Biotechnology Is the New Conventional

John Reifsteck, a Champaign Illinois soybean and corn farmer authored an editorial in response to the November 17 report by the Organic Center, the Union for Concerned Scientists and the Center for Food Safety.

 (John Reifsteck, a corn and soybean farmer in western Champaign County Illinois, is a Board Member of Truth About Trade and Technology.) 

Pasted below is the text of his editorial, along with links to the sources he references: 

Farming is a business. It’s my business.  Success requires sound business practices. That’s why I choose to plant GM corn and soybeans – and why I’m so appalled by a new activist-sponsored study that questions my ability to make sensible decisions for my own farm. 

Except that this isn’t even a “study.” To call it that is to insult the test-preparation methods of 10th graders who flunk biology mid-terms. The document issued on Tuesday [November 17, 2009] by three anti-biotech organizations – the Organic Center, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Center for Food Safety – is a collection of disputable facts and laughable assertions. 

The central allegation of these groups is that biotech crops are forcing U.S. farmers to use more pesticides. It claims that since 1996, herbicide use is 383 million pounds higher than it would be without GM crops and insecticide use is 64 million pounds lower, for a total increase of 318 million pounds. 

First of all, these figures don’t tell us much because not all crop protection products are equal. An ounce of one can be more dangerous than a pound of another, so measuring them as if they were all exactly the same is nonsense. Also, it’s possible to point to statistics that say the exact opposite. PG Economics Ltd., a well-regarded English consulting firm, recently issued its own findings and said that the use of pesticides on global biotech acreage has dropped almost 800 million pounds – or nearly 9 percent – during the same period.  

So which claim is more accurate? Maybe the best approach is to let third parties judge. As it happens, the U.S. Geological Survey has studied the environmental impact of pesticides for years. In specific, it has measured pesticide runoffs into rivers and streams. It doesn’t have a political agenda – just a scientific one. 

Here’s the title of the press release the USGS issued last week, to announce the results of its latest research: “Pesticide Levels Decline in Corn Belt Rivers.” 

It doesn’t take much to realize that this piece of welcome news trumps the hysterical accusations of biotech’s sworn enemies. 

The anti-biotech agitators are right about one thing: Weed resistance is a problem. But this was true long before biotechnology improved our weed-control methods. Just as bacteria can develop a resistance to antibiotics, weeds can develop a tolerance for sprays. Farming is all about adapting to change, and we’ve developed techniques for countering this phenomenon. One simple approach is to rotate crop protection products rather than relying on a single variety. 

Unfortunately, the agenda – driven foes of biotechnology don’t want to help farmers kill harmful weeds that steal moisture and nutrients, but rather to remove one of the best tools we have for protecting our crops. 

Their disconnection from reality is so profound that they claim “farmers are increasingly critical of GE crops.” Well, we’re all capable of grumbling about seed prices. But the notion that American farmers are beginning to have second thoughts about biotechnology is preposterous. According to federal statistics, the use of genetically-enhanced crops now includes 91 percent of soybeans, 88 percent of cotton, and 85 percent of corn. 

Near-universal acceptance is a strange way of expressing criticism. 

Observers sometimes make a distinction between biotech crops and “conventional” crops. When the adoption of biotechnology rises above the 85-percent mark, however, I think we have to reconsider these words. Biotechnology is the new conventional. 

This is a positive development because biotech crops are the bounty of safe and reliable technologies that deliver environmental and economic sustainability. They produce more yield on less land with lower production costs – and one of those lower production costs includes less dependence on pesticides. 

I can state this as a fact because I’ve farmed for 37 years. That’s another way of saying that I’ve spent my life battling bugs and weeds. I’ve used many different tools to protect my crops from destruction–everything from old-fashioned pesticides to new-fangled biotechnology. 

Based on my own personal experience – rather than the scare-tactic reports of people who have never laid eyes on my fields – I can say with absolute certainty that biotech crops have allowed me to reduce my pesticide applications. 

I know my business. I just wish there weren’t so many professional protesters trying to put me out of it. 

Hear more from John Reifstek in our BIODigest video on sustainable agriculture posted on our BIOtech Now website.  

 

How Biotechnology is Helping Farmers and the Environment

Did you know…Farmers who use biotech crops help reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices? In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year. 

In the light of ongoing world food security, agricultural sustainability and climate change debates, PG Economics has released three summary documents of the yield, income and environmental effects of biotech crops.  

The three summaries document the real contribution of biotech crops to; improving global crop yields, increasing production (and estimated contributions to food security), improving farm income and reducing the environment ‘footprint’ of agriculture.

Key impacts are:

• Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year;
   
• A reduction in pesticide spraying (1996-2007) of 359 million kg (equivalent to 125% of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union);
   
• There have been substantial net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $10.1 billion in 2007 and $44.1 billion for the twelve year period.   The farm income gains in 2007 is equivalent to adding 4.4% to the value of global production of the four main biotech crops of soybeans, corn, canola and cotton;
   
• Of the total farm income benefit, 46.5% ($20.5 billion) has been due to yield gains, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production;  
   
• Farmers in developing countries obtained the largest share of the farm income gains in 2007 (58%) and over the twelve year period obtained 50% of the total ($44.1 billion) gains.  Developing country farmers have also seen the largest increases in farm income on a per hectare basis from using the technology;
   
• Since 1996, biotech traits have added 67.8 million tonnes and 62.4 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and corn.  The technology has also contributed an extra 6.85 million tonnes of cotton lint and 4.44 million tonnes of canola;  
   
• The average yield gains across the global area planted to biotech insect resistant corn and cotton (1996-2007) were over 6% and 13% respectively.  The highest yield gains have been experienced by developing country farmers;
   
• The additional production arising from biotech crops (1996-2007) has contributed enough energy (in kcal terms) to feed about 402 million people for a year (additional production in 2007 contributed enough energy to feed 88 million, similar to the annual requirement of the population of the Philippines);
   
• If GM technology had not been available to the (12 million) farmers using the technology in 2007,  maintaining global production levels at the 2007 levels would have required additional plantings of 5.9 million ha of soybeans, 3 million ha of corn, 2.5 million ha of cotton and 0.3 million ha of canola.  This total area requirement is equivalent to about 6% of the arable land in the US, or 23% of the arable land in Brazil.

 All three papers:

• Focus On Yield:  Biotech Crops; Evidence, Outcomes and Impacts
• Focus On Environmental Impacts:  Biotech Crops; Evidence, Outcomes and Impacts
• Focus On Income, Well-Being And Food Security:  Biotech Crops; Evidence, Outcomes and Impacts
  …are available for reading and/or downloading on the PG Economics website at www.pgeconomics.co.uk.

PG Economics Limited is a specialist provider of advisory and consultancy services to agriculture and other natural resource-based industries. Specific areas of specialization are plant biotechnology, agricultural production systems, agricultural markets and policy.  The Company’s two directors are Peter Barfoot and Graham Brookes who formed PG Economics in 1999. Both have worked at senior positions in agricultural consultancy and technology businesses.

Biotechnology for Sustainability

On the Tomorrow’s Table blog, Kent J. Bradford, Professor of Plant Sciences and Academic Director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at UC Davis, serves as guest blogger and takes issue with the Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture (CUESA), an organization that manages the Ferry Plaza Farmers Market in San Francisco.

Specifically, Bradford says CUESA developed sustainable agriculture guidelines which include build and conserve soil fertility, conserve water and protect water quality, protect air quality, minimize use of toxics, conserve energy, use renewable resources, maximize diversity and conserve genetic resources.

“I’m sure every farmer would agree with them wholeheartedly…

“Then I read the last point on their list: ‘Avoid the intentional use of genetically modified seeds and organisms.’ The basis for this was apparently assumed to be self-evident, as no reasons were given for including this point in their list. To be clear, all crops have been genetically modified from their wild versions through domestication and breeding, but no doubt CUESA was referring to genetic engineering, where genes (pieces of DNA) are grafted into the chromosomes of a plant to give them specific traits. A blanket ban on genetically engineered (GE) crops implies that they are incompatible with agricultural sustainability. Let’s check the facts:

 

Conserve soil and energy and protect air and water quality. The most popular GE crops are immune to herbicides used to kill weeds. Eliminating the need for repeated plowing to control weeds has encouraged the adoption of minimum tillage practices by farmers, which reduces soil erosion and fuel use. Consequently, GE crops cut greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking over 6 million cars off the road in 2006. And less eroded soil and fertilizer in waterways improves water quality. Check.

Minimize use of toxics. The most popular herbicide used with the GE crops mentioned above replaces others that are three times as toxic and persist twice as long in the environment. Another major GE trait is insect resistance conferred by Bt proteins from a bacterium that deter or kill specific groups of worms that eat crops. In its sprayed form, Bt is approved for organic crops. In its GE crop form, it reduced global insecticide use by 300 million pounds between 1996 and 2006 (a 30% reduction). Check.

Conserve water. Water shortages and high salinity are two of the biggest threats to the sustainability of agriculture in California, particularly if climate change reduces rain and snowfall, as is predicted. My colleague at UC Davis, Eduardo Blumwald, has used genetic engineering to develop plants that can maintain yields with less water and can thrive on salty water that would kill most crop plants. These traits clearly will contribute to sustaining agriculture with less water, not only here, but also in agricultural lands around the world that are threatened by drought and salinity. Check.

Conserve soil fertility and natural resources. Research at Arcadia Biosciences right here in Davis promises to allow crops to produce the same yields with only one-third as much fertilizer. This would conserve natural gas used to make fertilizer and reduce nitrogen runoff from fields. Check.

Conserve biodiversity and genetic resources. The best way to promote biodiversity is to preserve native habitats. By maintaining and increasing yields on existing farms, GE crops help to minimize expansion of agriculture into natural areas. Check. 

“A recent comprehensive study by the Keystone Center examined five criteria for sustainability (energy use, soil loss, irrigation water use, climate impact, and land use) and found that corn, cotton, and soybeans all improved between 1997 and 2007, a period during which GE varieties became dominant in these crops. In contrast, wheat, which has no commercial GE varieties, showed little or no improvement in sustainability indices over this period.

“These results from 13 years of commercial GE crops are clear: if CUESA and other groups are serious about advancing agricultural sustainability, they should encourage producers to use GE crops rather than avoid them. And if they want to educate urban consumers about sustainable agriculture, there is a great story to tell about biotechnology FOR sustainability.”

Environmentalist Calls Biotech “the world’s dominant engineering tool”

Marketplace did an interview on October 26^th with Stuart Brand, original founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, which offered readers a vision of returning to the land in order to live sustainably. Brand has recently published a new book, The Whole Earth Discipline, which tackles climate change using a somewhat different tone, and gives eloquent praise to biotech agriculture.

According to Brand, a lifelong environmentalist who sees everything in terms of solvable design problems, three profound transformations are under way on Earth right now:

1. Climate change is real and is pushing us toward managing the planet as a whole.
2. Urbanization:  Half the world’s population now lives in cities, and eighty percent will by midcentury-is altering humanity’s land impact and wealth.
3. Biotechnology is becoming the world’s dominant engineering tool.

In light of these changes, Brand suggests that environmentalists are going to have to reverse some longheld opinions and embrace tools that they have traditionally distrusted.

Marketplace’s Kai Ryssdal talks to Brand genetically modified crops and genetic engineering. “How does that make sense from an environmentalist point of view?,” Ryssdal asks. 

“Already the crops that we have now, the herbicide tolerant and the insect-resistance crops, like Bt-corn and Bt-cotton, and so on, are cutting back on pesticide use, which is terrific, says Brand. “The herbicide-tolerant ones mean that you don’t need to plow every year, so you’re getting what amounts to higher yield, so you can raise more food on less land. And all of that is good for ecology in general and climate in particular.”

 When Ryssdal asks about “frankenfoods,” Brand responds: 

“Yeah, and frankenfood is first to a fictional romantic story in the 19th century, and the idea there was that Dr. Frankenstein was doing something against nature. And that somehow genetically engineered food crops are against nature. And as a biologist, I’m just baffled by that line of argument because agriculture has been in that sense against nature for 10,000 years. That we’re finally able to do more precise tuning of the crops is a huge gain, not a loss.”

WORLD FOOD DAY 2009: Agricultural Biotechnology’s Fight Against Hunger

Hundreds of major media outlets covered the October 15^th speech given by Bill Gates’ at the annual World Food Prize Forum in Des Moines, in which Gates makes the case for biotechnology and other modern agricultural practices in the fight to end world hunger.

According to Reuters, Gates said the fight to end hunger is being hurt by environmentalists who insist that genetically modified crops cannot be used in Africa.

“Some people insist on an ideal vision of the environment,” Gates said. “They have tried to restrict the spread of biotechnology into sub-Saharan Africa without regard to how much hunger and poverty might be reduced by it, or what the farmers themselves might want.”

 The Des Moines Register writes “In what was billed as his first major speech on agriculture, Gates chided critics who he said are ‘instantly hostile to any emphasis on productivity’ and ignore the challenges to food production posed by climate change. Gates said transgenic crops ‘can help address farmers’ challenges faster and more efficiently than conventional breeding alone.’”

 “The charge is clear,” Gates said.  “We have to develop crops that can grow in a drought; that can survive in a flood; that can resist pests and disease. We need higher yields on the same land in harsher weather. And we will never get that without a continuous and urgent science-based search to increase productivity, especially in the developing world.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years has turned its focus to helping poor, small-holder farmers grow and sell more crops as a way to reduce hunger and poverty. The foundation, which has committed $1.4 billion to agricultural development efforts, announced nine new grants worth a total of $120 million aimed at raising yields and farming expertise in the developing world.

The impact of those new varieties could help convince skeptics of the benefits of biotechnology, he said. “The technologies will be licensed royalty-free to seed distributors so that the new seeds can be sold to African farmers without extra charge,” Gates said.

Click here to watch a video of Gates’ speech.

 

For more information on how biotechnology is making production agriculture more sustainable and helping to better feed the world, visit these sites: 

World Food Day USA: www.worldfooddayusa.org/CMS/2955.aspx  
(including information about the 2009 World Food Day Teleconference Panel Discussion)

The World Food Prize Forum and the Borlaug Dialogue:  www.worldfoodprize.org

Council for Biotechnology Information:  www.whybiotech.com

What Can Biotech Do For You?:  www.whatcanbiotechdoforyou.com/2009/10/world-food-day

Crop Life International:  www.cropnewsnetwork.com

Truth About Trade and Technology:  www.truthabouttrade.org

“Politics, Not Science” Holding Back Europe’s Farmers

This week Truth About Trade and Technology (TATT) is hosting its fourth Global Farmer to Farmer Roundtable in Des Moines, Iowa, during the World Food Prize and Borlaug Symposium.  As part of the annual roundtable events, TATT announces the winner of its annual Kleckner Trade and Technology Advancement Award. 

Established in 2007 in honor of Dean Kleckner, the founder and chairman of Truth About Trade and Technology, this year’s award honors Irish grower Jim McCarthy.  Below is the text of the news release announcing McCarthy’s selection:

Change is Key for Life of Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award Winner

Des Moines, Iowa (October 14, 2009) – Jim McCarthy thrives on change.  An early “change” in his life was to shed his “towny” roots, and concentrate his studies on becoming a farm manager.   The changes in the 51-year-old Irishman’s life have stacked up since he took his first job as a farm manager in 1981.

His adaptation to change, and championing change that farmers need to farm efficiently led to his selection as the newest winner of the Kleckner Trade and Technology Advancement Award. 

The award, given by the Truth about Trade and Technology (TATT) organization, seeks to recognize “strong leadership, vision, and resolve in advancing the rights of all farmers to choose the technology and tools that will improve the quality, quantity, and availability of agricultural products around the world.”

McCarthy’s interest in agriculture currently covers three continents…Europe, South America and North America.  It’s frustrating for McCarthy that he can’t use biotechnology-based crops in his farming operation in Ireland.  “The environmental benefit of GM (genetically modified) crops is staggering,” he said, as he made comparisons between the farm operations he’s involved with in Ireland and Argentina.

He says wildlife numbers are much higher in the South America farm operation because fewer pesticides are used because of Bt traits in the crops.  “We’re not using huge amounts of organophosphates, so the food chain is not being interrupted for the wildlife,” he said. 

He says the tillage and pest control trips he needs to make in his fields in Ireland take five times more fuel (30 liters/hectare) than is needed on the fields in Argentina (6 liters/hectare).  There is little difference in the types of crops grown in the two farming operations.  In Ireland, wheat, canola, peas and oats are raised.  In Argentina, it’s wheat, soybeans, corn, and full-season soybeans.

In addition, McCarthy noted that the use of Roundup Ready® crops allows the Argentina farm operation to take advantage of no-till.  “We’ll not be able to control erosion in Ireland until we can choose GM crops,” he said. 

The lack of GM technology affects livestock farmers, too, McCarthy said.  He says the wheat he grows in Ireland is for the feed trade, but the cost of protein for poultry and hog farmers in the country makes it difficult for those farmers to compete with lower-cost poultry and pork being shipped into the country.  “If you are a commodity producer, you only compete on price…conventional agriculture in Europe is very expensive.”

“These issues that are holding back Europe’s farmers are based on politics, not on science,” he said in frustration.

In North America, McCarthy is one of a group of farmers that invested in a grass-based dairy in southern Missouri.  It is one more example of the opportunities he sees in agriculture if you’re open to change.

McCarthy received the Kleckner Trade and Technology Advancement Award on Oct. 14, 2009 in Des Moines, IA, USA, following a roundtable of international farmers from six continents. 

McCarthy participated in the Global Roundtable in 2007 and 2008.  During those meetings he challenged university researchers in Europe to speak up about the science that is being withheld from the continent’s farmers solely for political reasons.  He also advised African farmers at the conference to look after their self-interests when considering information and technology about agriculture.

“Africa looks to Europe for the lead on food issues because of its proximity, but Europe is wealthy in comparison to Africa and they only spend a small percentage of their dollars on food.  Africa needs to take its own lead because of the high percentage of their income that must go to food,” he said.

“It’s a time of great change in agriculture.  We’re seeing more investment dollars coming in; people want to be involved because it is such an exciting time.  There is more demand than supply, and demand will continue to grow.”

McCarthy encouraged farmers who are held back in their productive capacity to “keep speaking up for farmers, be vocal.” 

The first winner of the Kleckner Trade and Technology Advancement Award was Rosalie Ellasus of the Philippines, and the 2008 winner was Jeff Bidstrup of Australia.

Biotech Could Play a Big Role in Saving the Planet

New Scientist magazine carried a story in its September “Blueprint for a Better World” edition about how ag biotech can help grow enough food for our ever-expanding population (by 2040 there could well be 9 billion people on the planet) and do it without wreaking more havoc on the planet.

• Experimental crop plants that use nitrogen more efficiently provide the same yields as normal crops with less fertiliser. Such crops could reduce both nitrous oxide emissions and the nitrogen run-off that creates dead zones in the oceans.
• Salt-tolerant crops under development will grow on land contaminated by irrigation or sea-level rise, and drought-tolerant varieties could find even wider use.
• In the longer term, even more dramatic changes could be made, such as altering the fundamental biochemistry of plants that carry out C3 photosynthesis – which includes nearly all staple crops – to carry out C4 photosynthesis instead. This would allow them to thrive in hotter, drier conditions.
• As pests and diseases evolve and spread, crops genetically modified to resist them could boost production, or at least maintain yields. The ringspot virus had halved papaya production in Hawaii before a resistant GM strain was introduced in 1998.
• Last but not least, genetic modification can make existing foods more nutritious. The lack of nutrients such as vitamin A remain a major cause of death and disease in developing countries. GM crops such as the soon-to-be-introduced Golden Rice will help to improve health and reduce child mortality.

Many people, especially in Europe, oppose crops like Golden Rice simply because they are genetically engineered, but there is no rational basis for drawing an absolute distinction between conventional breeding and genetic modification. Thousands of years of selective breeding have produced extensive genetic changes in the plants and animals.

Yes, there are other ways to improve nutrition and boost yields, but combining these methods with biotechnology could make them far more effective. With a third of species facing oblivion, environmentalists need to embrace a technology that could help to save many of them – and many of us.

BIO Salutes Norman E. Borlaug, Father of “Green Revolution”

Nobel Laureate Used Biotechnology and Modern Farming Practices to Combat World Hunger

Norman E. Borlaug, American geneticist and plant pathologist who lead a global agricultural transformation through his research and advocacy for modern farming practices, died Saturday, September 12^th in Dallas.

Jim Greenwood, President and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) issued the following statement in tribute to Dr. Borlaug:

“On behalf of BIO and its members, we offer our condolences to the Borlaug family, his friends and colleagues, and we salute his life’s work.  Borlaug applied scientific innovation, compassion for the poor, and expert knowledge of agricultural practices to develop and introduce groundbreaking technologies that will forever change the prospects of poor and hungry people around the globe. 

“Borlaug’s development of high-yield and disease-resistant wheat varieties bore results in Mexico, Pakistan and India that stretched the imagination of viable agriculture in developing countries.  Recently, Borlaug worked to apply farming practices and methods of increasing food production to Asia and Africa, and he has continued to advocate for the use of biotechnology to combat world famine. 

“As the global population continued to increase, and farmers in developing countries continued to face challenges like climate change, plant diseases and pests, the need to address global food poverty became more and more a passion for Dr. Borlaug. 

“World leaders will honor and continue his legacy by further applying his practices and technologies to modern-day agriculture and food production.  Dr. Borlaug has been an example for so many of us who see the hope and promise this science holds.

“Farmers who now provide more with less and a world that can better feed itself, are forever in the debt of Norman Borlaug.”

Click here to read more tributes:

IAm Biotech:   Norman Borlaug, 1914-2009

BIO video, featuring Dr. Norman Borloug:  Biotechnology: Amazing Today…Astonishig Tomorrow

AgBio World:  Jimmy Carter, George McGovern and Scientists Celebrate ‘FATHER OF THE GREEN REVOLUTION’

Truth About Trade and Technology:  Dr. Norman Borlaug: He made the world a better place

Penn & Teller (YouTube):  Greatest Man to Ever Live: Norman Borlaug
(this video contains language some viewers may find offensive)

America’s Food Crisis: Time Magazine Has No Clue

How disappointing to read Bryan Walsh’s uninformed and inaccurate article (“America’s Food Crisis and How to Fix It,” August 31, 2009).  Not only is he clueless as to what sustainable agriculture is, he doesn’t even get organic right.  Organic is defined in U.S. law and regulations and does allow the use of chemicals (yes, they tend to be “natural” chemicals, but they are still chemicals.)   Sustainable agriculture also is defined in U.S. law, and the two are not the same nor interchangeable. 

As a city dweller, wife and mother of three, the food choices I make for my family are a top priority.  Fortunately in the United States, most consumers have many choices, in addition to having the safest and most abundant food supply in the world, thanks to America’s farmers.  These are some of the factors that define sustainability.

According to the USDA, “sustainable” agriculture describes farming systems that are “capable of maintaining their productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely. Such systems are resource-conserving, socially supportive, commercially competitive, and environmentally sound.” 

As noted, less than one percent of American cropland is farmed organically. This is because organic practices can’t be implemented on a large enough scale to feed the world or be considered “sustainable” as in “capable of maintaining their productivity” or “commercially competitive.”

If we’re going to feed a growing global population – an issue of concern to world leaders as we look at a global population of 9 billion by 2050 – we need proven agriculture and food production systems that benefit from science and technology.   We need farming practices that produce more food on less land.  We need crops and livestock that are resistant to diseases and pests and are tolerant of adverse climate conditions.  We need to produce more food with lower costs while reducing our environmental impact. 

Organic practices, while meeting an important market demand and an important production method for some farmers, only provide food for a limited percentage of consumers who can afford it.  Believing we can feed the world with organic agriculture is naïve.  Believing that organic agriculture and sustainable agriculture are one in the same is simply ill informed.   Maybe Time should think about writing an article on how American farmers will help feed the 60 million children who go to school hungry every day.