My initial reaction is I don't think there's one magic bullet. I think science and technology offer us many options, and all of those options should be evaluated, and they should be measured on their safety, on their responsiveness to the market place, on increasing the quality, and on what people really need: healthier, safer food.
So when I look at that...let me give you the example of China and India, two countries we work fairly closely with in our research. China has increased its rapeseed--we call it canola--production by 100% since the late 1970s. It did not use GM technology, but it feels it has reached a limit. It is now looking at a 70% increase in its oil production over the next 20 years, and it still imports. It cannot produce enough to meet all of its own demand. In India it is the same thing. So both countries are looking at GM technology simply because of the speed.
The question is picking the right technology given the time we have to produce that. As I said, some GM technologies will make things quicker and faster. Sometimes you can use non-GM approaches. As I said, I think with improvements in wheat variety, significant gains can be made without GM technology, but GM technology might add another level. So you really have to look at the factor of time, and time is not on our side when you're looking at the kinds of demands and the pressures that are placed on the world's food supply.
It's a complex issue. In India it's not only about how much it produces on an acre; its biggest issue is spoilage after harvest. It has other issues it has to resolve. It's also working on improving its productivity. I think when you see countries like China and India that have taken advantage of all of the traditional breeding tools and technologies and are still looking at GM, you get your answer there.
You can look at our situation with pulse growers and people like that who have been very successful. Pulse has grown its market, but its productivity has not increased. They've been using very successful traditional breeding methods, but they need to take it to another level, so they will bring ag biotech in. They're not pursuing GM just yet, but I think again it depends on the demand and the timeframes in which you have to respond. So I wouldn't throw out one important tool without understanding the implications of that and fully understanding the time you need to take that. GM crops have been in existence for 13 years, and there have been a lot more success stories than failures. I think if you look at the arguments of economic and social benefits that have been derived by India and China, the environmental impact--the amount of reduction in chemicals used in those countries--is phenomenal because of GM technologies.