clifford. 2002. Merchants of Morality, Foreign Policy 36-45, March/April.

The Economist. 2001. Special Report: Human Rights, Righting Wrongs, The Economist 360(8235):19-21, 18 August.

FAO. 1999. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 1999. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Faulder, Dominic. 1997. In the Name of Money: The SLORC, the Thais and Two Multi-national Oil Giants Are Building a Gas Pipeline. the Karen Are in the Way-and That's Too Bad, Asiaweek 23(18):42-43, 46-47, 9 May.

Financial Times. 2001. Pressure on the Pressure Groups, Financial Times (Editorial Comment), 13 July.

Furedi, Frank. 1999. Consuming Democracy: Activism, Elitism and Political Apathy, ESEF The European Science and Environment Forum online 15 November.

Geisler, Charles. 2002. Endangered Humans: How Global Land Conservation Efforts Are Creating a Growing Class of Invisible Refugees, Foreign Policy 80-81, May/June.

Goklany, Indur M. 2000. Richer is More Resilient: Dealing with Climate Change and More Urgent Environmental Problems. In Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet, edited by Ronald Bailey, pp.155-187. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hulme, David and Michael Edwards, editors. 1997. NGOs, States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort? New York: St. Martin's Press in association with Save the Children.

 IFPRI. 1999. Pushing Back Poverty in India, News & Views: A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment International Food Policy Research Institute, September.

Kane, Joe. 1995. Savages. New York: (Knopf Distributed by Random House).

Landsburg, Steven E. 2001. The Imperialism of Compassion, The Wall Street Journal, 23 July.

Ottaway, Marina.2001. Reluctant Missionaries, Foreign Policy, July/August.

Peel, Quentin. 2001. NGOs Find Success Brings Problems, Financial Times; 12 July.

Peel, Quentin. 2001. "Code" aims to curb summit violence, Financial Times; 13 July.

Peel, Quentin. 2001. How Militants Hijacked NGO Party, Financial Times; 13 July.

Solomon, Enver. 1998. Green Activists Target Thai-Burma Pipeline, BBC World Service online 9 January.

UNFPA. 1999. FAO Says 800 Million Sleep Hungry Each Night, POPULI: The UNFPA Magazine United Nations Population Fund. December.

Wilkinson, Todd. 1999. Charges of Racial Insensitivity Beset Environmentalists, The Christian Science Monitor, 23 November.

Yao, Shujie. 2000. Economic Development and Poverty Reduction in China Over 20 years of Reform, Economic Development and Cultural Change 48(3):447-474, April.