In Asia, progress is being made to improve the responsible use of crop protection products or pesticides. But while immense progress is being made to ensure farmers use products responsibly there is still plenty of work to be done.

In the heart of Southeast Asia, Thailand is an excellent example of what can be achieved when different organisations come together for the common good of raising safety standards among farmers.

It was revealed in a survey that Thailand had a particular challenge with the re-use of empty containers among farmers, along with a need for big improvements to the premises of local formulators and retailers..

Thailand presented a tough challenge given its fragmented agricultural community. If a CropLife stewardship campaign was to succeed in improving standards it would need buy-in from strategic partners such as the government, retailers and the nation’s farmers.

And this is exactly what happened. Senior government officials became involved along with strong support from the Royal Thai projects to get the campaign’s objectives across, improve safety levels while improving crop production methods.

Thailand’s story highlights how vitally important it is to build partnerships with national and local governments, NGOs and other organisations if an initiative aimed at educating farmers is going to succeed.

When everyone is on the same page, positive progress can be achieved. But it’s still a monumental task to get all different parties involved and moving in the same direction. Despite the coordination challenges, the results speak for themselves.

Senior government officials recognised that retailer training was the best way to get safety messages across to farmers and scored big wins in raising awareness. And the government helped by producing bright and colourful comics and notebooks which conveyed safety messages in a fun and entertaining way.

As a result, farmer training methods have improved dramatically and pesticides are now used in a much more responsible manner.

However, the industry cannot afford to rest on the laurels despite having seen some impressive improvements in Thailand and across the region. Training needs to be on-going and practices need to be constantly monitored to make sure standards are maintained. Effectively, behaviours have to change and that takes time to embed.

Training programmes have proved themselves to be a valuable tool in responsible use campaigns. They encourage participation which is arguably the best way to learn, leading to behavioural change. They are also useful when involving other stakeholders to help increase the effectiveness and outreach of any campaign.

While Asia is behind the curve compared with some regions, there are some exciting programmes currently taking place across Asia, including projects in Malaysia and India, designed to further improve the responsible use of crop protection products. .

They are part of CropLife Asia’s Responsible Use Initiatives which reach out to millions of farmers every year via a host of different media. Programmes have been running for more than 15 years and new lessons are learned all the time on the most effective way to engage the key stakeholders.

Training the trainers is a cornerstone of these programmes and will continue to be part of our sustained efforts to improve responsible use of pesticides across the region, and the world.

Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.

Do judges know better than mothers what their children should eat?

In the Philippines, apparently they do. Or at least they think they do.

Last month, my country’s Court of Appeals stopped field tests on genetically modified eggplants—crops that I would happily feed my own children and grandchildren.

We’ve been eating GM crops for years. I grow them on my farm in San Jacinto during the dry season. They’re such excellent crops that I plant them on the 12 hectares that I own and also rent an additional 3.5 hectares.

I’ve also grown eggplants. They’re the leading vegetable crop in the Philippines, where we call them talong. They come in many shapes and colors, from elongated or rounded to purple, violet, or green. Some even have white stripes.

Mothers like me can cook talong a hundred different ways, but one of everybody’s favorite dishes is called pinakbet. Talong is a main ingredient, along with other vegetables as well as fish or shrimp, all stirred together in a hot and delicious mix.

If you were to ask Filipinos to pick their favorite Filipino plate, pinakbet probably would win the contest.

I’m very concerned that the judges have ruled against a technology that would make it easier for farmers to grow talong and mothers to feed it to their children.

If their decision had been based in sound scientific reasoning, then it would make sense and be accepted. Farmers don’t want to hurt the environment and mothers don’t want to feed harmful food to their children.

But the ruling had nothing to do with science. The judges simply reacted to the lies of activist groups such as Greenpeace, whose well-fed leaders never have to wonder about their next meal.

Biotechnology is widely accepted around the world, where farmers have harvested more than 3.5 billion acres of it over the last 20 years.

A few of those acres have been mine. I started growing GM crops shortly after the death of my husband. They helped me get my life back together and gave me the financial means to send my children to school.

They also put food on the table. I mean this both figuratively and literally because in my home we eat what we grow—and our GM corn uses exactly the same pest-fighting technology that the Court of Appeals just rejected for talong.

This is ridiculous. How can a trait be acceptable in one crop but not in another?

My personal experience demonstrates what scientists all over the world have said: GM crops are a safe and proven option. That’s what the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and many other groups have proclaimed, along with the National Academy of Science of Technology here in the Philippines.

One of the latest voices to endorse GM food is Michael Purugganan, a Filipino who is the dean of science at New York University, a preeminent university in the United States.

“When it comes to GM technology, [critics] ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus on the safety of GMO crops,” he wrote in GMA News Online, responding to last month’s ruling. “Meanwhile, here in the U.S., I will eat GMO tortilla chips and eat GMO tofu. I hope to one day taste GMO pinakbet. And I do so fully aware that I have nothing to worry about.”

I’ll take it a step further. Biotech crops aren’t merely just okay to eat. They’re actually better than non-biotech crops. They allow us to grow more food on less land, making them tools of conservation and sustainable agriculture. They also improve the health of farmers because they don’t require additional pesticide applications, which can be hazardous to the people who apply them directly to crops.

With its unfortunate decision, the Court of Appeals has hurt the international reputation of the Philippines, which now may be viewed as a foe of progress and technology. More importantly, it has hurt the prospects of ordinary Filipinos, from farmers who struggle to make a living to mothers who simply want safe and affordable ways to feed their children.

Rosalie Ellasus is a first-generation farmer, growing corn and rice in San Jacinto, Philippines.  Rosalie allows her farm to be used as a demonstration plot for smallholder farmers to visit and learn from.  She is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network

A tall order judging by recent comments from The Mary Robinson Foundation at a Dublin conference in mid-April in which the advocacy group presented research on the challenges linked to feeding the world due to climate change. They claim agricultural production will need to increase by 60% just to meet the growing demand between now and 2050.

The advocacy group added that over the next 40 years climate change, water scarcity and land degradation could reduce food production by one quarter, leading to increased numbers of food insecure people with those in the poorest countries most acutely affected.

Malthusianism-like? Perhaps. Certainly the statistics have certainly captured the imagination of policymakers, politicians, scientists and industry. And rightly so, as ignoring them could have dire consequences for future generations. It’s why these folks continue to frame the conundrum around food security and part of the solution is to enhance food production through new technologies and agriculture practices.

But increasing production isn’t without its challenges from a practical, conceptual, philosophical and ideological perspective. It’s no surprise there are continual attempts to reframe the debate and this is more apparent from a wider political and economic context, such as with the ‘food sovereignty’ which has gained traction in Asia.

Whereas food security refers to the access, availability, sufficient quantity and quality of food for citizens, food sovereignty’s common definition is the ‘rights  of peoples, communities, and countries to define their own agricultural, labour, fishing, food and land policies, which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances. It includes the true right to food and to produce food, which means that all people have the right to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food and to food producing resources and the ability to sustain themselves and their societies’.

It’s a mouthful. So in short, it is a framework that inherently grants people and governments the right to determine their policies on food and agriculture and is effectively a means towards attaining food security. Historically, it is seen as a policy framework targeting globalization (and supporters such as WTO, World Bank and IMF) and particularly agriculture which is used by groups such as the international farmers’ movement, La Vie Campensina, in their global advocacy work and across Asia.

Food sovereignty has crept up the political agenda in Indonesia and is used as part the country’s policy for the Food Law. Why? It’s been attributed to a political reaction to worsening inequality despite a decrease in poverty, the scourge of malnutrition, volatile international food prices, and concerns about a market concentration in the food system.

The food sovereignty policy has already had an impact: that is to negate trade rather than promoting the formulation of trade policies that serve the rights of people through food that is affordable and sustainable for society. It remains to be seen the full extent of the policy towards agriculture but the food sovereignty model need not be at odds with trade openness.

There are many policy paths to ensuring food security.

Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.