For the first time since the introduction of biotech crops almost two decades ago, developing countries grew biotech crops on more land than in industrialized countries in 2012, according to a report released on February 20 by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).

Developing nations planted 52% of the global biotech crops in 2012, up from 50% a year earlier and higher than the 48% that industrial countries grew last year. Last year, the growth rate for biotech crops was more than three times as fast and five times as large in developing countries - 11% or 8.7 million hectares (21.5 million acres) in developing countries, versus 3% or 1.6 million hectares, (3.95 million acres) in industrial countries.

“This year’s ISAAA report adds increasing evidence that agricultural biotechnology is a key component in sustainable crop production,” said Dr. Cathleen Enright, executive director of the Council for Biotechnology Information. “When you look at the rising number of acres of biotech crops planted each year, it can’t be denied that biotech crops are delivering value to more and more growers around the world.”

Other highlights of the ISAAA report include:

• Last year marked an unprecedented 100-fold increase in total biotech crop hectarage to 170 million hectares, up from 1.7 million in 1996 - when biotech crops were first commercialized.

• In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers around the world grew biotech crops. This was an increase of 600,000 from 2011. Over 90%, or over 15 million farmers, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries.

• China, India, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa, which together represent approximately 40% of the global population, grew 78.2 million hectares (or 46%) of global biotech crops in 2012. The United States continued to be the lead country with 69.5 million hectares, with an average of 90% adoption across all crops.

• While 28 countries planted commercialized biotech crops in 2012, an additional 31 countries totaling 59 have granted regulatory approvals for biotech crops for import, food and feed use and for release into the environment since 1996.

For more information on this year’s report, visit www.isaaa.org.

People stocking up for Valentine’s Day tomorrow can enjoy the treats they love while still feeling confident that the ingredients are safe to eat and beneficial to the environment.

“Valentine’s Day should be a day for romance and not a day for unwarranted food fears,” said Dr. Cathleen Enright, executive director at CBI. “The safety of foods made with ingredients from genetically engineered plants has been well-documented in hundreds of scientific studies and food safety reviews. There has never been a food safety concern associated with genetically engineered food. Never!”

“What can be attributed to GE food production is a reduced carbon footprint, reduced use of pesticides, and greater adoption of sustainable farming practices,” she said. “Consumers can actually feel great about genetically engineered foods because they can help save the planet we all love.”

Mark Lynas’s recent apology for his years of anti-GMO activism and subsequent expression of support for the technology has shifted the entire debate surrounding GMOs, according to Forbes‘ Richard Levick. Levick wrote that that the environmental activist’s speech “wasn’t just an acknowledgement of error. It was the recantation of an agenda.”

Such an about-face based on scientific inquiry by a notable environmentalist strengthens the case for ag biotech, while widening the perimeters of debate. “We hope that the tremendous reaction to the speech by Mark Lynas serves as evidence that honest consideration of the science will change minds about agricultural biotechnology,” says Dr. Cathleen Enright, executive director of the Council for Biotechnology Information in Washington, D.C.

Levick concludes: “The challenge posed to the environmentalists is to rely on science everywhere or rely on it nowhere. If they opt for science, they may discover, or at least need to consider, what Lynas came to believe: that, for example, GM does not increase the use of chemicals as pest-resistant cotton and maize require less insecticide. Or that the mixing of genes between unrelated species is no more unnatural than the gene flows that have driven evolution since life began.” Read more.

The Council for Biotechnology Information was part of a large coalition of California family farmers, doctors, scientists, food producers, grocers, small business and taxpayer groups that was formed to defeat Proposition 37. We opposed Prop 37 because this poorly-written measure would have mandated that misleading and confusing information be provided to consumers. In addition, it would have unnecessarily increased food costs for California consumers and would have spawned frivolous lawsuits against farmers, grocers and food companies.

California voters have rejected this poorly written and costly measure. In doing so, they expressed their support for science and reason-based policy. Prop 37 was a poorly-written mandate, aimed at disparaging one production method in favor of others. The voters were right to reject it.

We continue to support the FDA’s food labeling policy, which is that labeling should be used to indicate “any significant differences in the food itself.”  The FDA says it has no information to indicate that bioengineered food crops are different “in any meaningful or material way” from their conventionally produced counterparts.

The industry will continue to move forward with developing innovations to feed and fuel the world.

CBI has pointed out some of the shortcomings of a paper claiming previously unheard-of health impacts on rats on a diet of biotech corn and weedkiller- a study that some experts think is so questionable that it should not have been published.

“The study published today is a continuation of work that has been denounced by responsible scientific bodies and by scientists who know the subject very well,” the CBI statement said of a paper by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a French biologist, author, and long-time anti-biotech activist.

“Studies by independent scientists have found again and again that food from plants produced with biotechnology is as safe as the same plants produced by conventional means,” the CBI statement said. “More than 400 studies have confirmed the safety of food with biotech ingredients, and not one has documented any ill effect to human health of eating food produced in whole or in part with biotechnology.

Scientists in Europe have pointed out a host of flaws in the current study, including the fact that the rats chosen for the study are known for their tendency to develop tumors. A previous study by Seralini was denounced as invalid by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and experts are very critical of the statistical methods employed in the new study.

“To be honest, I am surprised it was accepted for publication,” said Prof. David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge in England.

Seralini claimed that this was the first long study based on feeding biotech grain to animals. In fact, several other studies as long or longer have concluded that there is no impact from biotech food or feed ingredients, according to a major study published earlier this year in the very same journal that published Seralini’s study (”Food and Chemical Toxicology). Experts were reported to the “skeptical” of the latest from Seralini.

The Reuters news agency reported:

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London noted that Seralini’s team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

“This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,” he said in an emailed comment.

“The statistical methods are unconventional and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. There is no clearly defined data analysis plan and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.”

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), commenting on a previous Seralini study, said:

“Following a detailed statistical review and analysis by an EFSA Task Force, EFSA’s GMO Panel has concluded that this re-analysis of the data does not raise any new safety concerns.” EFSA noted that “The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations. The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results. EFSA considers that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification in order to question the safety of (the) maize.”

Prof. David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, University Of Cambridge, gave this statement to the media:

“In my opinion, the methods, stats and reporting of results are all well below the standard I would expect in a rigorous study - to be honest I am surprised it was accepted for publication.

“All the comparisons are made with the ‘untreated’ control group, which only comprised 10 rats of each sex, the majority of which also developed tumors. Superficially they appear to have performed better than most of the treated groups (although the highest dose GMO and Roundup male groups also fared well), but there is no proper statistical analysis, and the numbers are so low they do not amount to substantial evidence. I would be unwilling to accept these results unless they were replicated properly.” Read more.