Quant canviaria la vida si de sobte el govern es van prohibir els telèfons mòbils?

Això alteraria tot, de la manera de treballar a com us comuniqueu amb els teus. En el temps, Potser, vols t'acostumes a-lo: Nostres pares van aconseguir sobreviure sense aquests dispositius en les seves butxaques per a la majoria de les seves vides. Preveig que vols imaginar una manera, així.

Jo, juntament amb la majoria de la població, no vull tornar a la tecnologia del segle 20. Perdríem molt.

Agricultors, No obstant això, pressió constant de cara anar cap enrere en el temps. Aquí a Europa, per exemple, els polítics l'any passat gairebé vetat ens utilitzant eina de protecció de conreus més popular del món. Aquest any, un tribunal ha alliberat una sentència que podrà negar el nostre accés a diversos productes que defensar conreus de les plagues de l'activitat perjudicis o destrueix.

Massa sovint, la gent veu la tecnologia com una amenaça que com un recurs. This is especially true when it involves a poorly understood technology that’s vulnerable to propaganda and misunderstanding. In my case, this means technology specific to agriculture, needed by farmers but also scorned by people who don’t understand or appreciate the difficulties of sustainable agriculture and take for granted that their food will show up at reasonable prices in grocery stores and restaurants.

An obvious example for Europeans is GMO food. Mentre que gran part de la resta del món ha adoptat aquesta tecnologia segura-Argentina, Brasil, Canadà, Sud-àfrica, als Estats Units, i més, gran part d'Europa ha rebutjat. La majoria dels consumidors no sé el estàs perdent, però els agricultors fem, perquè sabem que els nostres competidors en altres nacions han aprofitat de ciència so creixent més menjar menys terra.

Només s'intensificarà el debat, as gene-editing tools give farmers even more versatility—especially as consumers begin to clamor for near-future advances that promise to improve the nutrition and taste of what we eat everyday.

But that’s to come. We’re presently in the thick of several controversies that affect how I farm and produce food right now.

Consider the case of glyphosate, a crop-protection technology that helps me fight weeds. En 2017, the European Union nearly banned it—and the activists behind this political agenda haven’t given up. Encara pot tenir èxit en haver glifosat fora de la Llei

Durant dues dècades, glifosat ens ha ajudat a conrear aliments sostenible en la nostra explotació, que és al Regne Unit, a la zona anomenada el West Midlands. Podem plantejar fer pa de blat, ordi per cervesa, llinosa, i més. També ens dediqui una petita part de la nostre superfície de ceba d'amanida i pèsols escollits i té un ramat de 1,200 pasturatge d'ovelles.

Si anéssim a perdre glifosat, ens hauria de tornar al cultiu antiquat per al control de males herbes, que significa la utilització de maquinària de lliurar la terra vegetal. Això vindria amb un cost ambiental i econòmic costerut. Vols patim l'erosió del sòl, al seu torn a forts controls químics, i produir menys aliments.

Llarga experiència ens diu que glifosat és segur. If it weren’t safe, I would refuse to use it on my farm. When it comes to chemical applications to fields, per descomptat, farmers are on the front lines. We face the greatest risk of harmful exposure. It makes no sense for us to adopt products that pose threats to our health. That would be suicidal.

Better than experience is science—and science, massa, tells us that glyphosate is safe. És tòxic per les males herbes, but it breaks down quickly and does not enter the human food chain. Panells reguladores han confirmat aquest, incloent-hi la Autoritat Europea de seguretat alimentària i l'Agència Europea química.

The French-based International Agency for Research on Cancer is the single outlier. It claims a connection between glyphosate and cancer in people. Principals científics han desmentit les conclusions, and IARC has a reputation for pursuing scary theories rather than embracing scientific evidence. Yet its statement have prompted activist groups to turn glyphosate into an issue of politics, més que una qüestió de ciència, l'agricultura, economia dels consumidors i.

Some might say: Better safe than sorry. Inicialment, that familiar saying sounds reasonable, and it’s at the heart of the “precautionary principle,” which drives so much of the regulatory decision-making in Europe. The idea is that if we can’t be absolutely certain about a product’s potential hazards, then we shouldn’t allow its widespread use.

En la pràctica, the precautionary principle smothers innovation: nothing is ever safe enough to satisfy everyone. If we followed it in everything, we’d have to ban mobile phones, because the IARC has classified them as “possibly carcinogenic.”

Afortunadament, we haven’t taken this step—but we’ve taken it in other areas, especially agriculture. This is partly because only farmers see the regulations that affect us. They in fact affect everybody, but they’re invisible to non-farmers, which is to say most people.

Tal com succeeix, there’s nothing safe about denying farmers access to the crop-protection technology of glyphosate—and doing so would deliver a series of unwelcome and unintended consequences on my farm and the farms of others.

The first is that our soil would erode, allunyant-nos perdre la humitat, nutrient, i la biodiversitat. We’d resort to alternative sprays that are more toxic and stay in the soil longer. Ens vols també atropellar nostres equips nostres terres més freqüentment, augmentar la nostra emissió de gasos d'efecte hivernacle.

The advent of glyphosate allowed us to abandon these harmful practices. Banning it would pressure us to take them up again.

We’d grow less food, massa. Si els cultius afrontar més competència de males herbes, our acres would become less productive. This means that food prices would inch upward. És economia simple: Subministraments reduïdes significa majors costos per als consumidors.

sortida “No1FarmerJakeat YouTubea variety of videos done by Jake on farm.

Un dels miracles de l'agricultura moderna és que creixem més menjar menys terra que mai. This is a boon for conservation. A ban on glyphosate would turn back the clock: Volem créixer menys aliments en els terrenys més, hurting our efforts to conservation.

Will we lose glyphosate? I’m not sure. But I do know that we’re losing crop-protection tools all the time. Al maig, per exemple, a European court approved a ban of “neonics,” a popular pest-fighting technology. The allegation—and it’s merely an allegation—is that neonics kill too many bees. The science on this is far from clear, and many factors stress bee populations, from parasites and diseases to a loss of habitat and nesting sites. None of these causes have anything to do with the crop-protection tools that farmers use, and yet we’re the ones who have to pay the price.

So imagine a ban that causes you to give up your mobile phone. The sensation is not altogether different from my experience as a farmer, forced to confront the possibility of losing the latest technologies and drifting backward in time.

A version of this column first appeared July 10 as part of the GMO Beyond The Science III series at Genetic Literacy Project.