All my friends in Bozeman get the Patagonia catalogue and I love their

products. For when it comes to design, quality, and satisfaction guaranteed,

Patagonia sets the standard.

Patagonia displays a strong environmental commitment. Since 1985, it has

donated 10 percent of annual profits (or 1 percent of sales, whichever is

greater) to hundreds of environmental groups. It is a pioneer in efforts to

reduce the ecological "footprint"of its products.

However, Patagonia recently began a misguided campaign against genetically

modified organisms (GMOs). It claims genetic engineering of crops and trees

threatens global biological diversity and harms the environment. Company

founder Yvon Chouinard recently wrote an article titled, "What Does a

Clothing Company Know about Genetic Engineering?" The answer is, not nearly

enough.

By joining Greenpeace and other neo-Luddite groups, Patagonia contributes to

a campaign of misinformation that could be disastrous. The poor and the

environment in the developing world will suffer most. Here's why:

While we should not ignore the potential risks of biotechnology, it is not

voodoo. Genetic modification of crops at the molecular level is the latest

step in our desire and ability to improve human welfare.

Beginning in Neolithic times, people have harnessed and improved

agricultural techniques. Every scientific advance involves the risk of

unintended consequences. But there are also risks of rejecting technology.

Here are some.

Critics who profess concern for the poor and the environment must answer the

question, "What would the world have been like if we had frozen technology?"

The Green Revolution of the 1960s (i.e., the use of selectively bred crops,

and wide application of inorganic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides)

saved perhaps a billion people from starving. By dramatically increasing

crop yields, it also saved millions of acres of wildlands from being

cleared. Here's a point to consider: If wheat farmers in India allowed

yields to fall back to their level in 1960, to sustain the present harvest

they would need to clear an additional area larger than the size of Iowa,

Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio combined.

Advances in agriculture increase land productivity. Modern farmers are now

so productive that land needed for agriculture is shrinking, even as the

population grows and people eat more and better. For example: In 1960, U.S.

production of major agricultural crops was 252 million tons; by 1999 it had

increased to 700 million on 10 million fewer acres of land.

The facts are indisputable: Low yields squander land, high yields spare it.

Only politically driven governmental polices will reverse this trend.

The application of biotechnology to trees offers similar benefits for native

and old-growth forests. At projected planting rates, at least half the

world's wood and fiber supply could come from bioengineered plantations by

the year 2050.

Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University notes, "An industry that draws from

planted forests rather than cutting from the wild will disturb only

one-fifth or less of the area for the same volume of wood. Instead of

logging half the world's forests, humanity can leave almost 90 percent of

them minimally disturbed. And many new tree plantations are established on

abandoned croplands, which are already abundant and accessible."

Many of my same Bozeman friends prefer "organic" foods. Rich nations can

afford to pay more for organically grown produce. But organic farming will

neither feed the world nor save the environment. Low-yield "sustainable"

agriculture works only for very small populations, i.e., in societies with

high death rates. And thankfully, mortality rates are everywhere declining.

The world's 1 billion chronically poor and hungry can't afford this luxury.

Their hope for food security lies in leaving obsolete farming technology

behind.

It took 10,000 years to expand food production to current levels. To feed

the world in 2025 requires doubling this level. This can only be

accomplished by providing the world's farmers access to technology and

high-yielding, genetically engineered crops. Without these tools, the

developing world will experience tens of millions more undernourished

children--‹even after it clears millions of acres worth of wildlife habitat

for additional cropland.

The realities of feeding a growing world population are as immutable as

those for designing carabiners. However, producing a bad batch of carabiners

may kill a few people. But bad ag policy will kill tens, maybe hundreds, of

millions.