Global Farmer Roundtable 2008: Farmers Find Networking

1. Technology Access:
Discussions Set Path
for
Advancing Farmer Interests
A White Paper on the
3rd Annual
Global Farmer Roundtable-2008
Hosted by
Truth About Trade and Technology
Authors: Reg Clause and Dal Grooms
December 2008

3. Technology Access: Discussions Set Path
for Advancing Farmer Interests
Global Farmer Roundtable 2008: Farmers Find Networking
Executive Summary
There are many ideas and issues that will be discussed if you put 20
farmers from around the world into one room. But there are three
common themes that came up in October 2008 at a Global Farmer
Roundtable held in Des Moines, Iowa, USA. The Roundtable was
sponsored by Truth About Trade and Technology, a nonprofit group
promoting free trade and agricultural biotechnology through farmer-
led efforts. The farmers, who came from 19 countries located on six
continents, consistently spoke of ideas that came under three themes.
1. The farmers highly value the opportunity to share their
ideas and experiences with other farmers. Through face-to-
face contact and conversation they establish trust and respect,
and seek counsel from those like-minded farmers who face
similar challenges in production agriculture and trade issues.
Although their production methods, crops and farm sizes can
vary greatly, they find commonalities in their efforts to a)
increase their production in a sustainable way, b) find access to
a marketplace that will reward them, and c) earn respect from
non-farmers for their knowledge and work.
2. The farmers identify that biotechnology access is one
of the top technology assets that can increase their
countries’ agricultural productivity while providing other
desirable benefits. Biotechnology may not be the top
technology priority identified by each farmer from the
participating countries, but it was always named as one of the
top three technology issues that could aid farmers. That opinion
is shared by farmers in both developed and developing
countries, and across all ranges of farm operations and crops.
Over and over, the farmers noted that higher productive output
from existing resources and inputs is biotechnology’s promise. A
promise that has proven to be true.
i

4. Production yields are not the only consideration these farmers
have when speaking of productivity. They also consider
economic and natural resource sustainability. Those issues
include reduced costs for pest control, respectable yield
capabilities under production stresses caused by weather and
pests, and limited use of chemical exposure to the environment.
Many farmers also point to biotechnology as an innovation that
has opened up local economic opportunity for young people.
The technology has increased the economic return on farming,
and that has been a factor for people staying on the land rather
than moving to the city for jobs. Local profitable business
opportunities have shown time and again to strengthen
communities and families.
3. The farmers feel their expertise and knowledge about
the science of production agriculture is not respected.
Scientifically unsubstantiated claims that prey upon people’s
fears have led to rules and regulations that impact the
productivity of farmers, their economic viability, and their ability
to attract younger generations to farming. Such outcomes can
depict farmers as poor or uneducated business operators. This
puts farmers at a great disadvantage when political decisions are
being made about their businesses.
Farmers are well aware of the large funding and communications
networks available to the worldwide organizations which oppose
biotechnology. As individuals, they feel unable to compete in the
world of ideas. However, as they meet like-minded farmers from
other parts of the globe who can share their strategies and
experiences in changing political opinion, the farmers feel
hopeful, proud and empowered to enter that arena.
The white paper that follows gives specific examples of these themes.
This was the third year that the Roundtable was held in the U.S., and
the themes noted in this Executive Summary have been repeated each
year.
The farmers that leave the meetings are excited about creating
opportunities to improve agriculture’s part in creating secure food
systems in sustainable environments. However, much work needs to
be done to create more depth in their local and country-wide networks
ii

5. and develop capacity to act. Truth About Trade & Technology is asking
for support to deliver that outcome through the five points that follow.
Strategic Action Needed
• Cross-pollinate technology information across the globe with
farmer-to-farmer efforts. Information should focus on ways to
increase yields and profitability, while keeping environmental
stewardship in the forefront.
• Establish a global communications network that provides moral
support and advice as farmers tackle efforts that would block
their access to technology.
• Change the political climate for technology use by farmers.
• Find solutions to the barriers that keep science researchers from
sharing positive news about technology developments as it
applies to crop production.
• Replicate Roundtable events in other areas of the world to
further identify committed farmers interested in implementing
these strategies.
iii

6. Technology Access: Discussions Set Path
for Advancing Farmer Interests
Global Farmer Roundtable 2008: Farmers Find Networking
It was easier to enumerate the differences than the similarities of the
20 farmers who gathered at a global roundtable in Des Moines, Iowa,
USA in October 2008. But as they shared those differences … cultures,
crops, farm size, growing conditions and native languages … they
recognized their similarities … passion for production and an
understanding that non-scientific policies are limiting each in their
endeavors.
They agreed to come to the two days of the Global Farmer-to-Farmer
Roundtable hosted by Truth about Trade and Technology to share their
stories. But as they heard their own voices in the context of how
progress for production agriculture starts in one field, in one province,
or in one state, they began to recognize that they are the leaders who
can bring change locally. As the attendee from Australia observed,
“My story has more relevance than I thought.”
Opportunities for the farmers to practice their leadership at a global
level and see the strength of their network were immediately available
since the Roundtable coincided with the Norman E. Borlaug
International Symposium of the World Food Prize. Roundtable
participants were positioned to be part of panel presentations, as well
as ask questions from the farmer’s point-of-view to renowned
international researchers and policymakers.
The Roundtable attendees were invited to the United States because
others had recognized their leadership talents. For most, though, they
had never ventured down a path where they had to use that skill on
the world stage. Their experiences in Des Moines have now moved
many of these farmers to begin taking action to tackle policy issues
that hold farmer productivity back.
Roundtable Participants
Roundtable participants came from very different backgrounds (six
continents are represented) and represented a range of farm
production and size. (Appendix A includes a world map of their
locations plus brief descriptions of the farming operations.) The group
produces 30 different crops and raises a variety of livestock. Their
4

7. farm operations range from very small amounts of farmland (7.5
hectares or Ha.) to extremely large (25,000 Ha).
Demographically, the group included 3 women and 17 men. The age of
participants ranged from 24 years to mid/late 60s. Average age was
45. This is younger than the average age of farmers in developed
countries (reported to be 55-57 years).
They were invited to participate in the Roundtable based on 1) their
propensity to engage in technology; 2) a demonstration of leadership;
and 3) their activity in local networks.
Members of the group have also received education beyond the
secondary level. Such a group might be expected to embrace change
and express progressive attitudes toward agronomic practices.
Methodology
This document will review results from discussions at the two
roundtable sessions as well as individual surveys completed by
participants near the end of their stay.
Discussions during the Global Farmer Roundtable were led by highly
qualified facilitators with experience not only in academic and
institutional work, but who also had practical on-the-ground
experiences in agriculture. The primary facilitator was Dr. Robert
Thompson, who is currently the Gardner Endowed Chair in Agricultural
Policy, University of Illinois--Urbana/Champaign. (More about Dr.
Thompson and guest facilitator Dr. Pedro Sanchez are included in
another section of this paper.)
The facilitators ensured participation by all roundtable members, and
kept discussions focused. General themes used to introduce
discussion topics were: Choices in using Technology; Access to
Technology; and Global Farmer Networks.
Although the compiled results of the discussion and survey are
summarized in this paper (Appendix B is a compilation of survey
responses), they should not be interpreted as statistically derived.
However, these are candid responses to specific discussion questions.
As such, the responses are representative of the population recruited.
Descriptors are used purposefully within the narrative to better define
5

8. the person quoted or paraphrased. (The participants had no
expectation of anonymity.)
Data capture was accomplished with audio recording, two on-site
recorders and a survey.
Economic Context
Any paper written about agriculture is a more complete picture when
we know the economic context of the time. Global economic
circumstances in 2008 can be modestly described as fluid. Shifting
trends in ag inputs and commodity prices became widely apparent in
the months leading up to the Roundtable, mostly as a result of the
development of biofuels.
Growing demand for biofuels in this decade changed equations in the
supply and demand of feed grains and oilseeds. Land use decisions
were shifting worldwide, and that affected capital flows. Food oils
from rape, canola, palm and corn were being directed
more heavily to biofuels. The fuel use demand was entirely new and
drawing on relatively static supplies of vegetable oil feedstocks.
Immediate results were felt across the globe since demand for cooking
oil now competed with demand for biofuels. The price shock was
manifested in processed foods. If this had been a single commodity
problem, perhaps farming decisions would shift and supplies would
have adjusted. But that was not the case. For one example, the price
of corn went from $70US per ton in October 2006 to $260 per ton in
July 2008.
The price changes were so dramatic and sudden that nearly all media
outlets ran stories on the subject of food supplies and cost. This
media play was part of a growing global debate which attempted to
sort out the growing concern about global agriculture’s ability to
supply many growing market needs.
By October 2008, when the Global Farmer Roundtable convened, the
markets had backed down to merely high levels, but the concern for
global supplies remained strident. What may have been overlooked
amid the growing concern for food supplies was that the price itself
was a manifestation of considerable speculative price inflation of all
commodities, chiefly crude oil. By late summer of 2008, air was
6

9. leaving the price inflation bubble in all commodities at a very rapid
rate.
But again, the momentum of concern for supplies remained substantial
and palpable within the discussions at the Global Farmer Roundtable
and the Borlaug Symposium. Food vs. Fuel was a real issue in the
public debate. The capacity to supply global demand for food and
feedstocks was clearly in doubt. It would be only weeks later that the
global economic crisis would become very public and all segments of
demand would start to contract.
Establishing a Framework
As mentioned earlier, facilitators who led discussions during the two
days the farmers met were well-qualified through their abilities to
apply on-the-ground practices even though they were well-recognized
for their academic and institutional work. Their experiences led to
three discussion areas: Choices in using Technology; Access to
Technology; and Global Farmer Networks.
Dr. Robert Thompson is acutely aware of ag policy, having worked on
a U.S. farm bill and General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT)
negotiations. He then saw the direct result of that policy on global
agriculture when he served as President and CEO of Winrock
International Institute for Agricultural Development. That’s a non-
profit which conducts projects in 40 countries. Its work focuses on
reducing poverty and hunger by increasing local ag production. This is
done with a keen eye to environmental protection. Following that, he
spent nearly 5 years at the World Bank, where he was the Director of
Rural Development and Senior Advisor for Ag Trade Policy.
Thompson offered some background and provocative statements to
engage Roundtable participants.
He pointed out the likely need for combining genetic modification with
classical breeding. If trends continue, by 2050 there will be 9 billion
people and world food demand will double since there is growing
affluence in some of the most populous countries in the world.
Population growth will account for 50% of increased demand, while
higher purchasing power accounts for the rest. Should biofuels use
continue to grow, Dr. Thompson said, there will be additional demands
on resources.
7

10. He said his experience at the World Bank showed him that those
opposed to scientifically developed farming inputs are a serious
constraint to the use of biotechnology and even fertilizer. Another
constraint he identified was water. With substantial amounts of land
still available worldwide for farm production, land in itself is not a
limitation.
His solution for doubling production and dealing with water issues was
using a combination of classical plant breeding and modern biology,
plus research. The development of drought-resistance in crops,
combined with proven agronomic practices, and converting some of
the available land areas to production may address both food and fuel
demands.
The roundtable was also favored with secondary facilitation provided
by 2002 World Food Prize Laureate, Dr. Pedro Sanchez. His schedule
allowed him to meet with the group for 90 minutes.
Dr. Sanchez is a noted agronomist and soil scientist for his work to restore fertility to
some of the world’s poorest and most degraded soils. His initial work in Peru and Brazil
developed non-productive lands into fields that impact the world markets.
Dr. Sanchez then expanded his work to agroforestry, which integrates crop and tree
cultivation. This work took him to Kenya, where he was Director-General of the
International Center for Research in Agroforestry. There, he showed that native rock
phosphate combined with nitrogen-fixing trees and bushes could bring low-cost and
comprehensive soil rejuvenation to eastern and southern Africa. Farmers who use these
methods increase yields by as much as 400% and fare better in drought years since
organic matter is built up in the soils. In all cases, as Dr. Sanchez gave hope to those
farming marginal lands, he also worked to preserve delicate ecosystems.
Dr. Sanchez talked of success in Malawi where the government created
a program to directly subsidize farmers for the costs of fertilizer and
improved hybrid seeds. The results were staggering. Malawi went
from a 44% deficit in production to a 19% surplus in one year. The
following year saw a 30% increase, and 2008 will show a 50%
increase.
“Put the money directly into the farmers’ hands in the form of
improved seed and fertilizer just as Malawi did, and not to food aid.
Look at small irrigation projects that farmers can build, not huge
dams,” he said.
8

11. Framework Discussions
The remainder of this paper will reveal the discussions by the
Roundtable participants that led them to recognize their bonds with
farmers worldwide, and that those bonds could strengthen their efforts
to improve production not only on their own land, but on the farms of
their neighbors and countrymen.
Choices in Using Technology
Initial facilitated conversations focused on food security. The
participant from Argentina pointed out that discussions often point to
land and water as the two physical constraints on production.
“Perhaps we have overlooked a third,” he said, pointing to energy.
“Food production necessarily consumes energy in the course of all
activities. One solution for creating greater energy efficiency is to get
more annual production from the same land and the same energy
inputs.
Higher productive output from existing resources and inputs is often
the result of biotechnology use, said Roundtable participants who
talked about their experiences. They had production increases of
13-30% for corn when using GM (genetically modified) seeds, 14-26%
increases for soya, a 30% increase for wheat (which is not GM) when
grown in rotation with GM crops, and a 50% increase in canola
production. (See Appendix B.) Productivity growth through adoption
of technology was uniformly supported around the table.
Significant frustration was expressed repeatedly from the group that
the anti-technology forces were interfering with technology adoption at
a time when the need for production clearly exists and demand is
continually growing. The participant from Ireland said that “It is
politics, even more than government” that constrains biotechnology
adoption, especially in Africa. His view is that Europe’s environmental
movement is hindering Africa.
For example, European ministers have largely been against
biotechnology on the continent. This position then leads to African
governments refusing technology solutions for fear of losing the near-
by European export market, he said.
The young woman farmer from Canada said she was quite concerned
that education in the public sector was lacking in regards to
biotechnology. Her view was that much of North America and certain
other developed countries have no perspective on starvation. This has
9

12. led to a poorly balanced public debate on biotech. She sees too much
government meddling in this matter and believes technology will be
the answer to uplifting disadvantaged populations around the globe.
“Let the market decide,” she said. “But we need good market signals”
which are not influenced by naysayers trying to determine others’
fates.
The Uganda farmer pointed out the lack of information and
understanding that is affecting choice in his country. “Farmers are
traditionally saving their own seed. They need to be shown the
benefits of hybrid seed.”
The Irish farmer noted another twist that must be addressed through
farmer education. Many of his compatriots, he pointed out, are afraid
of high yields and the possibility of low prices. Initially this was a
concern among the U.S. farmers; said a farmer from that country.
However, the adoption of biotechnology in the U.S. is very high now,
which suggests the positive agronomic outcomes from the technology
have long overcome latent concerns for market price.
The Czech farmer said his colleagues in Eastern Europe are well aware
of biotechnology and its benefits, but now they can’t use it since their
countries joined the EU. The irony, he offered, is that farmers in the
EU are not well admired in their respective countries because of all the
subsidies. “Biotechnology,” he noted, “will reduce the need for
subsidies.”
Regulation and Public Trust
The farmer from Canada brought home an important point on the
regulatory front. She said, “Canada has lost regulatory trust.” This
was an important comment since it is also appears to be the case in
the EU.
Several EU farmers at the Roundtable felt EU ministers are now
showing a belated understanding that blocking new technology such as
biotech has led to the EU becoming far less competitive in agricultural
trade. The bigger problem now, they said, is the pervasive
misunderstanding that was created in the consumer public. Biotech
has been portrayed as a risky food safety problem for so long that it is
difficult to communicate new facts.
As the Italian said, “many people speak about agriculture whether they
know anything about it or not. And this is a big problem to
communicate the positives happening in food safety because of
10

13. technology.” He is quite frustrated that consumers seem to equate GM
with other food safety concerns.
The Irish farmer pointed out that EU studies continue to show there
are no health or environmental negatives with GM, so the evidence to
support farmers is building up. The problem, in his view, is a lack of
political leadership. The activist pressure has forced the issue one way
politically and the evidence is demanding a review and reversal.
However, he said, “academia is silent and great recent research out of
the University of Milan is being suppressed.”
The American farmer stated, “Science needs to step off the curb and
declare itself; instead of all these ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’.” This farmer was
frustrated that he doesn’t hear more forceful declaration of what the
research is showing. This has left consumers and politicians to assume
the preponderance of evidence is somehow still suspect. Lack of
leadership has weakened regulatory agencies in the debate.
Once doubt about the safety of biotechnology was embedded in the
consumers’ view, the attempt to prove food safety has become an
even bigger challenge.
That, stated the Canadian farmer, is what has happened in her county.
The Canadian
Wheat Board (a quasi governmental agency) is blocking access to
biotech wheat as a response to the retail and export market, rather
than acting on the scientific stance which supports the use and
benefits of biotechnology.
Are There Advantages to Biotech?
The motivations of the responding farmers for wanting to use GM seed
is that it would clearly increase their yields while cutting their inputs,
thereby making or at least keeping them competitive in the
marketplace.
The surveys filled out by Roundtable participants included a question
about yield results. Answers varied from no significant difference in
yield to 40% increases, with most seeing significant yield results. The
American farmer from North Dakota was realizing a 30% increase in
corn yields in an area well outside the U.S. Cornbelt. Bean yields were
up 14% and even the non-biotech wheat showed 20% to 30%
increases when rotated with the GM crops.
11

14. The farmer from the Czech Republic stated his corn silage yields
increased from 25 tons per Ha. to 35 tons. This is a dramatic increase
in biomass. The woman from Colombia had seen 12% yield increases
in corn. The Romanian farmer had seen 33%.
In the two days of the round table there was no negative discussion
regarding yields.
Quality improvements were also mentioned as well as the obvious
improvements to management of weeds and pests. In the
discussions, it was pointed out several times that farmers could use far
fewer chemicals with biotech seeds and achieve superior results than
sticking with traditional hybrid seed. In biotech cotton and corn, the
chemical use reduction is dramatic. All the farmers at the Roundtable
believed this was important even if yields hadn’t been higher. Cotton
farmers have seen the reduction in spraying the most dramatically.
That, plus huge yield increases have driven adoption of Bt cotton in
India.
Keep in mind that these participants were all farmers. Thus the
discussion did not focus on consumer/end user markets. Many
participants mentioned the need for consumer traits, but their main
competence and interests were clearly in the agronomic areas.
Even so, these farmers consistently expressed concern for reducing
environmental impacts while increasing yields. They also understood
the importance of reducing energy inputs relative to production
outputs. Improving energy use, water use and environmental impacts
are among the consumer/societal benefits that these farmers are
striving to generate through their choices in technology adoption.
Access to Technology
While some farmers may have their choice to use technology limited
by political issues, in other cases, the option is limited by other
barriers. Dr. Thompson pointed out that Africa has great capacity to
be self-sustaining once certain barriers are overcome. The African
participants gave a hearty ‘thumbs-up’ to that statement. As an
illustration of this possibility, the African continent currently has the
same acres in maize production as the U.S., but its maize yield is only
10% of U.S. production.
Even with a land advantage, the participant from Kenya expressed
concern for the loss of prime ag land to roads and houses. While the
loss of production may look minimal today, he pointed out that the
12

15. world will be greatly affected in the long-term as African farmers prove
their potential.
“Let the African farmer grow enough,” he said. “Technology transfer
and lack of information are the problem.” He felt that more African
farmer input was needed to help direct research. He says the time is
right because more people are choosing to move back to the villages.
They see opportunity.
His priorities for access were, “Expertise, GM technology and water.”
These will have the highest impact on yields, he said. He offered very
practical suggestions such as focusing GM research on land already in
production. His suggestions not tied to agronomics were to plan
programs for periods longer than one year at a time, and to direct
more education to girls.
Access to technology can also be thwarted by lack of profit. The
Portugal representative was adamant that in order to be profitable,
she needs access to all the technical tools from precision farming to
GM seeds.
Echoing the profit theme were the farmers from Romania, Czech
Republic and Hungary. Each in turn emphasized the need for
information and technology in many forms. But, as the Romanian
stated, “with little money you get small results.”
The Mexico farmer entered the discussion saying that, “biotechnology
is a good opportunity” for his country. But Mexico must figure out how
to get water to the crop.
He stated, “At this time the U.S. produces corn more cheaply, but that
is because of productivity.” He felt this could change if Mexican
farmers were able to take advantage of technical improvements such
as drought-tolerant and nitrogen-fixing corn.
Other possibilities of biotechnology development were brought up in
the discussion. For example, the Australian farmer hoped for frost
tolerant wheat to be developed through GM. He stated that only a
two-degree Celsius improvement in frost tolerance could allow for
earlier planting dates to help that crop avoid heat stress at head filling.
He felt they could double yields on average with this one trait.
Drought tolerance as a GM trait was the most referenced new trait on
the surveys. During the discussion, Dr. Thompson told the group that
agriculture uses 70% of the world’s annual fresh water supply.
13

16. Pressures have already come to bear on where crops will be grown and
who will get the water.
Scale Neutral Technology
A key finding to emerge around access was the notion that GM is a
“scale neutral technology.” This group was highly diverse in the size
of farm operations, yet producers rated GM as the technology that
provided the best return for a farmer’s investment. The India
participant noted that even small farmers can see a large enough
improvement in yields that they don’t look for off-farm jobs. “Because
of the scale neutrality of BT cotton, the acceptance there has been
huge. It is keeping young people on the farm instead of going to the
factory. This is a big shift.”
Availability and Price
While access was discussed largely in a political/policy realm, there are
other issues as well. The question of price of biotech seeds was
explored in the survey. Within this small group, the results showed six
saying price is a constraint; and nine saying price was not a constraint
and the other three not applicable. Of interest within this sample were
the African participants. One suggested that price was not a strong
issue and the other said it was, but qualified this by saying the lack of
availability of seed was more important as an access constraint.
Seed availability is a problem in India according to the farmer
participant. The Honduran farmer was concerned that adapted
varieties were not yet available to them.
The price of the technology is not a key issue for farmers in developed
countries, but they do watch the costs so they don’t exceed benefits.
Germany, for example, was represented by a young farmer near
Brandenburg. His entire crop goes to a biomass energy process on his
farm and he is allowed to use specific ‘Bt’ varieties. Without these
varieties, he stated his production would be 30% to 40% less due to
corn borers. Even so, he was sensitive to the higher costs of using
biotech seeds. In a sidebar conversation this farmer stated that some
producers in Germany don’t have the corn borer so he feels at some
disadvantage. This made cost an issue for him.
The American farmer also noted that price was getting so high that he
detects some resistance from farmers is surfacing.
14

17. Spain has severe corn borer problems in some regions, but the farmer
from Spain did not see price as a problem since farmers were using Bt
only where needed.
Clearly these farmers knew that all technology was important to
farming. Other types of technology that rated highly were
mechanization, irrigation, and information technology. These
individuals are looking at a comprehensive picture as they make their
individual strategic decisions.
When asked on the survey which technology gives the best return for
the money, GM seed ranked highest among a competitive group of
choices. But it was not the highest choice for all farmers. In some
cases, the first technology they would seek is better fertilization.
Other farmers see irrigation as the breakthrough technology. In this
case, built-in drought tolerance would elevate biotech seeds in the
ranking given by the farmers. Still others view mechanization and
information technology as very important.
Global Farmer Networks.
As discussion on technology access concluded, Dr. Thompson again
challenged the group with the proposition that food supply needs
would double in coming years. The discussion again acknowledged
production demand pressures for biofuels as a part of the challenge
equation. So the question was posed, “What are the things you need
to get access to technology?”
The immediate response from the Argentine participant was,
“Technology freedom needs communication. There needs to be a
global openness of communication.” He went on to call for a global
network to stimulate this communication. He has seen a trend of
young people coming back to the farm, especially in the past two
years. His idea was, “We must create communication to stimulate
young farmers to push the politicians.”
Facilitator Thompson pointed out that anti-technology groups seem
masterful in use of the Internet. His question was, “What does it take
to reach communication parity?”
Response from the Irish participant was budget. “The Friends of the
Earth budget in the UK alone is 24 million pounds sterling.” (This is
approximately $35 million U.S.) The group acknowledged that the
money advantage is symptomatic of the communication advantage.
15

18. The woman farmer from Portugal made a strong statement for a global
network to help other farmers make informed choices and step up a
drum beat against the European media’s stranglehold on public opinion
about biotechnology. Her view is that “Farmers trust farmers. We
experience the same experiences. We need to say we are together on
this.” Her discussion input had shown she strongly supports various
technologies including precision agriculture, but this quote clearly
targeted biotechnology.
The U.S. farmer suggested using the high credibility of farmers as a
way to offset dollars spent on messaging. This comment was
countered by the European farmers and the farmer from Kenya who
said that in their regions the farmer’s credibility was not good at all.
This exchange seemed to underline the need for broader cooperation
in communication modes, methods and information.
The Australian farmer pointed out how fragile the grower/commodity
associations can be in pushing communications agendas. Their
funding supports structure and policy development, but makes them
poor vehicles for a global network concerned with access and choice.
The Australian participant had been particularly active and successful
in pushing back pressure led by an EU group to ban all agricultural
biotechnology in his country. He pointed out that the success was due
to a committed group of farmers that countered anti-GM rhetoric with
their own messages. Initially, the anti-technology groups had been
winning the day. He stated, “Until the farmers stepped up, the
ministers had no reason to go against the prevailing pressure.” Once
a strong push was created in favor of access to technology, the
Australian lawmakers were able to weigh a proper decision that utilized
science, market demand and empirical evidence.
Again, the discussion buoyed the concept of a global farmer network
supporting efforts to open up access to technology. As the
conversation developed it seemed evident to all that farmers are truly
in a global market environment. Freedom of choice and access are
being constrained by extraordinary political forces.
The Italian farmer pointed out in his country and indeed in the EU that
it is the consumer advocacy groups that have persuaded the consumer
to believe untruths about these technologies. Since farmers failed to
step up, the debate was one-sided. He had been to parliament and
was informed by a minister that he was the first actual farmer to lobby
16

19. for technology in the three years this minister had been on the job.
The clear point being made was that farmers were not telling their
story. Many agreed that while the anti-tech groups can muster fifty
thousand emails in an instant, farmers are often not organized to
balance the debate.
Conclusions
The discussion held by the farmers at the Global Roundtable led them
to some very clear points. The identified communications and politics
as key leverage points where they can make a difference when they
work together. They also recognized that farmers are not globally
respected. While the perception of farmers is high in some countries;
in others, farmers are not in a respected occupation.
Public trust in science has been “grayed” by the mixed messages
delivered by farmers and anti-technology interests. The scientific
community must speak up clearly and consistently about their findings
regarding technology and agriculture. No group is well-served when
political interest squash information.
Strategic Action Needed
• Cross-pollinate technology information across the globe with
farmer-to-farmer efforts. Information should focus on ways to
increase yields and profitability, while keeping environmental
stewardship in the forefront.
• Establish a global communications network that provides moral
support and advice as farmers tackle efforts that would block
their access to technology.
• Change the political climate for technology use by farmers.
• Find solutions to the barriers that keep science researchers from
sharing positive news about technology developments as it
applies to crop production.
• Replicate Roundtable events in other areas of the world to
further develop plans for implementing strategies.
17

20. Appendix A
2008 Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Roundtable Participants
Country Name Farm Operation – Crops only Age
Enrique 80 Ha
Argentina 56
Duhau Corn Soybeans Sunflower Wheat
Jeff 5000 ha
Australia
Bidstrup Cotton Wheat Sorghum Chickpeas
Sergio Luis 25,000 Ha
Brazil
Bortolozzo Soybeans Corn Sugarcane Eucalyptus
Cherilyn 3,340 Ha
Canada
Jolly-Nagel Wheat Canola
Angela
200 Ha
Maria
Colombia 44
Cabal
White Corn
Barona
7,918 Ha (Farm Cooperative)
Czech Stepan Maize
Winter Malting Winter Sugar 30
Republic Cizek Rape for Sunflowers Mustard
Wheat Barley Barley Beets
Silage
Oliver 500 Ha
Germany 40
Ransmann Maize Rye
Roger
125 Ha
Edgardo
Honduras 61
Padilla
Sorghum Corn
Ramirez
Csaba 25,000 Ha
Hungary 24
Machaty Corn Wheat Sunflower Soyabean Rape
Mekala 11 Ha
India Velangan 38
Reddy Cotton Chilies Maize Paddy
18

21. Jim 729 Ha
Ireland
McCarthy Wheat Barley Rape
Giuseppe 600 Ha
Italy 44
Elias Corn Wheat
7.5 Ha
Alfred
Kenya Short Season 51
Nderitu Banana Basmati Rice Mango
Horticultural corps
Ruben
Mexico 47
Chavez
Maria 500 Ha
Portugal Gabriela Durum
Cruz Maize Soft Wheat Barley Green Peas
Wheat
Velentin 450 Ha
Romania
Petrosu Vegetable Seed and Grain Seed Production
Jose‛ Luis 400 Ha
Spain Romeo 44
Martin‛ Sorghum Sunflowers Wheat Barley Alfalfa Peas Soybeans Corn
Bruno 162 Ha
Uganda Bakasembe 65
Matovu Maize
United
Al Skogen Wheat Soybeans Corn
States
United 1,822 Ha
Bill Horan
States Corn Soybeans
19

22. Appendix B
Survey Results of Roundtable Participants
Decrease
Be Improved
inputs,
economically pest/weed
chemical
competitive control
exposure
Main reason to use GM crops 19 11 3
Types of GM crops currently
grown Corn Soybeans Cotton Canola Bananas
Number of growers 9 4 3 2 1
Sugar Cane,
Eucalyptus, Alfalfa,
Lentils, Rye,
Canola, Nitrogen-
Which GM crops would you like Drought enhanced, Any-all
to grow? Corn Wheat tolerant Soybeans Rice Cotton Sorghum are now banned
Above choices
were named once
each in the
Number of growers 7 5 4 3 3 2 2 returned surveys
GM seed Not
not allowed by
Cost of seed available govt
Reasons not growing those
crops now? 0 10 12
20

23. Corn SB Cotton Wheat Canola
30%
13% - 2
when
20% - 2 14% - 1
grown in
30% - 4 20% - 1 38% -1 50% - 1
rotation
(Silage) 26% - 1
with GM
40%- 1
Yield advantage of GM crops - 1
Yes No
Are farmers discouraged from
using GM seed because of cost? 6 9
Other
Mech. Crop
GM seed Irrigation Info Tech GPS (sample
Equip Inputs
analysis)
Which technology gives you the
best return for your dollar? (A 2.05 2.33 2.33 2.44 2.5 2.55 2.94
score of 1 would indicate all responses
rated the technology highest.)
21

24. 2008 TATT Global Farmer to Farmer Roundtable
Participants representing 19 Countries and 6 Continents
22