Da Food Prices Good DA

NORTHWESTERN 8 ZAREFSKY SCHOLARS
HIGH FOOD PRICES GOOD LAURA/JUSTIN
Industrial Agriculture: 1NC Shell........................................................................3

Industrial Agriculture: 1NC Shell........................................................................4
Industrial Agriculture: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices=local move).........6
Industrial Agriculture: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices=local move).........7
Subsidies: 1NC Shell............................................................................................8
Subsidies: 1NC Shell............................................................................................9
Subsidies: 1NC Shell..........................................................................................10
Subsidies: Uniqueness Ext................................................................................11
Subsidies: I/L Ext (fight rural poverty, combat US deficit).............................12
Green Revolution: 1NC Shell.............................................................................13
Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more production in
developing countries)........................................................................................16
Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more
production/profit in developing countries)......................................................19
production/profit in developing countries)......................................................20
Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more investment). 23
Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more investment). 24
Green Revolution: Uniqueness/Brink Ext (High food prices = more
investment)..........................................................................................................25
Biotech/Warming: 1NC Shell.............................................................................27
Biotech/ Warming: 1NC Shell............................................................................28
Biotech/ Warming: 1NC Shell............................................................................29
Biotech/Warming Uniqueness Ext....................................................................30
Biotech/Warming Uniqueness Ext ...................................................................31
Biotech/Warming Uniqueness Ext....................................................................32
Biotech/Warming I/L Ext (Cuts Herbicide Use)................................................33
Biotech/Warming I/L Ext (Farmer demand= new climate change crops).....35
Biotech/Warming Impact Ext.............................................................................36
Biotech/Econ: 2NC Impact Module...................................................................37
Biotech/Econ-Biotech Key to Econ Ext............................................................38
Biotech/Econ-I/L Ext-Revenue&Workforce......................................................40
Biotech/Poverty: 2NC Impact Module...............................................................41
Biotech/Poverty I/L Ext: Global expansion gives Africa chance to escape
poverty.................................................................................................................44
Biotech/Poverty Impact Ext-Poverty=Structrual Violence/War Against Poor
..............................................................................................................................46
Biotech/Famine: 2NC Impact Module...............................................................47
“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 1

Biotech/Famine I/L Ext (GM yield necessary to provide adequate food).....48

Biotech/Famine Impact Ext................................................................................52
Case Turns (Economic Boost and Fossil Fuels).............................................53
Biotech Link Ext- High Energy Prices= High Food Prices.............................54
AT Uniqueness Overwhelms Link....................................................................55
AT No Link-Aff ≠ Lower Prices..........................................................................56
AT High Food Prices→Starvation......................................................................57
AT High Food Prices→Starvation......................................................................58
AT High Food Prices→Bad Economy...............................................................59
AT GMOs Bad (precautionary principle)..........................................................60
AT Localized Agriculture→Increased Emissions............................................61
AT Uniqueness Overwhelms Link.....................................................................62
AT Biotech Bad (Increased Yield, Drought Resistance, Less Pesticides)....63
AT Biotech Bad (Increased Yield, Decreased Herbicides).............................64
AT Biotech Bad (Laundry List)..........................................................................65
AT Biotech Bad (Boosts Econ)..........................................................................66
Aff: Green Revolution Answer...........................................................................67
Aff: Poverty Answer............................................................................................68
Aff: Poverty Answer............................................................................................69
Aff: Biotech Answer (Kills agriculture and Bio-D)..........................................70

Industrial Agriculture: 1NC Shell
Uniqueness: High food prices have brought about a call to shift to localized food
production
Martin Khor, Director, Third World Network Presentation at FAO Food Security
Summit, Rome 4 June 2008 “Food Crisis, Climate Change and the Importance of
Sustainable Agriculture”
The rising world prices of many food items in the past couple of years have meant more
expensive imports, and inflation of food prices in local markets. There have also been
cases of shortages, as some countries placing orders for example for rice have found that
the supply is not forthcoming or guaranteed, sometimes because of export restrictions by
the exporters of the food items. Many developing countries have been caught in this
situation, resulting in street protests as families found it difficult to cope
Because of this new situation, the paradigm of “food security” has suddenly shifted back
to the traditional concept of greater self-sufficiency, instead of prioritizing the option of
relying on cheaper imports. It is now recognized that in the immediate period, there is
need for emergency food supplies to affected countries, but that a long-term solution
must include increased local food production in developing countries. This raises the
question of what constitute the barriers to local production and how to remove these
barriers.
Link: High food prices are caused by high energy prices. The affirmative plan
lowers energy prices, causing food prices to decline.
McConnel, 2008. “High Food Prices, Urban Migration Make it Hard to Help the Poor,”
Kathryn-, April 17-. http://www.america.gov/st/foraid-
english/2008/April/20080417163323akllennoccm0.6278345.html
At the conference, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said the growing demand for
crops to produce biofuels is only one reason, and not a major reason, for high food costs.
Schafer said, “Higher energy prices are the biggest factor in pushing up food prices.”
I/L: The Aff will end the current move into local agriculture and cause the
continued rise of large agricultural corporations.
Impact: Corporations are violently exploiting third world countries by extending

the grasp of economic colonialism.
Ikerd, 2004. “The Globalization of Agriculture: Implication for Sustainability of Small Horticultural
Farms,” John E.-, Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri.
In general, regardless of the region of the world or the segment of agriculture considered, the
vast majority of all farms are still small farms, with many still serving local markets. However, the vast
majority of total agricultural output is accounted for by a small proportion of larger, specialized commercial
operations, oriented toward serving global markets. And increasingly, these large, export-oriented

agricultural operations are controlled, if not owned outright, by giant multinational corporations. As
diversified family
Industrial Agriculture: 1NC Shell
farmers have been replaced by large, specialized production

units, independent food processors and wholesalers have been
displaced by giant food processing and distribution firms. These large food
processing and distribution operations more recently have combined, through various types of alliances
and joint ventures, into five or six even-larger “global food chain clusters.” As the four or five dominate
global food retailers link up with existing “global food chain clusters,” they increasingly will
control all phases of the global food system from “conception to consumption,”
including agricultural production (Heffernan, 1999, Hendrickson, 2001).
The two dominant trends in agriculture today, globalization and corporate consolidation, are not just
coincidental, but almost certainly are intentional. Trade negotiators for the more industrialized nations,
the US in particular, are the driving force within the WTO demanding ultimate removal of all social and
ecological barriers to trade. The support of multinational agribusiness corporations is the primary
motivating force behind these negotiators. With all political constraints to trade removed, the
multinational corporations would be free to treat the world as a single production area and single market,
and thus to maximize profits globally.The world economy envisioned under the WTO presumably would
operate much as a national economy. “International commerce” would resemble “interstate commerce,”
and no individual member nation would be allowed to have laws interfering with such commerce. Under
the WTO, nothing could be arbitrarily excluded from “international commerce.” The WTO would decide
what nations can and cannot exclude from the world marketplace. And, no seller or buyer would be
allowed to offer different prices or conditions of trade to different nations, for any reasons.Under such rules
of trade, a nation could not subsidize its agriculture by any means that might be trade distorting; that is, it
couldn’t subsidize producers of one commodity more than it subsidizes producers of another. A nation
could not establish environmental, health, or safety standards for its production processes that were more
restrictive than those specified by the WTO. A nation could not close its borders to WTO approved
“cultural exports” from other nations – movies, television programs, clothes, and magazines – no matter
how repulsive they may be to some residents of that nation. A nation could not refuse to allow its natural
resources, such as minerals, oil, or even water, to be sold to another nation. And, the WTO would stand
ready to enforce merchandise patents and intellectual property rights globally, regardless of whether the
people of the world agree that all things, such as genetic life forms, should be patented. These are but
some of the many potential consequences of the WTO vision of a single global economy.In essence,
removal of national economic boundaries would open the world to “corporate colonization.” Historically, a
“colony” has been defined as a geographic territory, acquired by conquest or settlement by a people or
a colonial relationship
government previously alien to that territory (Encarta, 1998). In general,
is created when one entity extends its sovereignty and imposes control
over another people or territory. In the case of “corporate colonization,” it is
the corporation, rather than a people or government that extends its sovereignty
and imposes its control over the economies of nations. Nations lose
control over their individual economies as their economic boundaries
are removed, allowing the multinational corporations, previously alien
to their countries, to expand across political boundaries at will.
The potential for economic colonization is inherent, so long as the world is composed of nations at
radically different stages of economic and technological development. Those in the more developed
economies will always be tempted to dominate those in the less developed economies.
The
emergence of multinational corporations, lacking a strong affiliation to
any nation, makes those in the less developed areas or all nations
vulnerable to global
corporate domination. Such disparities in power, however, only make colonization
possible – not necessary or inevitable. The powerful are not always able to expand and dominate the
weak, as long as the weak have the political means to resist. Once the economic boundaries are removed,
however, there will be no political means to resist.
As with political colonialism, there are strong arguments both for and against economic
colonialism. Clearly, multinational corporations can bring numerous economic benefits to people in less

developed economies, including greater access to investment capital, more employment opportunities,
and higher personal incomes. A stronger economy also provides opportunities for governments to spend
more for public transportation, health care, education, national defense, police protection, and other social
welfare programs.
However, reliance on outside corporate investors for capital and
technologies brings with it significant social and ecological risks. As with
political colonization, life-styles are disrupted, cultures are destroyed, and
entire communities, nations, and races of people may be economically
subjugated by the corporations. A nation’s natural resources – minerals,
petroleum, forests, biological diversity, soils – may be exploited to maximize corporate
profits, because there is no long term corporate commitment to any particular people, place, or
culture. Decades after political colonization has ended, many so-called Third World
countries still harbor a deep resentment, sometimes hatred, toward
their former “colonial masters,” in spite of the numerous economic, health, technological,
and educational benefits they received. There certainly is no reason to believe that an after-the-fact
assessment of benefits and costs will be any less condemning of the corporate colonization process.

Industrial Agriculture: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices=local

move)
High food prices have resulted in food sourcing form regional producers and an
increase in local sustainable agriculture
Mark Scott (contributor to business week) June 3, 2008 “Aid Groups Cope with High
Food Prices” www.businessweek.com
Rather than importing costly commodities from the developed world—often grown with
farm-support subsidies—agencies now try to source food from domestic or regional
producers. There's also a move to teach local communities sustainable agricultural
techniques so they are less susceptible to the volatility of the global food markets. "The
rise in food prices has accelerated the push by organizations to alter their strategies," says
John Hoddinott, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute
in Washington. "Sourcing food from developing countries is a welcome step."
High food prices are causing consumers to reconsider ‘food miles’ and buy locally,
reducing energy use
Laureen Fagan, contributor to WSBT News, “High gas, food prices may spark interest
in locally grown products” Mar 12, 2008
SBT24/7 News Report
Those kinds of numbers add new meaning to the term "food miles."
It's a term familiar to people looking for more sustainable lifestyle choices and
learning about "green" living, because decreasing the food miles in one's grocery
shopping is one strategy for using less energy.
That means buying locally grown foods, gardening, even participating in food co-
ops and shared farm projects.
In one Michiana neighborhood, that may mean a community garden. In another,
including Goshen, it's a co-op program at a farmer's market. Still others may buy or
"timeshare" with their labor a stake in a local farm. Churches, synagogues and other faith
organizations have embraced the notion, too. In North Manchester, about an hour from
South Bend, the HOPE Community Supported Agriculture offers pastoral leadership
training in partnership with the J.L. Hawkins Family Farm. Additionally, people in
northeast Indiana can buy "shares" in the Hawkins farm and enjoy its yield.
The organization Local Harvest estimates that in 1990, there were about 50 such
Community Supported Agriculture programs, or CSAs, around the country. Now, there's
more than 1,000. And for some people, that may be one solution to the double-whammy
of high gas and food prices.

Industrial Agriculture: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices=local

move)
Higher food prices support local agriculture and encourage shorter supply
chains
Kim Severson April 2, 2008, The New York Times, “Some Good News on Food
Prices”, www.nytimes.com
Still, there are likely to be some tangible advantages to current prices. For one
thing, the relative bargains are likely to be found in the produce aisle and the
farmers’ market stalls. The Consumer Price Index for fresh fruits and vegetables
is slightly lower than a year ago. That is good news for many shoppers, including
the poor who use food stamps and are experts in stretching a food dollar, said
Laura Brainin-Rodriguez, a public health educator who helps the poorest people in
the San Francisco Bay Area eat better.
“People here will take two buses to get to Chinatown to get cheaper produce,” she
said.
Policies meant to support local farms and urban agriculture programs will
likely be strengthened, too. Shorter supply chains become increasingly
attractive as fuel costs rise, said Thomas Forster, a former organic farmer and
veteran of four farm bills who is working with the United Nations on food issues.
To that end, both state and federal governments have begun to encourage
institutional buyers like school districts to consider geography and not just
price when seeking bids on food contracts.

Subsidies: 1NC Shell

Uniqueness: The WTO meets this week to discuss reach an agreement on the Doha
round. High food prices have made subsidy cuts palatable.
Joshua Zumbrun 07.21.08, (contributor to forbes.com)1:30 PM ET , “Food On The

Table”
Finance ministers of World Trade Organization (WTO) members countries will meet
in Geneva this week to try--again--to reach an agreement opening up trade between
its members.
The talks, known as the Doha Development Round, have dragged on for seven
years--hampered largely by developed countries unwilling to reduce agriculture
subsidies.
What makes the issue more urgent this time--and may ultimately make a deal more
palatable--is the recent surge in food prices, caused in part by trade restrictions in
global agriculture markets.
Negotiations a year ago collapsed over a rift between rich nations and the developing world. Members such as the U.S.
and European Union nations want developing countries to reduce their tariffs on imports, opening the markets for
American and European farmers.
The developing world wants the Americans and Europeans to reduce their subsidies
to these farmers. Neither side has been willing to move far enough to make the other
happy. Since meeting a year ago, the WTO has drafted a new agreement, which sets levels for these cuts. Finance
ministers will attempt to refine this agreement to something agreeable for all 152 WTO members.
Is a deal now within reach? WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy thinks it could be.
Higher food prices have already reduced the subsidies paid to rich country farmers.
The U.S. would be able to meet its commitments under the deal with relatively
minor changes in agriculture policy, says David Blandford, a professor of agricultural economics at Penn State
University.
The draft agreement, through the use of numerous complicated formulas, would limit the overall level of farm subsidies and also put
caps on the amount of support that can be received by any one crop. Limits would gradually be lowered between 2009 and 2013.
A study of the draft agreement by Blandford, David Laborde of the International Food Policy Research Institute and Will Martin of
the World Bank projected that by 2014 the overall level of U.S. support would be capped at around $13 billion annually, but the U.S.
would be providing only $7 billion of subsidies if current programs remain in place, meeting its obligation with $6 billion to spare.
The obligation can be met thanks to high food prices. Many subsidies in the U.S. are
countercyclical--meaning that when prices are high, the level of subsidy is low. The
limit for such countercyclical subsidies under the WTO agreement is $5 billion. But with current prices, the U.S. would be paying
only $1 billion to $1.5 billion in these payments.
But the limits on specific crops are a potential deal breaker: Support for sugar and cotton would have to be cut under the draft
agreement. The cut would be most dramatic for cotton, which would lose $2 billion in annual payments, reducing support to $1 billion
from a projected $3 billion. Sugar too would face substantial cuts, to $1.1 billion from a projected $1.5 billion.
The agreement would not be a totally raw deal for cotton and sugar. Though their level of support would be reduced, developing
countries would be required to reduce their tariffs against the crops. Look for heavy resistance from Beltway cotton and sugar
lobbyists.
Two of the most contentious topics in agriculture policy--biofuels and export controls--won't be on the table at all in Geneva.
If a deal is accepted now, it would be harder for WTO members to backslide on
their commitments down the road.
Is this the Doha round's last, best chance? Stay tuned.


Link: High food prices caused by high oil and gas prices
Chirinos, 2008. “High food prices caused by oil, gas prices than ethanol, farmers say,” Fanny-,
June 18-. Caller Times. http://www.caller.com/news/2008/jun/18/high-food-prices-caused-by-oil-gas-
prices-more/
High food prices have more to do with the high price of oil and gas than they do with
ethanol production. That's the message local and state farmers gave Tuesday during a
press conference at the Corpus Christi International Airport. Accompanied by officials
with the Texas Farm Bureau, the farmers used the event as an opportunity to explain their
role in the pricing structure, saying that much of the increases on commodities stems
from the high cost of fuel. The market sets the commodity price, which is paid to the
farmer. Fuel costs, initially absorbed by the wholesaler and/or distributor, are passed on
to the retail market and, ultimately, consumers.
I/L: Cutting agricultural subsidies would eventually lower food prices and eliminate
rural poverty in third world countries.
Bitondo, 2003. “Agricultural subsidies hurt world, US,” Mike-contributing author

at UCLA, September 2006-. University Wire. LexisNexis Academic.
Eliminating subsidies would be extremely beneficial to U.S. consumers because it would

lower the artificially inflated prices of food and force the American farming industry to
compete with overseas imports. Additionally, it would save the federal government
hundreds of billions of dollars that it badly needs in its current deficit-ridden state American
agricultural subsidies also do an innumerable amount of damage to Third World agricultural markets by
dumping cheap surplus food stocks on foreign markets. Every year, the United States buys up huge
quantities of surplus food stocks from the agricultural sector to keep domestic food prices artificially
higher. The surpluses it buys end up getting dumped on Third World markets overseas and devastate the
farming industry of the Third World. The so-called "subsidy superpowers" of the west have
utilized World Trade Organization trade talks to allow rich countries to use subsidies and
force poor countries to accept their demands. This system is perpetuating unfair
competition in agricultural markets and reinforcing rural poverty in the process.
Eliminating subsidies would lead to improved access to western markets and an end to
dumping surplus food stocks on Third World markets, potentially lifting many people out
of poverty. If real reform in the WTO's agricultural policy is made, then it will go a long way in the fight
against rural poverty in Third World countries. For example, if Africa could increase its share of world
trade by just 1 percent, it would approximately earn an additional $ 80 billion a year. Recent WTO trade
talks in Cancun were not enough to solve the problem of farm subsidies. More must be done to create
a real chance for the world to eliminate western agricultural subsidies and take a big step
forward in developing Third World economies.


Poverty is a Form of Structural Violence—The Decision To Maintain it is the
Largest Impact—An Ongoing and Accelerating War Against the Poor
Mumia Abu-Jamal, Activist and Prisoner, A QUIET AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,

9/19/98 (http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm)
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores
wide-ranging "structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking
ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan
observes;"By `structural violence' I mean the increased rates of death and disability
suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are
above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are
a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's
collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the
society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I
mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals
against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital
punishment, and so on." -- (Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York:
Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian,
corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility,
all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really? Gilligan notes:"[E]very fifteen
years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed
in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times
as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi
genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an
ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and
poor every year of every decade, throughout the world." [Gilligan, p. 196]
Worse still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became internalized,
turned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of wealth, those who
own nothing are taught to loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with
themselves, instead of the social order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense self-
hatred was often manifested in familial violence as when the husband beats the wife, the
wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each other.
This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by the corporate media,
uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who
suffer in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the
system makes damn sure -- that we can recognize and must react to it.
This fatal and systematic violence may be called The War on the Poor.

Subsidies: Uniqueness Ext
High food prices give governments the opportunity to wean farmers off of subsidies.
David Victor, July 14, 2008. “With food prices rising, the U.S. congress does just
the wrong thing.”- director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development
at Stanford University, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and has
advised the U.S. government on climate change . Newsweek. LexisNexis.
High food prices have been bad news for consumers, but they have revealed even worse
news about the tendencies of government. Soaring crop prices offer a tremendous
opportunity for smart reforms and real economic development. In rich countries like
Western Europe's and the United States, high prices could, in theory, make it easier to
wean farmers from lavish subsidies, plugging holes in the public budget and putting the
world's farmers on a more level playing field. That, after all, has been the stated goal of
free-market-oriented governments in the United States for many years. Lowering
subsidies could also lighten farmers' footprints on the landscape; subsidized and protected
farmers usually plow too much land and tread heavily with fertilizers and pesticides.

Subsidies: I/L Ext (fight rural poverty, combat US deficit)
Cutting agricultural subsidies would fight rural poverty and help ease the US deficit
without any detrimental effect on the agricultural sector.
Bitondo, 2003. “Agricultural subsidies hurt world, US,” Mike-contributing author

at UCLA, September 2006-. University Wire. LexisNexis Academic.
At a time when massive tax cuts, a costly war in Iraq and a prolonged economic recession
are pushing deficit spending in the coming federal budget to over $ 500 billion, action
needs to be taken to help offset these staggering costs. Eliminating all U.S. agricultural
subsidies would save the government hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, would
benefit U.S. consumers, and would also go a long way toward fighting rural poverty in
poor countries. Agricultural subsidies were first created in the early years of the United States to help the large portion of the
population that lived as small farmers. Still, the reality today is that the small farmer is going the same route as the small rancher --
extinction. Large agribusiness corporations dominate the American agricultural sector and have a stranglehold on many politicians in
Washington, D.C. Just last year, President Bush pushed a staggering $ 170 billion farm subsidy bill. In his speech supporting the bill,
If our
Bush stated, "Our farmers and ranchers are the most efficient producers in the world. ... We're really good at it."
agricultural sector is so efficient, then does it really need so many hundreds of billions of
dollars in subsidies? The answer is a resounding no. American agribusiness does not need
subsidies at all and eliminating them would not hurt our farming industry. In fact, it could
benefit the industry. Chris Edwards, the director of fiscal policy at the Cato Institute, and
Tad DeHaven, a research associate at the Cato Institute, use New Zealand as an example
of successful agricultural reform. New Zealand eliminated all agricultural subsidies in
1984. Since the reforms, just 1 percent of New Zealand farms had declared bankruptcy.
Additionally, the country's agribusiness productivity has experienced an average growth
of 6 percent since 1984 compared to 1 percent growth before. The numbers from New
Zealand are clear: Eliminating subsidies resulted in better productivity with relatively few
side-effects.

Green Revolution: 1NC Shell

A. Uniqueness: High food prices are causing leaders and international institutions to
prioritize agriculture. Sustaining high food prices is key to allow for investment and
banish extreme hunger and poverty for millions of people
Jeffrey D. Sachs (professor on the faculty at the School of International and Public
Affairs and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, Senior Adviser to
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals)
April 22, 2008 The African Green Revolution Scientific American Magazine
[Until recently, donors sent only food aid in response to Africa’s deepening agricultural
crisis. Now they are waking up to the one real solution: increased agricultural production
through a homegrown African green revolution. It would require four kinds of temporary
help: financing for better farming inputs, extension services to advise farmers on the new technologies, community
nurseries to diversify production, and investments in infrastructure. Market-based techniques of financial management
can also offer weather-risk insurance to the farm communities.
The time for action is ripe for several reasons. Most important among them is that
African leaders themselves are prioritizing agriculture and often getting major increases
in harvests and farm incomes as a result. Malawi has more than doubled its food output in just three
years, following a bold government program to ensure that all farm households have subsidized access to fertilizers and
high-yield seeds. Others are following that lead.
International institutions such as the World Bank have re––turned to leadership on
agriculture after years of waiting in vain for the markets alone to solve the problem. An
internal review last year called on the World Bank and donors to “help design efficient mechanisms, including public-
private partnerships, to provide farmers with critical inputs.”
New international donors have also stepped forward. The Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa, sponsored by the Gates and Rockefeller foundations, has given a
massive boost to the agenda. Aid to Africa from the governments of wealthy countries has been promised to
double between 2004 and 2010, and much of that should go to agriculture.
An additional reason speaks to the urgency for change: Africa’s vulnerability to food
insecurity has skyrocketed. The population has outstripped the food supply. Climate
change is already wreaking havoc on crop yields. Depletion of soil nutrients has reached
crisis proportions. Soaring world food prices have put a crippling burden on Africa as a
net food importer. This way lies disaster.
Here are bold but realistic goals that Africa and its donor partners can adopt: to double grain yields in Africa by 2012,
to graduate at least three quarters of African smallholder farm households from subsistence to commercial farming
within a decade, and to expand nutrition programs alongside increased food production to cut the ranks of the hungry
by at least half by 2015.
We should establish a special fund for the green revolution in Africa akin to the highly
successful Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. An annual flow of $10 billion from the rich
countries, half through the fund, would finance the needed breakthroughs. It would amount to roughly $10
per person in the donor countries, a modest sum that would give Africa the historic
opportunity to banish extreme poverty and chronic hunger for hundreds of millions of its
people.


B. The Link:
1. High energy prices raise food prices because farmers are forced to pay more for
agricultural inputs. When the plan lowers energy prices, food prices go down as
well.
IFPRI, 2008. “High Food Prices: The What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy
Actions,” International Food Policy Research Institute, May-.
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/ib/FoodPricesPolicyAction.pdf
High energy prices have also made agricultural production more expensive by raising the
cost of inputs like fertilizers, irrigation, and transport of inputs and outputs. Whereas the
share of energy in the cost of crop production is around 4 percent in most developing
countries, it is between 8 and 20 percent in some large countries such as Brazil,
China, and India.
2. Lower food prices will cause organizations to withhold investments, preventing a

green revolution
C. The Impact: Until a green revolution, Africa will remain in poverty and hunger
and stay isolated from the world economy. Small projects have shown the success of
innovative agriculture in Africa, all that is needed is investment
Jeffrey D. Sachs (professor on the faculty at the School of International and Public
Affairs and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, Senior Adviser to
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals)
April 22, 2008 The African Green Revolution Scientific American Magazine
Africa needs a green revolution. Food yields on the continent are roughly one metric ton
of grain per hectare of cultivated land, a figure little changed from 50 years ago and
roughly one third of the yields achieved on other continents. In low-income regions
elsewhere in the world, the introduction of high-yield seeds, fertilizer and small-scale
irrigation boosted food productivity beginning in the mid-1960s and opened the escape
route from extreme poverty for huge populations. A similar takeoff in sub-Saharan Africa
is both an urgent priority and a real possibility.
Until this change happens, Africa’s vast rural areas, which are home to two thirds of its
population, will remain mired in poverty, hunger and high child mortality and will stay
isolated from the world market economy. Proven technologies—high-yield seeds, new
water-management techniques and ways to replenish soil nutrients—are already
achieving three to five tons per hectare in many parts of Africa but too often only in small
demonstration projects.


<card continues>
Currently tens of millions of African farmers, with hundreds of millions of dependents,
are stuck living in subsistence conditions. They lack the savings or creditworthiness
needed to buy better seed, fertilizer and water technology. They lack even minimal
community infrastructure (roads, storage capacity and power) to participate profitably in
the market economy, and so they cannot better their situations.


production in developing countries)
High food prices increase the production of food in developing countries by
stimulating production
Africa News June 24, 2008. “Uganda; High Food Prices an

Opening for Developing Countries.” LexisNexis Academic
Dr Jurgen Zattler, the Deputy Director General Multilateral and European

Development Policy, trade, at the Ministry for Economic Cooperation in Germany,
advised developing countries to step up their agricultural out put to take advantage of
foreign markets where food prices have soared as a result of food shortages. He
underlined that the swelling prices are not only negative but also positive because they
are also stimulating production especially in developing countries. "The high prices are
a big chance for developing countries to increase their productivity in the agriculture
sector," Dr Zattler told Daily Monitor in an interview, on June 13. At the moment, he
said, there are no export subsidies in Europe because food prices like elsewhere, are
high. He said this was a result of rising energy prices as a result of increased demand
for oil and food stuff like beef, rice and wheat by China and India with ballooning
growth rates. Subsidies for local farmers in European countries have for long been a
major impediment in trade between them, the United States of America and
developing countries. If counties like Uganda increase their food production, and
exported to these markets, this would translate into higher incomes for the local
farmers and increased revenue for government.
Ghana has the capability of leading a green revolution in Africa—all that is needed
is increased agricultural development
Emmanuel K. Dogbevi (contributor to Ghana News Today.com) 2008“The biofuel

factor, the food crisis and Ghana’s participation”
http://www.ghananewstoday.com/news_readmore.php?id=162By
Ghana, a developing country, which has about 70% of its population in the rural areas
involved in agriculture, ironically imports over 40% of its food needs.
Another interesting angle to Ghana’s agriculture dilemma is the fact that while
agriculture contributes nearly 40% to the country’s GDP, only 10% of the national budget
is allocated to the sector.
Ghana has the capability to lead a ‘green revolution’ in Africa, in this critical
moment, but sadly not much is being done to shore up the agriculture sector. Only
about 16% of Ghana’s arable land is used for farming.
And the prices of food have more than doubled in Ghana since the crisis.
Ghanaian food crop farmers need support in the forms of investments in inputs,
fertilizer, training and access to markets. These could potentially boost agriculture
in the country and contribute to job creation and economic growth.


High food prices could result in greatly increased agricultural production in
Tanzania
Perege Gumbo 29 May 2008, ippmedia.com

“Banker says Tanzania could benefit from ongoing global food crisis”
A leading economist has said Tanzania is one of the few African states which
command great potential to turning the current global food crisis into gainful
opportunity.
That is because the country is endowed with huge arable land and has since
independence enjoyed unparalleled peace and social-cultural stability, unlike so
many other countries in the region.
Addressing participants to the second Business Journalism Forum, the Standard Bank
Group Economist Yvonne Mhango said that with many African nations facing internal
political instabilities, Tanzania could benefit from the current global food crisis.
Drawing contrasts, she said that recent Kenya’s post election violence and conflicts in
Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan, Zimbabwe and Northern Uganda
were factors which do not augur well with enhancement of farm productivity.
Tanzania has a surface area of 94.3 million hectares, of which 19.1 million hectares
represents arable land, but only 5.1 million hectares are cultivated annually. The rest of
the arable land is either reserved or used for pasture.
Under proper policies, incentives and technological encouragement, this land could
produce enough crops to feed itself and export the surplus to global markets.
High food prices will benefit the Kenyan economy by increasing foreign exchange
earnings
By Washington Gikunju, 24 April 2008, “Silver Lining Emerges in Rising Food Prices”
Business Daily (Nairobi)
The latest Kenya National Bureau of Statistics shows that the month-on-month overall
inflation rate increased from 19.1 per cent in February 2008 to 21.8 per cent in March
2008, a new decade high, in response to rising food prices. Prof Ryan, however, sees
an indirect benefit in sustained high global agricultural commodity prices, which
are likely to push the case for an increase in domestic production as importing food
becomes more expensive. The pressure to increase domestic productivity could in
turn lead to adoption of long term strategies such as increase in land under
irrigation and the development of high yield seeds to meet our domestic needs. The
economist also says that a rise in prices of tea, coffee and horticultural produce
could benefit the economy in terms of increased foreign exchange earnings and is
likely to trickle down as real benefits for farmers.


Experts call for a biotechnological “Green Revolution” to combat famine and

increase yields.
Scott, 2008, “Green plan targets hungry continent,” Marian-, June 14-, The
Gazette (Montreal). LexisNexis Academic.
Exhausted by intensive farming and eroded by drought and flood, Africa's arable land is
unable to support its hungry people. Per capita food production has declined for 30 years
in Africa, where farm productivity is just one-quarter the global average, according to the
United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Impoverished farmers have
mined nutrients out of the soil by growing crops season after season without manure or
fertilizers, Rattan Lal, a professor of soil management at Ohio State University, says.
"We have an urgent problem of feeding the people," he says. More than 200 million
Africans are chronically hungry and 33 million children under age five are malnourished.
War and natural disasters have compounded food insecurity: ethnic slaughter in Darfur,
drought in Kenya, floods in Ethiopia. Three-quarters of the population lacks food in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, struggling to rebuild democracy after years of civil strife.
Now, an international coalition of governments and humanitarian groups is calling for a
"Green Revolution" to boost Africa's agricultural output. Headed by former UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Alliance for a Green Revolution (AGRA) was
founded in 2006 by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. It aims to improve food production by providing farmers with high-yield
seeds, fertilizer, irrigation, soil management, access to markets and education. On June
4, the FAO, World Food Program and International Fund for Agricultural Development
announced a partnership with AGRA to accelerate food production in the region. African
agriculture needs biotechnology, like new seed varieties and fertilizers, to achieve a
drastic increase in crop yields, says Lal. Without those tools, farming in the region
simply cannot make the quantum leap it needs to feed its population, he argues. "We're
not looking for a 10-per-cent increase in agricultural yields. We're looking to triple or
quadruple yields." African farmers lack access to the large quantity of organic material
needed to improve soil fertility, Lal says. "We just do not have enough manure."
Agricultural residues are often burned as fuel rather than returned to the land to enrich the
soil. In many parts of Africa and Asia, farmers support their families on less than one-
tenth of an acre - one-twenty-fifth of a hectare. "You need 300 kilograms of grains per
person per year to survive," says Lal. "To produce that on one-tenth of an acre, you need
to use chemicals.


production/profit in developing countries)
High food prices allow African farmers to increase their

income and become competitive in the global market.
Catholic Information Service for Africa, May 4, 2008. “Africa;

high food prices could benefit farmers.” Africa News.
LexisNexis.
The crisis, however, can benefit rural farmers who have a marketable
surplus, the expert said. "For example, CRS works with navy bean
farmers in Ethiopia and chickpea farmers in Tanzania to link them to
profitable markets. As the prices for these commodities shoot up, the
farmers can invest in increasing their production to make more
money." The rising food prices, he pointed out, can be an opportunity
for farmers in the developing world if they are included as part of the
solution. "Make no mistake: The increased prices for wheat, maize,
soybean and other edible oils have been a boon for farmers who are
exporting from the United States, Europe and elsewhere. The question
is, how can we help African farmers also benefit from the increase in
prices while contributing to increases in food supply?" CRS is known
for an innovative approach that uses vouchers and fairs to get needed
assets into the hands of poor farmers. Eligible farmers receive a set of
vouchers worth a given sum. They then use the vouchers to "buy"
seeds, farming tools, fertilizer or livestock from approved local sellers
who typically attend a special fair. This approach helps farmers
increase agricultural production and subsequently their incomes. The
approach was successfully applied by CRS in 2006 as part of drought
response activities in Kenya, with 2,500 expectant and nursing
mothers and 3,500 families with malnourished children receiving food
vouchers to supplement their food resources. Remington said the
current crisis in prices could be a driver to increase production in
Africa. "Africa has the potential. Will that potential be tapped? That's
the question."
High food prices provide Ghanaians the opportunity to profit.
Daily Graphic, April 22, 2008. “Ghana can benefit from world high food prices,”
BBC Worldwide Monitoring. LexisNexis.
The president of the Association of Ghana Industries (AGI), Mr Tony
Oteng-Gyasi, has called on Ghanaians not grieve over rising prices of
commodities on the world market because the country has all it takes
to reap from the benefits. "This shouldn't be a problem for us. We

have a unique one-time opportunity to develop our agricultural

industry," Mr Oteng-Gyasi said at an Executive Business luncheon of
the association in Accra. He said considering the large agricultural
sector in the country, replete with farmers who had, over the years,
lived in poverty, the sudden rise in the price of samples should be a
blessing in disguise for them as they could take advantage of the
situation to reap good profits.

High food prices around the world are giving farmers in

Uganda a chance to enter the export market.
New Vision, April 23, 2008. “Africa; surging prices an opportunity for continent.”
Africa News.
The recent food price increases has been predicted as doom and gloom for the
continent. However, this needs not to be the case. There are medium and long
term benefits owing to the commodity price rise for African producers.
About 48 of the 53 African countries are dependent on commodity
exports, including primary agricultural commodities, minerals and oil
products to earn foreign exchange. The recent price boom has swept
across commodities like metals, oil and food. Africa is a natural basket
of most of these commodities and enjoys an absolute advantage on
supplies. Specifically, food-related commodity price increases are attracting a lot of global attention.
The World Bank warns that over 100 million people, especially in Africa, could be severely affected and
plunged into deeper poverty. The president of the bank has called for a "new deal for global food policy" to
the tune of $500m to support the World Food Programme. This is because food crop prices have increased
by more than 85% since 2004 and they are predicted to remain above 2004 levels until 2015.
In
Uganda, most households are net food producers and could benefit
from high food prices through regional food exports.
High food prices will benefit South Africa’s agricultural sector and allow them to
maintain viability in international markets
africa.reuters.com, 7/10/2008, http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=25266

“Global food price hike to benefit S.Africa farmers”
The rise in global food prices will benefit South Africa's farming sector despite worries
over food supply for the country's poor, the president of the country's largest farmers'
body said on Tuesday. Lourie Bosman, president of farmers' federation AgriSA, said the
increase in food prices would help ensure viability for local farmers, who have in the past

struggled to stay profitable as bumper harvests pushed commodity prices lower. "We are
not unhappy about it ... (the rise in food prices). If that hadn't happened then a lot of
producers would still be struggling to maintain viability," Bosman told reporters. South
African farmers have raised concerns over a critical lack of support from the government,
which has seen farmers fortunes take a dive after a massive cut in state subsidies in post-
apartheid South Africa. The farmers say the absence of subsidies has also made it
difficult for them to compete in international markets. But increased demand, triggered
by the global shortage of food is likely to improve farmers' prospects. A combination of
high oil and fuel prices, rising demand for food in a wealthier Asia, the use of farmland
and crops for biofuels, bad weather and speculation on futures markets have pushed up
food prices, prompting violent protests in a handful of poor states. "The rising food prices
will make it possible for us to bargain in global trade ... it will also make it possible for
the developing world to produce more," Bosman said. AgriSA chief executive Hans van
der Merwe said there was unlikely to be a decline in food prices. "We are expecting a
slower rise in prices and the food inflation trend, but not a decline," he said.


Now is the time for the green revolution: high food prices are spurring international
actors to invest in Africa agriculture
Stephen Brown and Robin Pomeroy, (contributors to reutors.com), 04 Jun 2008 “Food
summit seeks "green revolution" for Africa”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04680179.htm
A U.N. summit on the global food crisis asked rich nations on Wednesday to help
revolutionise farming in Africa and the developing world to produce more food for nearly
1 billion people facing hunger.
"The global food crisis is a wake-up call for Africa to launch itself into a 'green
revolution' which has been over-delayed," Nigerian Agriculture Minister Sayyadi Abba
Ruma said on the second day of the three-day summit.
"Every second, a child dies of hunger," he told Reuters. "The time to act is now. Enough
rhetoric and more action."
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation called the summit after soaring commodity
prices threatened to add 100 million more people to the 850 million already going hungry and caused food riots that
threaten government stability in some countries.
The cost of major food commodities has doubled over the last couple of years, with rice, corn and wheat at record
highs. The OECD sees prices retreating from their peaks but still up to 50 percent higher in the coming decade.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the summit, attended by 151 countries, had shown "a clear sense of resolve,
shared responsibility and political commitment among member states".
But discord over how much biofuels contribute to the rise in food prices, by competing with food output for crops,
threatened to deprive the summit of a forceful final declaration.
"I doubt there will be a positive agreement on biofuels," said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer.
The United States, a leader in maize-based ethanol, and Brazil, the world's largest producer of ethanol from sugar cane,
say it is important to diversify energy sources at a time when oil prices are sky-high and there is pressure for cleaner
fuels. Ban's predecessor at the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, was in Rome to
sign an agreement with U.N. food agencies for a new drive to increase farm production in
Africa.
"The world is facing an unprecedented world food crisis and nowhere is this crisis more
serious and acute than in Africa," he said of the new plan. "We hope to spur a green
revolution in Africa which respects biodiversity and the continent's distinct regions," said
Annan, who chairs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) which is
coordinating the effort.He told Reuters that African nations using prime farm land for
biofuel risked creating food shortages, adding, "they will regret it because the population
will turn on them."


investment)
The international community is now funding long term sustainable agriculture in
Africa in response to high food prices.
Dominique Patton, (contributor to Business Daily Nairobi), 13 May 2008 High Food
Prices Renew Interest in African Farming
(http://allafrica.com/stories/200805131046.html)
At a special meeting on food prices called by UK prime minister Gordon Brown last
month, the UK pledged Â£400 million over five years for research aimed at higher crop
yields and better pest control, a doubling of the previous year's amount. It will also
donate £120 million a year to boost the agricultural sector in poor countries and £34.7
million to reduce the cost of transportation in Africa.
The US has announced funding for agricultural development as part of an additional
US$770 million food aid package. And UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said that
a new international task force set up to tackle the rise in food prices will need "to boost
agricultural development, particularly in Africa and other regions most affected".
The moves come after years of declining funding for agricultural research. Investment in
agricultural development for Africa fell by 66 per cent between 1985 and 2004, according
to FarmAfrica, a UK-based NGO that works with small farmers in East Africa.
Now, as global attention focuses on soaring food prices, calls for long-term funding of
agriculture are growing.
"For decades African agriculture has been neglected, and the price for this neglect is now
glaring. National grain reserves are very, very low. The situation can and must be
reversed," said Kofi Annan in an opening speech to a seminar in Austria at the beginning
of the month.
Mr Annan said that providing effective humanitarian aid will be vital for many African
countries in the short-term to help them deal with surging food prices. But with
significant investments in agriculture in the medium to long-term, Africa could radically
improve its food output and become self-sufficient.


investment)
High food prices are providing incentives stimulate the agricultural sector in areas
such as research, extension, and infrastructure
FAO.org (food and agriculture organization of the United Nations) 28 May 2008,
“High food prices - supporting the poor and re-launching agriculture”
June Summit on food security offers historic chance to address world food challenges:
The report stresses that high food prices represent an excellent opportunity for
increased investments in agriculture by both the public and private sectors to
stimulate production and productivity. It calls for investment into long neglected
areas such as agricultural research, extension and infrastructure. Support should focus on
agricultural research serving the needs of poor farmers, many of whom farm in increasingly marginal areas; poor farmers should have
better access to factors of production, namely land, water and inputs.The report also notes that unilateral trade policy measures
undertaken by countries to ensure domestic food availability can exacerbate price instability on world markets and affect food security
in other countries. Policy coordination is important in this respect. Production and trade policies on biofuels may also need to be re-
examined in light of their possible effects on international food markets and hence on food security, especially in vulnerable countries.
To be successful, decisions made and policies implemented in this area should take into utmost consideration world food
security.“This
is a unique moment in history: for the first time in 25 years, a
fundamental incentive - high food commodity prices - is in place for stimulating the
agricultural sector,” Jacques Diouf said. “Governments, supported by their
international partners, must now undertake the necessary public investment and
provide a favourable environment for private investments, while at the same time
ensuring that the most vulnerable are protected from hunger.”
Biotech industry able to commit to large GMO products to combat high food prices.
Pollack, 2008. “Monsanto pledges to double crop yields with seed research,”
Andrew-MIT civil and environmental engineer, NYT staff writer, June 5-,The
International Herald Tribune. LexisNexis Academic
Monsanto, the leader in agricultural biotechnology, pledged Wednesday to develop seeds

that would double the yields of corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030 and would require 30
percent less water, land and energy to grow. The announcement, coming as world
leaders are meeting in Rome to discuss rising food prices and growing food shortages,
appeared to be aimed at least in part at winning acceptance of genetically modified crops
by showing that they could play a major role in feeding the world. Much of what is in the
commitment are things the company was doing anyway, though it now becomes a formal
goal. Monsanto said it had developed its new commitment after consulting farmers,
political leaders, academics and advocacy groups as to what needed to be done to
increase food production to cope with a rising population and the demand for biofuels
without converting more forests into farmland. ''In short, the world needs to produce
more while conserving more,'' the company's chief executive, Hugh Grant, said.

Green Revolution: Uniqueness/Brink Ext (High food prices =

more investment)
High prices must be sustained to allow biotech companies time
to put new agricultural projects in the pipeline; As prices
increase, more innovators will begin to develop new crops.
Pascal Zachary, May 18, 2008. “A brighter side of high prices;” professor of journalism at
Stanford University, technology and economic development writer. New York Times. LexisNexis.
For the new agricultural innovators, these are early days. It will take
time for the pipeline to fill with ambitious projects. Monsanto and BASF
are among the relatively few big companies that remain active in
agricultural innovation. And the most creative researchers can't
immediately drop their other projects in response to price signals.
Given time, priorities change. Tomorrow's most intense technological
battles will involve a range of agricultural topics, including these: Using
water and fertilizer more efficiently, so farmers can grow more with
less. Finding new ways to suppress weeds, whose growing resistance
to traditional herbicides is raising the cost of farming. Designing better
seeds, either through conventional means or genetic modification.
Finding ways to meet the needs of the eat-local movement, promoted
by the food writer Michael Pollan, among others, which requires
innovative "small batch" processing techniques as well as a shift in
values. "We need to pull out all the stops and do everything we can to
improve farm productivity," says William Dyer, a plant biologist at
Montana State University in Bozeman. To be sure, engineering a new
"green revolution" that will yield, say, cheaper wheat and rice -- all
while meeting the concerns of various special interest groups -- will be
much harder than designing a better music player. After all, we don't
eat iPods. The food fabricator of the 1960s television show "Star Trek"
remains an elusive dream, but not merely because of limits on human
ingenuity.
High food prices must remain in order for investment in agriculture to occur
Stocks, 2008. “Having cheap food will not solve ‘global crisis,’ Caroline-contributing
writer, April 25-, Farmers Weekly. LexisNexis.
High food prices and greater investment in agriculture are needed if farmers are to
increase food production, NFU president Peter Kendall told Gordon Brown this week. Mr Kendall joined supermarket
representatives, scientists and charities at a summit meeting on food inflation at 10 Downing Street on Tuesday (22 April). He stressed
the importance of new technology if the government wanted to help avoid global food shortages. Speaking before the meeting, the
Prime Minister said he wanted consumers, food producers, manufacturers and retailers to collectively look at how to tackle the "global
An "agricultural revolution" was needed to help farmers in developing countries
food crisis".
produce more food, he added. Speaking to Farmers Weekly, Mr Kendall said it was good to see the issue of food

inflation being discussed at the highest level, and the UK was well-placed to ease global concerns over food supplies. "The more we
produce here, the less pressure we put on producers elsewhere," he said. "I hope this debate will enable the NFU and the farming
industry to have a more constructive debate with government about the role we play in global food supplies." Mr Kendall said his
biggest fear was that the government would conclude that cheap food was the solution to food inflation.
"Cheap food is the
root of the problem, and not the desired outcome of this debate about food security," he
said. "If you want more land to come into production and you want investment in
technology, we must have higher prices."

Biotech/Warming: 1NC Shell

Uniqueness: The agricultural biotechnology sector is reaping huge profits from the
high food prices, and is reinvesting the money in new technology.
David Kesmodel, Lauren Etter, April 30, 2008. “Grain companies’ profits soar as
global food crisis mounts.” Wall Street Journal.
At a time when parts of the world are facing food riots, Big Agriculture is dealing with a
different sort of challenge: huge profits. On Tuesday, grain-processing giant Archer-
Daniels-Midland Co. said its fiscal third-quarter profits jumped 42%, including a
sevenfold increase in net income in its unit that stores, transports and trades grains such
as wheat, corn and soybeans. Monsanto Co., maker of seeds and herbicides, Deere &
Co., which builds tractors, combines and sprayers, and fertilizer maker Mosaic Co. all
reported similar windfalls in their latest quarters. The robust profits are emerging against
the backdrop of a food crisis some experts say is the worst in three decades. The
secretary- general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, on Tuesday called for the
creation of a high-level global task force to deal with the cascading impact of high grain
prices and oil prices. He said that countries must do more to avert "social unrest on an
unprecedented scale" and should contribute money to make up for the $755 million
shortfall in funding for the World Food Program, which feeds the world's hungry.
President Bush told reporters on Tuesday that he's "deeply concerned about people who
don't have food abroad," and all three presidential contenders have recently cited high
food and energy prices as causes for concern. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the
presumptive Republican candidate, has said he favors scrapping the 51-cent per gallon
ethanol tax credit and a 54-cent per gallon tariff imposed on most imported ethanol, ideas
abhorred by farmers and many politicians. The crisis stems from a combination of
heightened demand for food from fast-growing developing countries like China and
India, low grain stockpiles caused by bad weather, rising fuel prices and the increasing
amount of land used to grow crops for ethanol and other biofuels rather than food. Food
companies say they're not to blame for the soaring prices and are committed to working
toward a solution. They say bigger profits can be used to develop new technologies that
will ultimately help farmers improve productivity. Monsanto says it's designing improved
genetically modified seeds that can squeeze even more yield from each acre of planted
grain, while ADM says it's investing in tools that can mitigate supply disruptions.
"Maybe the question should be not, 'Are you making money?' but, 'What are you doing
with the money that you make?'" says Victoria Podesta, vice president of corporate
communications at ADM.

Biotech/ Warming: 1NC Shell

Link: High food prices are caused by high energy prices. The affirmative plan
lowers energy prices, causing food prices to decline.
McConnel, 2008. “High Food Prices, Urban Migration Make it Hard to Help the Poor,”
Kathryn-, April 17-. http://www.america.gov/st/foraid-
english/2008/April/20080417163323akllennoccm0.6278345.html
At the conference, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said the growing demand for
crops to produce biofuels is only one reason, and not a major reason, for high food costs.
Schafer said, “Higher energy prices are the biggest factor in pushing up food prices.”
I/L: High food prices encourage innovation in agricultural technology because

entrepreneurs see larger profit margins.
Pascal Zachary, May 18, 2008. “A brighter side of high prices;” professor of journalism at Stanford
University, technology and economic development writer. New York Times. LexisNexis.
CORN prices are at record high levels. Costs for other agricultural essentials, from wheat
to coffee to rice, have surged, too. And many people are stunned, even frightened, by all
the increases. But some entrepreneurs and analysts -- recognizing that relative price
increases in specific goods always encourage innovators to find ways around the problem
-- say they see an opportunity for creative solutions. "When something becomes dear, you
invent around it as much as you can," says David Warsh, editor of
Economicprincipals.com, a newsletter on trends in economic thinking. Joel Mokyr, an
economic historian at Northwestern University, adds, "All of a sudden, some things that
didn't look profitable now do." Smart people won't shift their efforts to agricultural
problems, however, if they think that price increases are only temporary, says Henry
Kressel, a managing director at the private equity firm Warburg Pincus and a pioneer in
laser research. "When you have a sudden blip in prices," Mr. Kressel says, "it doesn't give
rise to entrepreneurial activity." Consider the periodic surges in prices for computer
memory hardware. Because its price is declining over the long run -- a result of new
technologies and automation -- innovators tend to stay away from the field, leaving it to a
few large, established companies. For decades, declining prices for food had the same
chilling effect. In the United States and Europe -- the world's two biggest consumers of
new technologies -- food was plentiful and relatively inexpensive. Innovators turned their
attention elsewhere. With higher food prices possibly here to stay, clever people can now
try things that simply weren't cost-effective before. "I don't pay attention to inflation, but
I do pay attention to big problems," says Bill Gross, chairman of Idealab, the business
incubator based in Pasadena, Calif. "If you can beat the price of the big gorilla in the
marketplace, there's big opportunity." One clearly "big opportunity" lies in changing the
relationship between food and energy. Fertilizer lets farmers raise production but is
energy-intensive to make. Transporting food great distances also requires much energy.
So does processing. Finally, some foods are now being valued in relation to oil because
of their potential use in fuel. For some years now, innovators have trained their attention
on alternative energy; they are now likely to concentrate on food production as well.

Biotech/ Warming: 1NC Shell
Impact: Biotech companies, buoyed by increasing profits, are developing

technology to cut greenhouse emissions. The plan causes food prices to drop,
making these new crops unprofitable.
Cookson, 2008. “A time to sow? GM food could curb cost of staples,” Clive-science
journalist with LA Times, July 10-, Truth About Trade & Technology. LexisNexis
Academic.
Monsanto is meanwhile working on adding genes that enable crops to use nitrogen more
efficiently. Nitrogen fertilisers represent one of the largest input costs in agriculture: in
the US alone, farmers spend more than $3bn a year applying nitrogen fertilisers to maize
fields and at least half of the nitrogen is wasted because it is not taken up by the crop.
Colin Merritt, Monsanto’s head of external affairs, says more efficient nitrogen use will
reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming – currently estimated at 17 per cent
of all human activity. In particular, it will cut emissions of nitrous oxide, a powerful
greenhouse gas. Monsanto has dominated agricultural biotechnology from the start and
has always been the corporate symbol of GM food, for good and for evil. Last year the St
Louis-based company was responsible for an estimated 100m hectares of the global total
of 114m hectares sown with GM crops. Its sales of biotech seeds and technology reached
$5.4bn in the nine months to May.
A new approach to climate change is needed soon to avoid dangerous warming

impacts—climatologists agree
David D. Doniger et al, policy director of the Climate Center for the Natural Resources Defense Council,
[Antonia V. Herzog and Daniel A. Lashof] 2006 (“An Ambitious, Centrist Approach to Global Warming
Legislation” Science 314:5800 11/03/06 pp. 764-765)
The former proposals are based on the assumption that a more ambitious approach is not now politically
feasible. In our view, we no longer have the time for such two-step strategies. Most climate scientists now
warn that time is short for beginning serious emission reductions if we are to avoid dangerous climate
impacts (5). A new approach is needed that is capable of garnering enough support to be enacted promptly
while also requiring the deep reductions needed by mid-century.
Sometimes decisions can be postponed without great cost; not so with global warming. Heat-trapping
emissions are cumulative, and delaying the decision to reduce emissions will only worsen the problem and
make the task of solving it much harder.
<INSERT WARMING IMPACT CARD HERE>

Biotech/Warming Uniqueness Ext

High food prices will continue to rise as the world demand grows, profiting biotech
companies.
The Economist, 2008. “The next green revolution; Agriculture,” February 23-.
LexisNexis Academic.
"We sit at a moment of history when GM technology...is a fact of life," he said this week.
Mr Ferguson, who is also the head of Britain's Food and Drink Federation, argues that
because many large agricultural exporters have adopted GMOs, it is becoming expensive
to avoid them. Copa-Cogeca, a farmers' lobby, this week warned that the rising cost of
feed could wipe out Europe's livestock industry unless bans on GMOs are lifted.
Meanwhile, European agriculture ministers failed to agree on whether to allow imports of
GM maize and potatoes; the decision will now be made by the European Commission,
which is likely to say yes. If it does, it will be a victory for Monsanto. But the firm is
already enjoying an even sweeter form of revenge: huge commercial success. It has had
three straight years of revenue and profit growth, and on February 12th it raised its profit
forecast for the fiscal year for the second time in two months. Monsanto made a profit of
$993m in the year to August, on revenues of $8.6 billion. The global commodity-price
boom helps (see page 92), but Brett Begemann, a senior executive at Monsanto, insists
that it is the firm's advances in GMO technology that are fetching premium prices and
will help it to double profits by 2012. The firm's fortunes have been boosted by the success of GMOs outside
Europe. A new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit outfit that
tracks industry trends, charts the dramatic growth in the 12 years that GMOs have been commercially available. The area under
cultivation increased by 12% last year, to 114m hectares globally. America topped the list, but there is rapid growth in Argentina,
Brazil, India and China (see map). Thomas West of Pioneer Hi-Bred, a division of DuPont, says Europe should get on board, as "the
train is leaving the station." According to Cropnosis, an industry consultancy, the market for agricultural biotechnology grew from
about $3 billion in 2001 to over $6 billion in 2006, and is expected to reach $8.4 billion by 2011. Hans Kast, chief executive of
Germany's BASF Plant Science, thinks the figure could reach $50 billion by 2025, as a second generation of GMO technology, now in
Proponents of GMOs are optimistic because a confluence of
the pipeline, reaches the market.
social, commercial and technological forces is boosting the case for the technology. As
India and China grow richer, the world is likely to need much more food, just as arable
land, water and energy become scarcer and more expensive. If they fulfil their promise,
GMOs offer a way out of this bind, providing higher yields even as they require less
water, energy and fertiliser. Early incarnations of the technology, such as Monsanto's
Roundup Ready maize and soyabeans, were genetically engineered to be resistant to
herbicides and pesticides, making it easier for farmers to control pests without damaging
crops. The second generation will have further traits, such as drought resistance,
"stacked" on top. Michael Mack, chief executive of Switzerland's Syngenta, reckons that
farmers will pay extra for these new features. Indeed, farmers can expect ever-faster
cycles of product upgrades, thinks David Fischhoff, a senior executive at Monsanto. He
likens the industry's situation to the early days of the personal computer, now that the
underlying technology is in place.


Biotech companies’ profits rise in the face of high food prices.
Kesmodel, 2008. “Grain Companies’ Profits Soar as Global Food Crisis Mounts,” David-
contributing technology writer, April 30-, Wall Street Journal. LexisNexis Academic.
Archer-Daniels-Midland, Monsanto and Deere & Co have all reported robust profits in
their latest quarters even as parts of world face food riots; crisis stems from combination
of heightened demand, low grain stockpiles, rising fuel prices and increasing amount of
land used to grow biofuel crops; food companies say they are working toward solution
using their bigger profits to develop new technologies
Agrochemical companies have benefited from the high food prices and are investing
more in GM crops.
Cage, 2008. “High food prices may soften hostility to GM crops,” Sam-Los Angeles Time staff
writer, July 9-,The International Herald Tribune/Reuters. LexisNexis Academic
Agrochemical companies are riding a wave of high food prices and soaring demand for
farm goods, and Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta have all raised 2008 earnings forecasts.
Although high prices are a boon for farm suppliers, much of the cost has been passed on
to consumers, sparking protests in many countries including Argentina, Indonesia and
Mexico. Others also see opportunity: in June, the chocolate maker Mars, the computer
giant IBM and the U.S. Department of Agriculture said they would map the DNA of the
cocoa tree to try to broaden the crop's $5 billion market.
Farmers and ag-tech companies are posting double-digit gains as food prices remain
high.
Kesmodel, 2008. “Grain companies’ profits soar as global food crisis mounts,” David-WSJ
technological journalist, April 30-, Wall Street Journal. LexisNexis Academic.
"Anybody who is early in the chain is going to benefit," says Ann Gilpin, an analyst with
Morningstar. "I don't think this is going to last forever, but there are some significant
tailwinds to cause this to persist for a couple of years." Flush with more revenue than
they have enjoyed in years, and eager to take advantage of the highest grain prices they've
seen in years, farmers are paying more money for seeds, fertilizer and farm gear. That has
translated into huge revenue jumps and handsome profit increases for the companies that
sell these products. Growing global demand for food has been a boon to companies that
buy, process and transport grains. Monsanto saw its profit in the latest quarter more than
double. Rivals DuPont Co. and Syngenta AG recently raised their profit estimates. Deere
posted a 55% rise in earnings in its latest quarter. Mosaic's third-quarter net income
jumped about 12-fold. ADM's major rivals are notching big profit gains, too. Closely
held Cargill Inc.'s profits jumped 86% to $1 billion in the latest quarter. Bunge Ltd.'s
earnings rose about 20-fold to $289 million. Bunge sells fertilizer in addition to
processing and storing grains.

High food prices have allowed the biotech industry to grow rapidly
Prins 2008. “Who Benefits From High Food Prices?”, Naomi-Bear Stearn Analyst,
The Foundation for National Progress. LexisNexis Academic
The latest grain and oilseed trading report from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange cited
first quarter of 2008 trading volume up 32 percent over the last quarter of 2007. That's
extra money coming in from speculators, not corn or wheat farmers hedging their crop
prices in case of bad weather. Additionally, the hot new favorite among traders is betting
on packages of energy and agricultural futures. Called CCO's (collateralized commodity
obligations), they are like their subprime cousins, CDO's (collateralized debt obligations).
Their performance is linked to rising commodity prices; the higher the prices, the more
profit to the CCO. There's another group, besides the standard speculator crew, literally
reaping extreme profits from the price squeezes—the crop equivalents of Exxon,
multinational agricultural biotechnology corporations. Monsanto, which recently told the
12th Annual Goldman Sachs Agricultural Biotech Forum that its profits would double by
2012, is buzzing (PDF); the firm's stock price doubled during the past year. ADM, the
nation's second-largest ethanol producer, saw its annual revenues increase by 64 percent.
Even agriculture conglomerate Cargill's third-quarter profits rose 86 percent.

Biotech/Warming I/L Ext (Cuts Herbicide Use)
Biotech helps combat climate change by cutting petroleum

heavy herbicides and insecticides.
America.gov, 2008. “United States, Canada and Africa; U.S.

Agriculture Secretary Says New Technology Boosts Crop
Yields,” Africa News, June 5-. LexisNexis Academic.
Biotechnology can help countries adapt to climate change, according

to USAID representative Schafer. The United States is leading an
international effort to build an enhanced agricultural monitoring and
famine early warning system, Schafer said. (See "Famine Early
Warning System Can Predict Food Shortages.") Since the late 1990s,
Schafer said, use of new technologies in the United States has resulted
in historic increases in maize yields. Modern technology use in the
United States also has resulted in a 29 percent reduction in herbicide
usage and an 81 percent reduction in insecticide usage. Schafer said
all countries should abide by global trading rules agreed to through the
World Trade Organization and support science-based evaluation and
regulations to ensure that safe and effective technologies are available
to researchers and farmers around the world.
The agricultural sector is responsible for 10-12% of all greenhouse gas emissions
Martin Khor, Director, Third World Network Presentation at FAO Food Security
Summit, Rome 4 June 2008 “Food Crisis, Climate Change and the Importance of
Sustainable Agriculture”
According to the IPCC, the agricultural sector annually emits 5.1 to 6.1 billion
tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2005. Of these, (1) methane (which has 20
times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide) accounts for 3.3 billion
tonnes equivalent; (2) nitrous oxide (which has 300 times greater global warming
potential than carbon dioxide) accounts for 2.8 billion tonnes annually; and (3) carbon
dioxide emissions are 40 million tonnes. . (ITC 2007). This represents 10-12% of total
greenhouse gas emissions. Of the direct emissions, the main forms are: (1) nitrous
oxide emissions from high nitrogen levels in the soils from synthetic fertilizers (2.128
billion tonnes), which are mainly associated with nitrogen fertilizers and manure applied
to soils. Fertilisers are often applied in excess and not fully used by the crop plants, and
some of the surplus is lost as nitrous oxide to the atmosphere; (2) enteric fermentation of
cattle (1.792 billion tones); (3) biomass burning (672 million tones); (4) rice
production (616 million tones), (5) manure handling (413 million tonnes). (Greenpeace
2008). According to current projections, total greenhouse gas emissions from
agriculture will reach 8.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030,
compared to the current level of about 6 billion tonnes (ITC 2007).]


Biotech/Warming I/L Ext (Farmer demand= new climate change

crops)
As farmers’ demand for high yield GM crops increases, ag-

biotech companies are investing billions of dollars in new
c.rops that also help combat climate change.
Reguly, 2008. “All about the yield; They're being called the
next Microsofts - companies on the cusp of reaping the
rewards from the boom in global agriculture and a looming
shortage of food,” Eric-contributing writer, June 28-. The Globe
(Canada). LexisNexis Academic.
The competition among the big agribusiness companies is fuelled by huge expenditures
on research and development, with the big players collectively pouring billions a year
into the search for an irresistible seed, one that would significantly boost yields and
reduce pesticide use. Monsanto and Syngenta combined spend more than $1.5-billion a
year on R&D, much of it on GM and hybrid seeds, their most promising growth areas.
After several years of reorganizations, acquisitions and tweaking, the "new" Monsanto emerged in 2002 as
a pure agribusiness. Among its rivals, Monsanto can claim the most experience in the GM seeds: In 1981,
Monsanto created a molecular biology group and produced a genetically modified plant cell the next year.
But its best-known product is Roundup, the top-selling weed killer. One problem: Roundup kills crops as
well as weeds. So Monsanto developed new seeds, genetically modified to protect themselves from the
herbicide, to allow farmers to spray Roundup at any time. In 1996, the first generation "Roundup Ready"
soybeans and canola emerged from the laboratory. Two years later, Roundup Ready corn hit the market.
Monsanto launched Vistive, its low trans-fat soybean, in 2005. It also produces rBST , an artificially made
growth hormone used to boost milk production in cows (it has not been approved in Canada or the EU) and
is the leading producer of corn, cotton and oilseeds in their GM forms. Now, adding multiple genetic
characteristics or "stacks" are the name of the game. The term refers to seeds designed with a combination
of two or more traits. Take Monsanto's "triple-stack" GM corn - a seed with three separate traits. It was
designed to protect the plant from corn borer caterpillars above the ground and rootworm below. It is also
Roundup Ready. Mr. Begemann, the Monsanto commercial operations boss, said the trait additions
(stacking) are essential to build the competitive edge with farmers. In 2010, a super-stacked corn, called
SmartStax, will go into commercial production and will feature eight different herbicide tolerance and
insect protection genes, some of which were borrowed from rival Dow AgroSciences.
The next frontiers are drought tolerance and nitrogen utilization. The first would allow
crops such as corn to grow in water-short or drought-prone areas. Monsanto is already
testing such seeds and expects them to be ready for commercial sale in 2012. The second
would allow plants to absorb nitrogen more efficiently. The goal is to bring down the cost
of fertilizer use. American corn farmers alone spent more than $3-billion a year on
nitrogen fertilizers. Only about half of what they spread is absorbed by the corn.

Biotech/Warming Impact Ext

Biotech products increase productivity and reduce emissions, combating global
warming.
Business Week, 2008. “International Trade Commission Finds Industrial

Biotechnology Vital To Future Competitiveness of Chemical and Biofuel
Industries,” July 17-, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/international-trade-commission-
finds-industrial/story.aspx?guid=%7BF9281BD8-7826-4311-8921-DA8C80A978DC%7D&dist=hppr.
Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIO's Industrial and Environmental Section,
said, "U.S. chemical and biofuel companies can keep their competitive edge in the world
economy by developing new products from renewable resources, creating cleaner, more
sustainable manufacturing processes, and reducing their costs by adopting industrial
biotechnology. Industrial biotech companies are steadily introducing a range of new
products - including plastics, advanced biofuels, and chemicals - made from renewable
resources instead of petroleum. Industrial biotechnology also enables these companies to
develop cleaner, environmentally sustainable processes for manufacturing products by
reducing use of energy and resources, producing fewer byproducts, and eliminating toxic
waste. Reducing environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, will be a
key to maintaining future competitiveness for U.S. chemical and biofuel companies."
The report finds:
-- Cellulosic ethanol technologies have been an important focus of research and development and investment in the liquid biofuels
industry as firms seek to broaden both the base of feedstocks and the range of biofuels.
-- Research and development expenditures in biofuels increased 400 percent from 2004 to 2007, reaching $152.5 million, a rate three
times conventional R&D spending.
-- Bio-based products, including pharmaceuticals and biodegradable plastics, account for 70 percent of products made with industrial
biotechnology, while biofuels account for 30 percent.
-- Research and development expenditures for biobased chemicals were much larger than for biofuels, reaching $3.4 billion.
-- Industrial biotechnology can benefit the U.S. economy by allowing the substitution of
liquid biofuels for conventional liquid fuels, potentially reducing crude petroleum
imports; stimulating the development of rural economies as a result of increased
agricultural feedstock consumption; and providing environmental benefits, including
sustainable production, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and less waste generation.
-- Industrial biotech can improve process efficiency as compared with conventional
processes, resulting in potential reductions in manufacturing costs and capital
expenditures, and it can create new products that can compete with conventional
products.

Biotech/Econ: 2NC Impact Module
R&D key to biotech’s growth
Drug Week, 2008. “BIOTECHNOLOGY; The European Biotech Industry Is

Investing Strongly In the Future and Is Funding Large Increases in Research and
Development (R&D) According To New Report,” April 25-. LexisNexis Academic.
The European biotech industry is investing strongly in the future and is funding large
increases in research and development (R & D). R & D expenses have increased by 22%
for publicly traded companies and by 15% for the industry as a whole. The industry's
long term growth can only be secured through strong R & D activities. On average,
publicly traded European biotech companies are reinvesting about a third of their total
revenues in R & D, a strong proof of their dedication to long-term growth. Compared to
the beginning of century, many European companies are now better placed to tap into the
biotech industry's momentum in the region. Throughout Europe, local governments are
striving towards new levels of excellence and the industry overall, is benefiting from
focused efforts.
Biotech industry is key to EU growth
BusinessWeek, 2008. “BIOTECHNOLOGY; The European Biotech Industry Is

Investing Strongly In the Future and Is Funding Large Increases in Research and
Development (R&D) According To New Report,” April 25-. LexisNexis Academic.
Biotechnology is often considered to be one of the key technologies that will help enable
the long-term sustainable development of the European Union (EU), particularly in terms
of economic growth, environmental protection and public health. At its March 2000
Lisbon summit the European Council endorsed the objective of making the EU "the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable
economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion". In 2005 the
Lisbon Strategy was refocused on economic growth and more and better jobs. The
biotechnology products and processes are an integral part of the EU economy,
particularly in manufacturing, including pharmaceuticals, agro-food and health care.
While some products are invisible to the general public - like use of genetic markers in
livestock breeding, etc - others are used on a daily basis - detergents with enzymes and
recombinant insulin - or have become a topic of public discussion e.g. genetically
modified crops.
<INSERT EU ECON IMPACT>

Biotech/Econ-Biotech Key to Econ Ext

Biotech key to the global economy
Business Week, 2007. “BIOTECHNOLOGY; The 21st Century is Witnessing the

Dawn of Biotechnology Which is Expected to Surpass Information Technology as
the New Engine of the Global Economy,” December 17-. LexisNexis Academic.
The 21st century is witnessing the dawn of biotechnology, which is expected to surpass
Information Technology as the new engine of the global economy. Its products will be
more important than the fire, the wheel, or the car and will generate more knowledge in
a short period of time than history's collective wisdom. Biotechnology is expected to
alter healthcare, agriculture, commercial and industrial products. It is predicted, that by
the middle of the 21st century, all companies will become Biotech companies in some
form or the other. A key driver and enabler of this emerging technology is bioinformatics. The biotech industry developed
only within the last twenty-five years. During 1970s and 80s the understanding of biology reached a point where it was possible to
use the smallest parts of organisms, their cells and molecules. To better understand the meaning of the word "biotechnology",
simply change the singular noun to its plural form, "biotechnologies." Biotechnology is a collection of technologies that capitalize
on the attributes of cells and biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins. Conventional techniques of producing
biotechnology products, such as using traditional microbiological fermentation, evolved with the development of modern
technologies. Modern biotechnology entails the use of cell fusion techniques, bio-informatics (use of information technology for
documenting bio-diversity and studying DNA structures), genetic engineering, structure based molecular design and recombinant
DNA technology (insertion of foreign gene), and hybridoma technology (fusing and multiplying cells). The world market for
biotechnology is bound to grow in the next three to five years. The
United States is the recognized leader in
the global biotech market. It maintains its competitive edge through continuous
creation of highly innovative, technologically advanced new products and processes.
Biotech industry is key to post industrial economic growth.
New Straits Time, 2006. “Ripe for picking,” Malaysia, September 10-. LexisNexis
Academic.
BIOTECHNOLOGY is the next green revolution, and not just in
agriculture. Though still some distance from a licence to print money,
the life sciences are gene-splicing their way into a gold mine of new
products and processes, whose global revenues have risen from $23US
billion (RM84 billion) in 2000 to $50US billion last year. For developing
countries wearying of the rat race of old-world industrialisation, with its
pollution, social dislocations and diminishing economic returns, biotech
is also greener by being kinder on the environment. That is why fast-
movers like China, the only country in the developing world to
participate in the Human Genome Project, are rushing with pioneering
fervour into the new field. Malaysia cannot afford to be left behind. It's
not just a question of keeping up with the regional Joneses.
Biotechnology is intertwined with the knowledge economy and holds
one of the keys to future post-industrial growth. Malaysia should have
got a head start, with its renowned research establishments in tropical
farming, rubber and palm oil. But the economy's rapid accession to the
global manufacturing supply chain cost the country dearly in terms of
scientific talent. The Ninth Malaysia Plan's identification of

biotechnology as a high priority aims to make up for the rather shabby

treatment meted to the men and women in lab coats. They are now to
be regarded as the new entrepreneurs, as privileged as any in a
business suit.

Biotech/Econ-I/L Ext-Revenue&Workforce
Biotech key to economy because of its massive revenue and large workforce.
Biotech business Week, 2007. BIOTECH BUSINESS; Ohio Bioscience and

Healthcare Economic Impact near $150 Billion,” December 31-. LexisNexis
Academic.
A report released by BioOhio today indicates the growing importance of bioscience to the
state's economy. In 2006, the overall economic impact of Ohio-based bioscience was
$146 billion, representing 17.6% of Ohio's total economic output. Bioscience also
directly and indirectly sustained 1.2 million jobs in Ohio as of 2006. BioOhio teamed
with consulting firm Tripp Umbach and employed the IMPLAN input-output model to
estimate the impact of bioscience economic events in the state of Ohio. BioOhio's
comprehensive definition of the bioscience industry includes three integrated sectors:
commercial bioscience entities, hospitals and healthcare providers, and medical colleges.
The commercial bioscience sector alone accounted for a $27.3 billion overall economic
impact and 48,485 direct jobs in 2006. When indirect and induced jobs are factored, the
commercial bioscience employment figure jumps to 128,206. Cleveland, Cincinnati, and
Columbus anchor the three Ohio regions that collectively account for 89 percent of the
state's commercial bioscience industry economic impact and 90 percent of the state's
commercial bioscience employment impact in 2006. In northeast Ohio, commercial
bioscience was responsible for an $8.6 billion overall economic impact and 39,247 total
jobs (direct, indirect, and induced). The commercial bioscience sector in southwest Ohio
boasted an $8.3 billion economic impact and 36,700 total jobs. In Central Ohio,
commercial bioscience had an economic impact of $6.5 billion and contributed 30,152
total jobs. Analysis of commercial bioscience industry segments revealed medical device
and equipment manufacturers as the top employer (12,392), while agricultural
biotechnology contributed the largest direct economic impact ($6.1 billion) in 2006.

Biotech/Poverty: 2NC Impact Module

Empirically, high food prices created incentive for investment in agricultural
research, which cause rapid growth in productivity, allowing millions to escape
poverty
Jacques Diouf (Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations) 2008 “Soaring food prices—threat or opportunity?”
When food prices soared during the world food crisis in the 1970s, many Asian
governments chose to invest substantial resources in irrigation and agricultural
research, setting the stage for rapid growth in productivity that allowed millions to
escape poverty and hunger. A similar response is urgently needed today – particularly
in sub-Saharan Africa.
The combination of threats and opportunities presented by high agricultural
commodity prices calls for a twintrack approach: policies and programmes to protect the
livelihoods of millions of poor people adversely affected by this situation, while creating
the favourable environment to strengthen the potential of farmers to take advantage
of the opportunities offered. The time for relaunching agriculture is now and the
international community should not miss the opportunity.
New agricultural investment necessary to increase crop yields.
Reguly, 2008. “All about the yield; They're being called the next Microsofts -
companies on the cusp of reaping the rewards from the boom in global agriculture
and a looming shortage of food,” Eric-contributing writer, June 28-. The Globe
(Canada). LexisNexis Academic.
In both real (inflation-adjusted) and nominal terms, food prices sank between 1975 and
2001. Then, prices reversed course. The problem wasn't just soaring populations, drought
in Australia, Asia's new taste for protein-rich diets and turning food such as corn into
biofuels. While no one was looking, growth in yields around the world fell dramatically,
the result of two decades of waning agricultural investment. According to the FAO, the
yield growth rate between 1961 and 1984 was almost 3 per cent. It has since fallen to a
little more than 1 per cent, which is dangerously close to the world population growth
rate. The fact was not lost on the World Bank, which now bemoans the lack of
investment and vows to reverse course. "This is not a natural catastrophe," bank president
Robert Zoellick said at the food summit. "It is man-made and can be fixed by us ...
investments in farmers, in agribusiness and in agricultural research could triple yields."
Statements like this couldn't make the agribusiness companies happier. Robert Berendes,
43, Syngenta's head of business development, said the company has one goal: Improve
yields. Technology, he said, could raise the yield growth rate of crops such as corn and
soybeans by 50 to 100 per cent. "We will not see a continuation of this food crisis if we
obtain yield gains like this," he said.


Improving agricultural production is key to lift Africa out of poverty.
Eleni Z. Gabre-Madhin, Ph.D. in applied economics from Stanford University, Steven Haggbladem
Professor, International Development in the Department of Agricultural Economics, September 2001,
“Success in African Agriculture: Results of an Expert Survey”, International Food Policy Research
Institute, http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/themes/syn04/pdf/syn04_survey.pdf
Agriculture growth will prove essential for improving the welfare of the vast majority of Africa’s
poor. Roughly 80% of the continent’s poor live in rural areas (Sahn et al., 1887;World Bank, 2000).
And even those who do not will depend heavily on increasing agriculture productivity to lift them
out of poverty. As producers, 70% of all Africans – and nearly 90% of their poor – work primarily in
agriculture (World Bank, 2000). Trends in farm production and productivity, therefore, largely
govern their earning momentum. As consumers, all of Africa’s poor – both urban and rural – count
heavily on the efficiency of the continent’s farmers. Farm productivity and production costs
prove fundamental determinants of the prices of cassava, maize, sorghum, and other basic foodstuffs
which account for 60% to 70% of total consumption expenditure by low-income groups (Sahn et al,
1997). Indeed, the current structure of income and consumption among the African poor suggests
that significant reductions in poverty will hinge in large part on the collective ability of African
farmers, governments and agricultureal specialitsts to stimulate and sustain broad-based
agricultural growth.
The structural violence of poverty not only kills far more than war, but it is the root
cause of behavioral violence such as war
Gilligan ’96 (James, professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the
Study of Violence, Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes. 1996. P. 191-196)
The deadliest form of violence is Poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our
prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the
extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their
families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi's observation that the deadliest form of
violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their violent behavior
in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological
theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally
insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions an: only microcosms. They are not where the major
violence in our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most
violent deaths. Any
approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a
look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively
few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those
structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or public health, or human,
standpoint. By "structural violence" I mean the
increased rates of death, and disability
suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society as contrasted
with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a
demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure is itself a product of
society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are
not acts of God. I
am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence," by which I mean
the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific
behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we


attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence
differs from behavioral violence in at least three major respects. *The
lethal effects of
structural violence operate continuously, rather than sporadically.
whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one
at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of
individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal
consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have had other
(naturd or violent) causes.
[continues]
The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this
country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number otexcess deaths caused by socioeconomic
inequities on a worldwide basis. Swcden was their model of the nation that had come closes to eliminating
structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death
rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall lifc expectancy in the world. When they compared the lire
expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that I8 million
deaths a year could be attributed to the "structural violence" to which the citizens of all the other nations were
being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased
dramatically and alarming &. The 14 to 18 million deaths per year caused by
structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from
armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural
violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and
Political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian
deaths, including those by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1939-1943, the Indonesian
massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000) deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-
1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
(232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with
structural violence. which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen
years, on the average, as many people died because of relative poverty as would be killed bv the Nazi genocide
of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing;, unending, in fact accelerating.
thermonuclear war. or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the
world. Structural
violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence
on a socially and epidemiolonically significant scale (from homicide and
suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence-structural or
behavioral-is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.

Biotech/Poverty I/L Ext: Global expansion gives Africa chance to

escape poverty
Chinese and Indian rapid expansion will guarantee high food

prices for decades to come, giving African producers a
chance to lift their countries out of poverty.
New Vision, April 23, 2008. “Africa; surging prices an opportunity for
continent.” Africa News.
The demand for metals and ores in China will continue to push these
commodity prices higher. The changing diets of middle income Chinese
and Indians will push up protein-related food prices like milk, meat,
pork and eggs in the long run. China's GDP growth has averaged more
than 9% since 1995. It makes up to 15.4% of the world economy,
consumes a-third of the world's iron ore, coal and steel, it is the world
largest importer of copper and aluminium and the second largest
importer of oil after the US. This, with continued per capita income
growth of the 'Asian drivers' and change in diets, will lead to a strong
rise in demand for commodities, food-especially high-protein foods like
meats, dairy products and vegetable oils thus sustaining price
increases. China and India account for 40% of world commodity
consumers and 20% of the global purchasing power. Their
consumption of commodities will more than double by 2020. This
presents enormous opportunities for Africa's household commodity
producers in form increased farm incomes once strategically tapped. The
conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda in Geneva presents an opportunity. World trade negotiators
in Geneva are about to conclude a development trade round which was launched in 2001 in Doha, Qatar,
which could see shifts in agricultural subsidies in rich countries, and a reduction in import tariffs in the
advanced economies. This could lead to rise in prices for certain commodities like cotton and sugar hence
increasing income opportunities for commodity dependent developing countries like Uganda Benin, Mali
and Burkina Faso for the case of cotton. In the final analysis,
there is plenty of opportunity
for sub-Saharan Africa to turn around its "development puzzle" and get
out of poverty by 2015. A country like Uganda can focus on becoming
a food basket for the region, focus its Poverty Eradication and Action
Plan, organise farm households to produce economically viable
commodity clusters like the North Busiro Development Foundation of
Prof. Gilbert Bukenya's upland rice.
High food prices are beneficial for food producers, allowing the urban-rural
income gap to close.
Paul Donovan and Edward Teather, May 26, 2008. “Global

Economic Outlook: Effects of higher food prices.” deputy head of global economics at UBS
Investment Bank, executive director of equities research at UBS. The Edge Malaysia.
Food price inflation is dominating media headlines across Asia. Last year alone, wheat prices rose nearly
100%, and rice prices 45%. In the US, the supermarket giant, Walmart, is rationing rice in an effort to prevent customer hoarding.

It is important to note that (as with any price

Some countries have experienced protests over rising food prices.
increase) the economic consequences of higher food prices are not positive or negative as
such, but redistributive. Higher food prices are bad for food consumers (which is
everyone, of course, but in this context particularly urban consumers). Countering that,
higher food prices are good for food producers. Money is redistributed from urban to
rural areas as food prices rise - reversing the trend of the last decade or so of economic
development, when wealth tended to accumulate in urban areas.

Biotech/Poverty Impact Ext-Poverty=Structrual Violence/War

Against Poor
Poverty is a Form of Structural Violence—The Decision To Maintain it is the
Largest Impact—An Ongoing and Accelerating War Against the Poor
Mumia Abu-Jamal, Activist and Prisoner, A QUIET AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,

9/19/98 (http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm)
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and
ignores wide-ranging "structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with
a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James
Gilligan observes;"By `structural violence' I mean the increased rates of death and
disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted
by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large
proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a
product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the
collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting
`structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused
by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to
homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on." -- (Gilligan, J., MD, Violence:
Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.)
This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-
class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more
insidious. How dangerous is it -- really? Gilligan notes:"[E]very fifteen years, on the
average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a
nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three
times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the
Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of
an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the
weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world." [Gilligan, p. 196]
Worse still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became
internalized, turned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of
wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe themselves, as if something is
inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social order that promotes this self-
loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifested in familial violence as when
the husband beats the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each other.
This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by the corporate media,
uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who
suffer in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that
the system makes damn sure -- that we can recognize and must react to it.
This fatal and systematic violence may be called The War on the Poor.

Biotech/Famine: 2NC Impact Module

Biotech necessary to combat food crisis because it is able to combat climate change
and exploding populations effectively.
Daily Trust, 2008. “Nigeria; Biotech’ll Solve Food Crisis,” April 30-. LexisNexis Academic.
Experts meeting at the Federal University of Technology, Yola have said that effective
applications of biotechnology in agriculture is the best way of tackling the current global
food crisis. The experts, including a professor of biotechnology from FloridaUniversityin
United States, Prof Diuto Esiobu; the Vice Chancellor of FUTY, Prof Abdullahi Ribadu; the Director
General of the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), Prof B O Solomon; and
Coordinator of the Chevron Biotech Centre in FUTY, Prof Saka Baba, were unanimous on the
efficacy of biotechnology. Speaking at the first international workshop on Applied
Biotechnology in FUTY, Prof Esiobu said with the rapid population growth and adverse
climatic changes, it is difficult to prevent persistent food crisis without appropriate use of
biotechnology in agriculture. She said demand for food is certain to continue to rise as
the world population is expected to rise to 8.7 billion by the year 2050 amid emerging
infectious diseases and climatic hostilities, all of which she noted were issues that
biotechnology could address. In his speech, Prof Ribadu said: "Biotechnology, as you
may be aware, encompasses a wide range of techniques, many of which provide
opportunities for countries like Nigeria to enhance food security, improve healthcare and
achieve environmental sustainability..."Applications of biotechnology have been
tremendously helpful in agriculture (soil science, animal and crop production), medicine,
ecology, pharmacy and forensic science (military and defence)," he added.
Famine leads to diseases such as measles, malaria, and pneumonia, as well as

migration and conflicts.
Encyclopedia of Public Health, 2006

(Famine, 2006, http://health.enotes.com/public-health-encyclopedia/famine, 6/27/07)
The consequences of famine are physical, psychological, social, and economic.
Malnutrition results from food shortage within weeks. Children fail to grow and cannot
learn in school, and both adults and children experience weight loss, lack of energy, and
decreased work ability. Permanent blindness can result from vitamin A deficiency that
accompanies a deterioration of dietary quality. Malnutrition also puts people at a high
risk of dying from common infectious illnesses. Diseases such as measles, malaria,
pneumonia, and diarrhea are the most common causes of death during famine.
Psychological impacts result from fear and uncertainty about having enough to eat or to
feed one's family. Socially, migration is a common occurrence during periods of famine,
and resettling in other areas or in refugee camps disrupts social relationships and
hierarchies. Lack of food also creates disharmony as people resort to desperate measures
(such as stealing) in order to eat, or when old conflicts are renewed due to some groups
having more food than others. Losing land ownership and selling valuable assets such as
livestock, jewelry, or other goods can prevent families from recovering financially after a
famine.

Biotech/Famine I/L Ext (GM yield necessary to provide adequate

food)
GM crops needed to produce enough food for growing global population.
Blom, 2008. “GMOs: the lesser of two evils?” Neels-agricultural and land affairs
editor, February 9-, Business Day (South Africa). LexisNexis Academic.
In developing countries, the choice is often between potential harm and almost certain
death. Genetic transformation is our best bet so far to feed the world's growing
population. INDUSTRIAL agronomists are fond of citing the Malthusian trap
whenever they are confronted with arguments for a return to subsistence-level
agriculture, suggesting that it was the technological advances started by the industrial
revolution that prevented catastrophic global starvation. It wasn't, however, any form
of concerted social engineering or altruistic design that brought on the "Green
Revolution" and which saw agricultural output keep up with the world's population
growth since the 1940s. The funding provided by the Rockefeller and Ford
Foundations, among others, brought the revolution to developing economies, but
agribusiness embraced it with all the fervour only a profit motive could provide.
New biotechnology necessary to combat food shortages.
Harvey and Parker, 2008. “Gene modified crops the key to food crisis, says
scientist,” Fiona-technological correspondent at Financial Times and George-
equipment financing industry expert, July 7-, Financial Times (London). Proquest.
Genetically modified crops hold the key to solving the food price crisis,
the UK government's former chief scientific adviser has said. The
intervention by Sir David King, one of Britain's most influential
scientists and the government's senior science official until the end of
last year, has come amid growing signs that GM, long viewed with
suspicion by consumers and some governments, is being rehabilitated
as affordability takes precedence over any ethical or safety scruples.
Speaking after Nestle's scall for the European Union to review its
opposition to GM and as the Group of Eight prepares to discuss the
food crisis at its Japan summit, Sir David said: "There is only one
technology likely to deliver [the yield increases needed] and that is
GM." Sir David said the need to produce more food was pressing. "If
you take the pressure of burgeoning population . . . we need a third
green revolution," he said, referring to two waves of innovation in
agriculture that helped to increase crop yields dramatically in Asia in
the past 50 years. A combination of factors including changing diets,
global warming and pressure on fresh water supplies, meant that even
if the food price crisis eased, the long-term prospects for food output

without new biotechnology were poor, Sir David said. Ordinary plant-
breeding programmes could not produce new varieties fast enough.
"We need more crop per drop [of water] because of the fresh water
problem. Unless you move into plant technologies to develop these
crops, food provision is not going to increase," he said. "The future lies
there. And this is urgent."


food)
Biotechnology necessary to combat food crisis; farmers

willing to adopt GM crops because of higher yields and pest
resistance.
Choe, 2008. “Food woes place renewed focus on

biotechnology,” Tan-,May 4-,
New Straits Times (Malaysia). LexisNexis Academic.
Q: How important is biotechnology in helping us overcome this food crisis? A: I think it will
be our ultimate solution to enhance and increase the quality of high-yielding food crops.
We can do this through research in molecular biology and production of genetically
modified products. Q: So we are looking at developing GM crops?
A: Yes. We're working towards developing GM varieties and we're learning from experts
overseas because they've been proven to be effective. GM varieties like Bt corn is much
better than the conventional ones because it needs less chemical pesticides to get a good
harvest. The good genes in the GM corn can also prevent micro-toxin development from
fungus infestation during storage. For our farmers, as long as a technology is beneficial
and increases their profit margin, they'll be happy to adopt it. We support it because the
use of less pesticide is good for the environment. But rest assured we are following all the
rules and guidelines under the Biosafety Act 2007 as we pursue our research in GM
crops.
Biotech sector committed to producing new products to

combat global hunger.
Hindo, 2008. “MONSANTO ON THE MENU; It's betting the food

crisis will create new markets for genetically modified
products,” Brian-corporate strategies editor for BusinessWeek,
June 23-. Business Week. LexisNexis Academic.
Flush with success, Monsanto this month has launched a new push to
feed the world. Amid food shortages and rampant inflation, the St.
Louis company now wants to reassert its position in the global food
chain. On June 5, during a U.N. food summit in Rome, Monsanto
announced ambitious goals to boost global food production, funneling
millions into public research on wheat and rice--areas the company
had abandoned in recent years--while pledging to double yields on
corn and soy by 2030. The company says it will also distribute seeds to
African farmers royalty-free. "That isn't a feel-good thing," says
Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant. "Satisfying the demand curve is
a great business opportunity." Indeed, a number of agribusiness
giants see a new opportunity for biotech crops. And they downplay

fears of a backlash this time around: "I think the world has moved on,"
says Grant. Executives at rivals such as Swiss agrochemicals giant
Syngenta have also spoken out in recent weeks. Europe's food safety
chief, Androulla Vassiliou, has talked about being more flexible while
Columbia University Earth Institute Director Jeffrey D. Sachs and World
Bank President Robert B. Zoellick have noted that GMOs could fight
global hunger. In particular, many point to new lines of drought-
tolerant corn, due out in 2012, that have been engineered to use water
more efficiently.

food)
Biotech necessary to combat rising population and food prices
Moonie, 2008. “GM benefits are proven,” Ken-president of

KMC, private investment banking and consulting firm,
February 27-, The Weekly Times (Australia). LexisNexis
Academic
Let's remember agriculture is booming worldwide. Prices for all major

agricultural products have increased significantly over the past couple
of years, driven by increased demand from China, which is likely to
continue for decades to come. The simple truth is that rising demand
for food and animal feed will not go away. Many factors, including
arable land and water shortages, drought and global warming, lead us
to the inescapable conclusion that the only way to increase yields and
meet ever-growing demand is through the development of new
technologies. Is it mere coincidence that two emerging leaders in the
development of important agricultural biotechnologies are China and
India, the world's two most populated countries, who understand the
critical role technology will play in feeding their huge populations?

Biotech/Famine Impact Ext

Famine and malnourishment are killing large numbers of
children.
Mail and Guardian Online, 2007 (Mail and Guardian Online, Famine kills
children in Malawi, June 29, 2007)
Food shortages as a result of ongoing drought and crop failures have claimed the lives of
at least 29 children in Malawi since January, according to reports published on Monday.
The severely malnourished children were being kept at a United Nations World Food
Programme (WFP) rehabilitation centre in the country's southern Nsanje district at the
time of their deaths, radio reports in South Africa said. Confirmation of their deaths by
local hospital officials comes in the wake of an UN warning that the tiny Southern
African country may be the next Niger, where almost 2,7-million people are at risk of
starvation. In Malawi, one of the countries in the region worst affected by food shortages,
10-million people require food aid, according to the WFP. About 22% of children in
Malawi are malnourished, while about 4,2-million people -- 34% of the population -- are
considered at risk. The food crisis, attributed to the worst drought in a decade, has been
aggravated by Malawi's high Aids infection rate. The WFP has meanwhile highlighted
the poor response by international donors to appeals for assistance in countries such as
Malawi and Zambia, where 1,2-million people are in need of food aid.
24,000 people are dying daily in Africa from famine and

starvation.
Clover, 2003 (Jenny, “Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa”, 2003,

http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/ASR/12No1/Clover.pdf, 6/28/07)
Africa, which reversed from being a key exporter of agricultural commodities into being
a net importer,7 has the highest percentage of undernourished people and has shown the
least progress on reducing the prevalence of undernourishment in the last 30 years.
Chronic food insecurity now affects some 28% of the population—that is, nearly 200
million people who are suffering from malnutrition. Acute food insecurity in 2003 is
affecting 38 million people in Africa who are facing the outright risk of famine, with
24,000 dying from hunger daily. Famines are the most visible and extreme manifestation
of acute food insecurity. Of the 39 countries worldwide that faced food emergencies at
the beginning of 2003, 25 are found in Africa.

Case Turns (Economic Boost and Fossil Fuels)

TURN: High food prices drive consumers away from foods whose production relies
on fossil fuels
Kim Severson April 2, 2008, The New York Times, “Some Good News on Food Prices”,
www.nytimes.com
Logic would dictate that arguing against cheap food would be the wrong move when the
Consumer Price Index puts food costs at about 4.5 percent more this year than last. But
for locavores, small growers, activist chefs and others, higher grocery bills might be just
the thing to bring about the change they desire. Higher food costs, they say, could push
pasture-raised milk and meat past its boutique status, make organic food more accessible
and spark a national conversation about why inexpensive food is not really such a bargain
after all. “It’s very hard to argue for higher food prices because you are ceding popular
high ground to McDonald’s when you do that,” said Mr. Pollan, a contributor to The New
York Times Magazine and author of “In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto”
(Penguin Press). “But higher food prices level the playing field for sustainable food that
doesn’t rely on fossil fuels.”]
TURN:High food prices provide an economic boost the rural poor
Ian Mott (secretary of the Landholders Institute Inc and has held a number of positions
on national, state and regional level policy and planning bodies) May 11, 2008
“Good News on High Fuel and Food” Posted by Jennifer Marohasy (director of the
Australian Environment Foundation)
For the rural poor this doubling and trebling of food prices is the good economic
news that well informed development economists have been calling for for decades. The
major cause of their poverty was the low cost of energy and the resulting artificially
low break even price of industrially farmed commodities. These low priced
industrial food stocks undermined the prices of third world farming produce to the
point where the results of a days labour were insufficient to feed the farmers family
for that day. This was further exacerbated by the dumping of subsidised food as "aid" to
the expanding urbanised populations that needed to be placated to maintain any
semblance of order.

Biotech Link Ext- High Energy Prices= High Food Prices

Link: High food prices caused by high oil and gas prices
Chirinos, 2008. “High food prices caused by oil, gas prices than ethanol, farmers say,” Fanny-,
June 18-. Caller Times. http://www.caller.com/news/2008/jun/18/high-food-prices-caused-by-oil-gas-
prices-more/
High food prices have more to do with the high price of oil and gas than they do with
ethanol production. That's the message local and state farmers gave Tuesday during a
press conference at the Corpus Christi International Airport. Accompanied by officials
with the Texas Farm Bureau, the farmers used the event as an opportunity to explain their
role in the pricing structure, saying that much of the increases on commodities stems
from the high cost of fuel. The market sets the commodity price, which is paid to the
farmer. Fuel costs, initially absorbed by the wholesaler and/or distributor, are passed on
to the retail market and, ultimately, consumers.
Link: High energy prices raise food prices because farmers are forced to pay more
for agricultural inputs.
IFPRI, 2008. “High Food Prices: The What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy
Actions,” International Food Policy Research Institute, May-.
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/ib/FoodPricesPolicyAction.pdf
High energy prices have also made agricultural production more expensive by raising the
cost of inputs like fertilizers, irrigation, and transport of inputs and outputs. Whereas the
share of energy in the cost of crop production is around 4 percent in most developing
countries, it is between 8 and 20 percent in some large countries such as Brazil, China,
and India.
Link: The strong correlation between food prices and energy costs means that the
aff’s reduction of energy costs results in a decrease in food prices.
Juliet Lapidos April 1 2008 (writer and editorial assistant at slate.com) www.slate.com
The U.N. World Food Program's executive director told the Los Angeles Times that "a perfect storm" is
hitting the world's hungry, as demand for aid surges while food prices skyrocket. Cost increases are
affecting most countries around the globe, with prices for dairy products up 80 percent, cooking oils up 50
percent, and grains up 42 percent from 2006 to 2007. (For more specifics on how prices have changed since
2000, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization has a handy chart.) Why are groceries getting so
expensive all at once?
Energy prices. The global food system is heavily dependent on petroleum, not just for
shipping goods from one location to another but also for production, packaging, and
processing. As the price of oil rises—crude oil is currently hovering at around $100 a
barrel—so do the costs of planting, harvesting, and delivering food.

AT Uniqueness Overwhelms Link

1. Not true: The 1NC [Sachs, Kesmodel and Etter, Khor] uniqueness evidence
indicates sustaining high food prices is key for companies to invest in
[biotechnology, sustainable agriculture in Africa, localized agriculture]. If they get
lowered, the investments stop.
2. International organizations recognize that investment in agriculture is a

necessary solution to the high food prices. When the aff lowers the prices, these
organizations will no longer see a need to invest.
3. Companies are out to make money––if the market changes due to the plan, the
financial incentive to invest in [biotechnology, sustainable agriculture in Africa,
localized agriculture] will disappear and the investments won’t happen
[ insert investor sensitivity card]

AT No Link-Aff ≠ Lower Prices

1. Extend the [IFPRI 08, McConnel] evidence from the 1NC–energy prices and food
prices are linked due to food transportation costs. If the cost of energy goes down, so
do food prices.
2. Alternative energy is substantially cheaper than oil
Life After the Oil Crash .com, 2004 overview from publisher of The Coming Economic
Collapse, by Stephen Leeb, Ph.D.
Backed by meticulous research and analysis, Dr. Leeb exposes the psychological
"groupthink" that has caused leaders in government, Wall Street, the oil industry,
and academia to ignore the approaching crisis, until now when it is almost too late. He
debunks the myth that petroleum supplies are limitless, and reveals the truth about an
alternative energy source that is fast becoming cheaper than oil. In addition, he offers
practical solutions such as: The #1 skill investors need, and why advice from most
financial experts will prove disastrous· How to make a fortune in oil, gold, and other
inflation-sensitive Sectors, Today’s leading alternative energy stocks, the new super-
growth industry Steps the government must take immediately to avoid crippling energy
shortages.

AT High Food Prices→Starvation
1. Organizations are sending emergency food aid to prevent starvation as well as

investing to deal with the high food prices
2. Turn: Low food prices caused starvation—third world farming prices were
undermined due to cheap, industrially farmed food. High food prices allow rural
farmers to compete in markets, pulling them out of poverty
Ian Mott (secretary of the Landholders Institute Inc and has held a number of positions
on national, state and regional level policy and planning bodies) May 11, 2008
“Good News on High Fuel and Food” Posted by Jennifer Marohasy (director of the
Australian Environment Foundation)
For the rural poor this doubling and trebling of food prices is the good economic
news that well informed development economists have been calling for for decades. The
major cause of their poverty was the low cost of energy and the resulting artificially
low break even price of industrially farmed commodities. These low priced
industrial food stocks undermined the prices of third world farming produce to the
point where the results of a days labour were insufficient to feed the farmers family
for that day. This was further exacerbated by the dumping of subsidised food as "aid" to
the expanding urbanised populations that needed to be placated to maintain any
semblance of order.
3. High food prices are key to long-term economic success in developing countries
David Brough,(contributor to Africa Reutors.com) Wed 2 Jul 2008, “Soaring food prices
to spur agriculture investment”
http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN252980.html
Soaring food prices will trigger increased investment in agricultural land, notably in
eastern Europe, Brazil and Africa where there is plentiful fallow acreage, delegates
at a conference said on Wednesday.
Rising demand for food as people in emerging economies, such as China, spend more on
improving their diet, signalled further increases in food prices, they said.
"We're seeing a revolution in diet across the world," Henry Boucher, deputy chief
investment officer of Sarasin AgriSar fund, told the world Agri Invest conference in
London.
To underscore the impact of demand, Murray Wise, of Canada's Westchester Group said
it would take Australia's entire wheat crop to feed chicks to meet an annualised
theoretical additional demand of 1.7 eggs per person per week in China.
Hedge fund managers, private equity specialists and investors said rising demand
would stimulate various forms of investment in agriculture, such as increased
demand for potash and fertiliser equities, and the buying of land.

AT High Food Prices→Starvation
4. Improving agricultural production is key to lift Africa out of poverty.
Eleni Z. Gabre-Madhin, Ph.D. in applied economics from Stanford University, Steven

Haggbladem Professor, International Development in the Department of Agricultural
Economics, September 2001, “Success in African Agriculture: Results of an Expert
Survey”, International Food Policy Research Institute,
http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/themes/syn04/pdf/syn04_survey.pdf
Agriculture growth will prove essential for improving the welfare of the vast majority of
Africa’s poor. Roughly 80% of the continent’s poor live in rural areas (Sahn et al.,
1887;World Bank, 2000). And even those who do not will depend heavily on increasing
agriculture productivity to lift them out of poverty. As producers, 70% of all Africans –
and nearly 90% of their poor – work primarily in agriculture (World Bank, 2000). Trends
in farm production and productivity, therefore, largely govern their earning momentum.
As consumers, all of Africa’s poor – both urban and rural – count heavily on the
efficiency of the continent’s farmers. Farm productivity and production costs prove
fundamental determinants of the prices of cassava, maize, sorghum, and other basic
foodstuffs which account for 60% to 70% of total consumption expenditure by low-
income groups (Sahn et al, 1997). Indeed, the current structure of income and
consumption among the African poor suggests that significant reductions in poverty will
hinge in large part on the collective ability of African farmers, governments and
agricultureal specialitsts to stimulate and sustain broad-based agricultural growth.

AT High Food Prices→Bad Economy
1. Companies know prices are high—the spur in agricultural investment is due

largely to the big companies’ desire to get prices lowered so that consumers will
have money to buy their products. The threat of an economic downturn acts as an
incentive for quick investment, which ensures that an economic collapse won’t
occur.
2. Higher food prices have resulted in lower prices for local agricultural
products
Kim Severson April 2, 2008, The New York Times, “Some Good News on Food
Prices”, www.nytimes.com
Still, there are likely to be some tangible advantages to current prices. For one thing,
the relative bargains are likely to be found in the produce aisle and the farmers’
market stalls. The Consumer Price Index for fresh fruits and vegetables is slightly
lower than a year ago. That is good news for many shoppers, including the poor who
use food stamps and are experts in stretching a food dollar, said Laura Brainin-
Rodriguez, a public health educator who helps the poorest people in the San Francisco
Bay Area eat better. “People here will take two buses to get to Chinatown to get cheaper
produce,” she said. Policies meant to support local farms and urban agriculture
programs will likely be strengthened, too. Shorter supply chains become
increasingly attractive as fuel costs rise, said Thomas Forster, a former organic farmer
and veteran of four farm bills who is working with the United Nations on food issues.

AT GMOs Bad (precautionary principle)
GMOs should be embraced because people are dying in the status quo of starvation
Radley Balk, contributor to globalenvision .org “environmental risk or millions’ best

hope for survival?” July 11, 2006
Proponents of GM foods counter that we can never be 100 percent sure of a new
innovation's safety. And if we applied this most extreme interpretation of the
precautionary principle to every scientific breakthrough before it was implemented, we'd
never move forward as a society. Pointing out that nearly all innovation carries some risk,
Steve Milloy, editor of the website JunkScience, said of a GM foods critic, "if [he] had
been around in prehistoric times, he would have discouraged the use of fire."
But breakthroughs don't come without costs - critics argue that tampering with the
genetic makeup of plants can have unforeseen consequences.
GM foods proponents point out that a panoply of respected health and environmental
organizations have already signed off on the technology's safety, including the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of
Sciences and the World Health Organization. What's more, the very fact that 70 percent
of the processed foods Americans eat are bioengineered - and that there's yet to be a
major public health incident traceable to genetic modification - is testimony to their
safety.
Proponents of GM foods also apply a modified version of the precautionary principle to

GM foods as they relate to the current world population dynamics. It works like this:
Because of the rapidly escalating populations in poor countries with little farmland,
because there are more mouths to feed and precious little land to do it, and because we'd
like to preserve what few untouched lands that are left (the rain forests, for example), we
can't afford to not look for new ways to grow more food on less land. We need to
embrace new technologies immediately, or face calamitous repercussions.

AT Localized Agriculture→Increased Emissions
Local food reduces carbon emissions: local transactions are much more efficient
than shipping food long distances
Anthony Flaccavento (food and society policy fellow and director of Appalachian
Sustainable Development) Sunday, March 9, 2008 Eat Locally, Ease Climate Change
Globally www.washingtonpost.com
Of late, a number of commentators have disparaged local food economies, based on two
claims: First, that shipping food long distances in fully loaded tractor-trailers is more
efficient than local transactions; and, second, that consumers travel much further to buy
local foods, creating more, not less carbon emissions. They're wrong.
A full tractor-trailer hauls about 32,000 pounds of produce. On average, according to the
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, this food travels
about 1,750 miles from farm to market, in trucks that get about 5.5 miles per gallon.
That's 320 gallons of fuel to transport 32,000 pounds, or about a gallon of fuel for every
100 pounds of food.
My farm is an eight-mile round trip from the Abingdon farmers market. Our '94 Toyota
pickup gets 15 miles to the gallon, fully loaded, so my trip to and from the market uses
just over a half gallon of gas. We take and sell an average of 1,600 pounds of fresh
produce every Saturday morning. This works out to 3,200 pounds of food for every
gallon of fuel expended. That's 32 times more efficient. Of course, not every farmer lives
four miles from his or her market. But our local experience, along with studies carried out
in Austin and Toronto, indicate that most farmers stay within a 50-mile radius. Assuming
they carry about 1,000 pounds -- a third less than we do -- the average local food
transaction delivers 500 pounds of food per gallon of fuel, five times more efficient than
conventional transport. So the argument that shipping food in tractor-trailers is more
efficient than local food transactions doesn't hold up. But are consumers traveling so much farther to
get to farmers markets that their additional fuel use offsets any efficiency gains? Though the data are a bit sketchy, two
points stand out. First, in spite of the dramatic growth of Wal-Mart and other "one-stop shopping" outlets, our shopping
miles are steadily increasing. As author Stacy Mitchell has pointed out, we Americans increased our travel -- just for
shopping -- by over 90 billion miles from 1990 to 2001. That's billion with a "B." It's safe to say that most of those new
miles were not spent seeking out local food. Second, several studies indicate that consumers are not
willing to travel more than six to eight miles or 15 to 20 minutes by car to shop at a local
market, perhaps slightly more than what people will travel to reach the big-box store.
And with farmers markets proliferating across the country, from 1,750 in 1995 to nearly
4,500 now, they're getting closer to consumers and farmers every year. One last thing: So
far as I know, no food ever arrives at a farmers market by airplane. Yet air freight, which
generates 10 to 30 times as much carbon per mile as trucking, is becoming a major part of
the global food system. When my wife and I get up at 5 on Saturday morning to start
packing our truck, a cup of strong coffee and a glass of orange juice make it a little easier.
So we're not dogmatic about local foods. But we also know, first hand, that locally
produced foods are increasingly abundant, convenient and rewarding. The critics
notwithstanding, buying local food is a sensible way to eat well, save fuel and reduce
your carbon footprint.

AT Uniqueness Overwhelms Link
1. Not true: The 1NC [Sachs, Kesmodel and Etter, Khor] uniqueness evidence
indicates sustaining high food prices is key for companies to invest in
[biotechnology, sustainable agriculture in Africa, localized agriculture]. If they get
lowered, the investments stop.
2. International organizations recognize that investment in agriculture is a

necessary solution to the high food prices. When the aff lowers the prices, these
organizations will no longer see a need to invest.
3. Companies are out to make money––if the market changes due to the plan, the
financial incentive to invest in [biotechnology, sustainable agriculture in Africa,
localized agriculture] will disappear and the investments won’t happen
[ insert investor sensitivity card]

AT Biotech Bad (Increased Yield, Drought Resistance, Less

Pesticides)
GM crops able to provide boost to economy
Peddie, 2008. “GENETIC CROPS Economic boost ‘worth $912m’” Australia

Advertiser State Edition, Claire- Science and Environment Writer,April 1-.
GENETICALLY modified oilseed and wheat crops could provide

significant benefits to the economy, a report says. The Australian
Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics estimates the
introduction of GM crops could add $912 million to the economy by
2018. ABARE executive director Phillip Glyde says Australia risks
losing millions of dollars if crop introductions are delayed. ``Australia
will forgo significant economic gains by delaying the introduction of
GM oilseeds and wheat if emerging economies continue to increase
their uptake of GM crops,'' Mr Glyde said.
Biotech companies’ GM crops necessary to combat drought.
Peddie, 2007. “GM crops ‘crucial to coping with drought’”,

April 17-,Claire- Science and Environment Writer, The
Advertiser (Australia). LexisNexis Academic.
GENETICALLY modified crops must be part of the response to climate

change because they help farmers cope with drought, an agricultural
economist says. Dr Don Gunasekera, chief economist at the Australian
Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, says GM crops are ''an
important part of the solution'' for farmers dealing with climate change
in the short to medium term. He will deliver this message at the
opening of a three-day conference on plant genomics today. ''We have
done an illustrative or hypothetical scenario,'' Dr Gunasekera said. ''If
climate change is going to reduce agricultural productivity by about 10
per cent, we look at what are the potential impacts in different states.''
New crop varieties could reduce the impacts of drought and salinity on
agricultural productivity and the economy as a whole, he said.

AT Biotech Bad (Increased Yield, Decreased Herbicides)
Growing GM crops results in significantly higher profits by increasing yield and

reducing herbicide use.
Hopkins, 2008. “GM crops ‘would boost economy’,” Philip-Managing director of

the Institute for Public Relations, The Age (Melbourne, Australia). LexisNexis
Academic.
PLANTING genetically modified crops would boost Australia's regional economy by

more than $8 billion within a decade, says the chief commodities forecaster. "Delaying
GM uptake means we are forgoing significant economic bene-fits for regional Aus-
tralia," said Phillip Glyde, executive director of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and
Resource Economics. The ABARE report says planting GM canola this year along with
<card continues>
GM wheat, maize, soy beans and rice would boost economic production by $8.5 billion
by 2017-18. Delaying the start of planting until 2013-14 would create benefits of only
$3.9 billion by the same date. Mr Glyde said international experience showed that GM
boosted yields: 6-10% for canola, 5-11% for maize, 9% for wheat, and 3-7% for rice.
Costs would be cut through reduced herbicide use, which would in turn mean less labour,
machinery and fuel use, he said.
GM crops yield more per acre and require 50% less pesticides, allowing farmers
to profit more.
Leonard, 2008. “Why Indian farmers lust after genetically modified eggplant,”
Andrew-senior technology writer, July 1-.
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/12016/54/
But never mind that. A survey of Indian farmers published in the Journal of Risk Research in 2005 elicited some
illuminating opinions on health risks and other issues associated with genetically modified eggplant. For these
farmers, the primary, overriding issue is economic. They are already going broke
applying conventional pesticides to which the fruit and shoot borer has developed
resistance. If they can save money and boost yields by adopting GM eggplant, they will
do so. A comment from a farmer in Ahmednagar: "Presently, I am cultivating five acres of eggplant and
spending 50,000 to 60,000 rupees on pesticides for these five acres and getting three to four lakhs' income from this acreage. If I
grow Bt eggplant and get two to three lakhs' income from just two to three acres, I will enjoy greater benefits. Bt eggplant will also
reduce pesticide costs from 50,000 rupees to 10,000 to 12,000...With Bt eggplant, I can reduce my eggplant acreage from five to
one-and-a-half acres and devote the remaining land to planting other crops." These farmers aren't just blindly
accepting biotech propaganda (Mahyco is a partner with Monsanto in introducing GM technology into India.) They
are quite mindful of what other farmers have witnessed with respect to Bt cotton, a topic explored in some depth last year in How
the World Works in "Ganesh and Brahma Bow to a New God" and "The Napster Pirates of Transgenic Biotech." At the grass roots
level,
Indian cotton farmers have legally and illegally planted Bt cotton varieties because
they have seen with their own eyes how yields rise and pesticide costs go down in the
short term. A comment from a farmer in Aurangabad: "I have seen the results of Bt
cotton and the reduction in pesticide application in a neighboring farm. If the same
technology is transferred from Bt cotton to Bt eggplant, and if the damage inflicted by

AT Biotech Bad (Laundry List)

<card continues>
the fruit and shoot borer can be reduced by at least 50 percent without the use of pesticides, I
can save money and profit from the use of Bt eggplant." The most disturbing, and yet at the same time
enlightening comment of all comes from another Ahmednagar farmer, who notes an unfortunate result of the current practice of
intense pesticide application. "We have to spray pesticides on eggplants every two to three days. Because of this practice, we do
not eat the eggplants that we grow. We know that there is a lot of pesticide residue on the eggplants because we are spraying every
two to three days! So, we are not eating that stuff. The eggplant is totally made of those chemicals. But we put them directly in the
market and sell them anyway. If Bt eggplant is invented, we will be able to eat the eggplants we grow because there will be less
chemical residue on the vegetable. I think Bt eggplant is necessary because when we spray every two to three days, what happens
is that new diseases are occurring in the human body. People are buying vegetables from the market and eating them. But they do
not know what the farmer is spraying on his vegetables." I have no idea how representative that last farmer's
attitudes are of Indian eggplant farmers in general. But the basic calculus seems pretty clear. If
Indian farmers can simultaneously cut their costs by cutting their pesticide expenses and boost
yields by fending off the fruit and shoot borer, they will pay a premium price for genetically
modified eggplant seeds. In a world where all kinds of agricultural inputs are drastically rising
in price, that same calculus will likely play out elsewhere, with other farmers and other crops.
GM crops will increase crop yields, prevent deforestation, and prevent famine in
developing countries.
McKie, 2008. “As Starvation Looms, It’s Time to Take GM Seriously,”

Robin-science and technology editor, April 27-. The Observer (England).
It is a point stressed by crop experts such as Professor Chris Pollack of the University of Wales . "To stop widespread
starvation, we will either have to plough up the planet's last wild places to grow more
food or improve crop yields. GM technology allows farmers to do the latter - without
digging up rainforests. "It is therefore perverse to rule out that technology for no good
reason. Yet it still seems some people are willing to do so. That picture of transgenic papaya plants on Nature's cover shows how wrong they are."
The trouble is that GM crops represent everything that the environment movement has come to hate, though it was not the technology itself that originally
made greenies froth at the mouth. It was its promotion and marketing by international conglomerates such as Monsanto a decade ago that raised the
hackles. As a result, GM crops have become a lightning rod for protests about globalization. "GM technology permits companies to ensure that
everything we eat is owned by them," claimed campaigner George Monbiot. Perhaps he is right. However, it is questionable to go one step further and
insist, as some campaigners do, that because GM technology has been misused by biotechnology conglomerates, it is therefore justifiable to ignore its
The science can still help feed the world, particularly through the
usefulness completely.
introduction of drought and disease resistance to staple crops such as potatoes and rice.
"Britain and Europe have isolated themselves from the rest of the world over transgenic crops," says Bill McKelvey, principal of the
Scottish Agricultural College, in Edinburgh. "We have decided the technology, for no good reason, is dangerous. The rest of the world
It doesn't worry
doesn't think so and has got on with using it. For example, GM soya is grown throughout America and Asia.
people there for the simple reason that no one has ever died of eating GM food. On the
other hand, a lot of people could soon die because they have no food of any kind." Tough
luck, you might say. That's not Europe's problem. It's the developing world that will get it
in the neck. The world is warming and is destined to do so for decades to come as cars,
factories and power plants continue to pump out carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases. As a result, many grain-producing regions - in North America, Australia and parts
of Africa - are expected to suffer significant changes in climate that will devastate crop
production. By contrast, other regions -northern Europe and Canada, in particular - will
find weather changes will boost crop growing. They will become the world's food stores,
an issue highlighted by Professor Les Firbank of North Wyke Research Station in Devon.

AT Biotech Bad (Boosts Econ)
Biotech industry stimulates the local economy by creating new

jobs in the service industries.
Drug Week, 2006. “BUSINESS UPDATE; Connecticut Bioscience

R&D spending up in biotechnology sector,” August 11-.
The effects of employment and spending by the State's bioscience

industry are multiplied throughout the state's economy. According to
an independent analysis based on the CURE data, performed by Mark
A. Thompson, PhD, dean of the School of Business at Quinnipiac
University, every bioscience job in Connecticut supported a total of
3.03 jobs in the state in 2005. Because of high average salaries, the
bioscience employment multiplier is one of the highest for Connecticut
industries, according to Thompson. Other industries for which he has
derived 2005 employment multipliers include: restaurants, 1.30,
commercial construction, 1.76, residential construction, 2.18;
insurance carriers, 2.36; and telecommunications, 2.80. Thompson's
analysis indicates that the total impact on the state's employment in
the bioscience industry was equivalent to over 57,000 jobs, and the
total impact of bioscience payroll and non-payroll spending in the state
was over $17 billion. "One reason we set up shop in Connecticut is
that the state attracts a highly educated, experienced biotech
workforce," said Robert W. Cunningham, chief operating officer of
RainDance Technologies, Inc. "People are drawn by the quality of life
and the career opportunities in bioscience that Connecticut's
established infrastructure provides." Guilford-based RainDance is a
nanotechnology company focused on the development of a digital,
droplet- based fluid handling system for a variety of industrial and
research applications.

Aff: Green Revolution Answer

The Green Revolution will fail to produce enough food for Africa. Only
biotechnology can produce enough food to solve our advantage.
Martina McGloughlin, University of California, Davis, 1999

[Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will be Important to the Developing World,
http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v2n34/v2n34a04-mcgloughlin.htm]
Biotechnology companies, national and international organizations, including the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and numerous academics (e.g., Ruttan 1999) have
continued to
argue for the need to increase agricultural productivity so that sufficient food supplies exist to meet
the demand forthcoming from a swelling world population. Despite Altieri and Rosset's (this issue)
assertion, population density is hardly the issue. In the absence of significant productivity gains, or
expansion of agriculture into marginal lands (e.g., forests), there will be not be sufficient food
quantities to feed the projected levels of population. This simple reality is independent of income
distribution or the location of the population. And hardly anyone, including Altieri and Rosset, will argue
about the pragmatism of population projections. So in the absence of a good alternative—and in the face
of a proven slow down in the productivity gains from the Green Revolution—biotechnology is by
default our best, and maybe, only, way to increase production to meet future food needs.

Aff: Poverty Answer

High food prices will make the fight against poverty an uphill struggle
Paper prepared by FAO, IFAD and WFP for the meeting of the Chief Executives Board
for Coordination on 28-29 April 2008, Berne, Switzerland
Households around the developing world, where food represents 60-80 percent of
consumer spending, are suffering from domestic food inflation. In Cote d’Ivoire prices
of rice in March 2008 were double their level of a year earlier, while in Senegal wheat
prices by February 2008 were twice the level of a year ago and sorghum was up 56
percent. In Nigeria, prices of sorghum and millet have doubled in the past five months. In
Somalia, the price of wheat flour in the northern areas has almost tripled over twelve
months, and in Sudan (Khartoum) it increased by 90 percent. The price of maize in
Uganda was 65 percent higher in March 2008 than in September 2007. In March 2008
maize prices in Mozambique (Maputo) were 43 percent higher than a year ago. Rice
prices in the Philippines increased by 50 percent in the past two months. In Sri Lanka,
prices of rice in March 2008 were almost double those of a year ago, while in Bangladesh
they increased by 66 percent over the same period. In February 2008 bread prices in
Tajikistan were double their levels of February 2007, while in Armenia the price of wheat
flour has increased by one-third during the same period. Food prices in Haiti increased by
50-100 percent over the last year.
Risk analysis conducted by WFP in a number of countries suggests that the impact
on household food security will be significant. It is likely that high food prices will
make the fight against hunger and poverty an uphill struggle if no additional actions
are taken to mitigate the impact. The vast majority of poor rural and urban
households in developing countries are net food buyers who are negatively affected
by higher prices. According to World Bank household data less than 10 percent of poor
households in Bolivia, Ethiopia and Bangladesh are net sellers of food. Simulations by
FAO using household data from Malawi indicate that a 10 percent increase in food
prices leads to a 1.2 percent income loss for the poorest quintile in rural areas and a
2.6 percent income loss for the poorest urban quintile. According to this analysis,
only the richest rural quintile gain from an increase in food prices.

Aff: Poverty Answer

The rise in food prices is causing poverty and riots.
Quinn Bowman for NewsHour Extra April 21, 2008 “High Food Prices Cause Concern
Worldwide” www.pbskids.org
United Nations officials have called the rise in prices a crisis that needs to be addressed
immediately by the world community. A sense of desperation has caused people to riot in
Haiti, while people in Asia, Africa and elsewhere line up for U.N. food handouts.
"If not handled properly, this crisis could result in a cascade of others ... and
become a multidimensional problem affecting economic growth, social progress and even
political security around the world," said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The higher demand for meat in countries like China have also increased the demand for grain used as animal
feed. The cost of basic foods such as wheat and corn have doubled and tripled over the past few years due to several
reasons. Most recently, the rising price of oil has made food cost more to transport and produce.
In addition, biofuels such as ethanol, touted as a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption and reduce the
reliance on Middle Eastern oil by creating fuel out of plants, are also being blamed for the food price climb. Because
the U.S. and European governments pay farmers to plant corn to make ethanol, they have inadvertently driven up the
cost of corn as well as soy and other basic food crops.
And finally, rising wealth in heavily populated countries such as China means that more people are eating
meat, which in turn has increased the demand for grain to feed animals.
U.N. leaders like Ban Ki-moon have asked the international community to
contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency aid.
Rising prices have affected everyone -- but poor people in the developing world may be
suffering the most.
"High food prices dismay even relatively well-off Americans - but they're truly devastating in poor countries,
where food often accounts for more than half a family's spending," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in
early April.
U.N. leaders have called for millions of dollars in aid to help prevent widespread starvation.
According to the Economist Magazine, 100 million people could be driven to
absolute poverty - living on one dollar a day - by a 20 percent rise in food prices, undoing
a decade of growth in certain poor countries.
High food prices could reverse agricultural growth in transition countries
Teresa Buerkle, contributor to Relief Web, FAO Director-General opens Regional

Conference for Europe, 26 June 2008, Innsbruck, Austria “High food prices could reverse
agricultural growth in transition countries”
Soaring food prices could reverse the significant growth in agricultural production
recorded by some of the poorest countries in Europe and Central Asia over the past 10
years, said FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf today at the opening of the 26th FAO
Regional Conference for Europe.Moreover, government response to higher prices has not
always been supportive of the farm investment needed to raise production and
productivity, favouring instead measures such as export restrictions, which have resulted
in cancelled export contracts and lower prices received by farmers, he noted.

Aff: Biotech Answer (Kills agriculture and Bio-D)

Biotechnology is a bad investment—it will ruin our agriculture and destroy
biodiversity
Mae-Wan Ho – (Biology Department, Open University), Hartmut Meyer

(Working Group on Biodiversity,Forum Environment and Development,Germany), Joe
Cummins – (Professor Emeritus of Genetics,U niversity of Western Ontario) May 1998
“The Biotechnology Bubble”
One does not have to be prescient to see that transgenic instability makes
biotechnology a bad investment. It may well ruin our agriculture and food supply.
Agricultural gene technology destroys biodiversity
Agricultural genetic engineering destroys biodiversity because ecological
relationships are ignored.
-Broad-spectrum herbicides used with herbicide-resistant transgenic crops, such
as glufosinate(36)Novartis' Basta) and glyphosate(37) (Monsanto's Roundup) destroy
plants indiscriminately, many of which are habitats for wild-life. They are toxic to
animals and human beings. Glufosinate also causes birth defects and glyphosate is mutagenic.(38) Yet, the
European Commission has approved 4 transgenic crops which are resistant to these toxic herbicides.(39)
- Resistant transgenic plants can become weeds themselves or cross-pollinate with wild-relatives, creating
resistant weeds.(40)
- Food plants are now being engineered to produce industrial chemicals and
pharmaceuticals. These will surely cross-pollinate and contaminate our food supply for
years to come.(2)
- Transgenic plants with insecticidal genes not only harm beneficial species directly, but also indirectly down
the food chain, such as lacewings and ladybird eating prey that have fed on transgenic plants.(42,42) In a field trial of
Bt-cotton in Thailand, 30% of the bees around the test-fields died.(43)
- Transgenic crops with insecticidal genes or herbicide resistance genes actually favour the evolution of
resistances.(8)In other words, they exacerbate the problem they are supposed to solve.
Pesticide resistance, a major and persistent problem in intensive agriculture, has
become a textbook example of the supposed power of natural selection to increase rare
random mutations. That is a myth. In reality, pesticide resistance turns out to be a classic
case of feedback regulation in the ecology of genes of the new genetics. It is due to
genetic changes that can occur in most, if not all individuals in pest populations in
response to sublethal levels of pesticide. They do not have to wait for rare random
mutations. This has been known for more than 10 years. The genetic changes are part and
parcel of the physiological mechanisms common to all cells challenged with toxic
substances, including anti-cancer drugs in mammalian cells or antibiotics in bacteria.(8,9) Similarly,
resistance to herbicides readily arises in plants exposed to the herbicides.(44)So, using herbicides with
resistant transgenic plants will also hasten the wide-spread evolution of herbicide tolerance among weeds,
even in the absence of cross-pollination.
For all those reasons, agricultural biotechnology is a bad investment which will kill off
all the wild-life, until nothing is left but pests and weeds. So much for the supposed
benefits of biotechnology in food and agriculture. What about human genetics and
medicine?

Da Food Prices Good DA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Da Food Prices Good DA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NORTHWESTERN 8 ZAREFSKY SCHOLARS

HIGH FOOD PRICES GOOD LAURA/JUSTIN

Industrial Agriculture: 1NC Shell........................................................................3

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 1

Biotech/Famine I/L Ext (GM yield necessary to provide adequate food).....48

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 2

Industrial Agriculture: 1NC Shell

Impact: Corporations are violently exploiting third world countries by extending

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 3

Industrial Agriculture: 1NC Shell

farmers have been replaced by large, specialized production

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 4

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 5

Industrial Agriculture: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices=local

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 6

Industrial Agriculture: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices=local

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 7

Subsidies: 1NC Shell

Joshua Zumbrun 07.21.08, (contributor to forbes.com)1:30 PM ET , “Food On The

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 8

Subsidies: 1NC Shell

Bitondo, 2003. “Agricultural subsidies hurt world, US,” Mike-contributing author

Eliminating subsidies would be extremely beneficial to U.S. consumers because it would

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 9

Subsidies: 1NC Shell

Mumia Abu-Jamal, Activist and Prisoner, A QUIET AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 10

Subsidies: Uniqueness Ext

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 11

Subsidies: I/L Ext (fight rural poverty, combat US deficit)

Bitondo, 2003. “Agricultural subsidies hurt world, US,” Mike-contributing author

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 12

Green Revolution: 1NC Shell

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 13

Green Revolution: 1NC Shell

2. Lower food prices will cause organizations to withhold investments, preventing a

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 14

Green Revolution: 1NC Shell

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 15

Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more

Africa News June 24, 2008. “Uganda; High Food Prices an

Dr Jurgen Zattler, the Deputy Director General Multilateral and European

Emmanuel K. Dogbevi (contributor to Ghana News Today.com) 2008“The biofuel

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 16

Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more

Perege Gumbo 29 May 2008, ippmedia.com

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 17

Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more

Experts call for a biotechnological “Green Revolution” to combat famine and

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 18

Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more

High food prices allow African farmers to increase their

Catholic Information Service for Africa, May 4, 2008. “Africa;

High food prices provide Ghanaians the opportunity to profit.

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 19

have a unique one-time opportunity to develop our agricultural

Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more

High food prices around the world are giving farmers in

africa.reuters.com, 7/10/2008, http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=25266

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 20

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 21

Green Revolution: Uniqueness Ext (High food prices = more

“If you like piña coladas”-Spreeder 22