Click to view full-size ad

Farmers on the Hawaiian island of Kauai recently took out an ad in the local newspaper to answer questions about the genetically engineered crops they raise. “We want to set the record straight about how we farm on the Garden Island,” the ad says.

The farmers address concerns over the use of pesticides, the impact on the local environment, the regulation of genetically engineered crops, and former practice of saving seeds.

See the ad on this page for the facts about modern farming in Hawaii and other areas.

Betsie Estes, Roxi Beck and Charlie Arnot at BIO 2013

CHICAGO- If business wants to communicate effectively with consumers, it must be sensitive to their values and their language, according to Charlie Arnot of the Center for Food Integrity (CFI).

Speaking at the recent BIO 2013 International Convention, Arnot said business shouldn’t waste time arguing with consumers over terminology, such as whether “genetic engineering” is a better term than “genetic modification.”

“‘GM’ has become the cultural nomenclature for this issue,” he said, “and we have to say that to be in the debate. The conversation is about food safety. It is not about language.”

“Don’t debate the language. If we debate the language, we are missing the point,” he said. Arnot said his observations are based on extensive research with consumers and on a peer-reviewed research model.

Appearing with Betsie Estes and Roxie Beck of BestFoodFacts.org, Arnot said that food safety is the key issue for consumers.

“Food safety trumps everything else.  If we can’t pass the food safety threshold, we can’t do anything else.”

Arnot urged companies and industries to be open to public concerns and to proactive “authentic transparency - the good, the bad, and the ugly.”

“Authentic transparency reduces fear of the unknown,” he said.

Graham Brookes speaks at seminar in Chicago

CHICAGO — Farmers worldwide enjoyed nearly $20 billion in net economic benefits from the adoption ofgenetically modified crops in the year 2011 alone, according to a new report.

“The economic benefits farmers realize are clear and amounted to an average of over $130/hectare in 2011,” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, and co-author of the report. “The majority of these benefits continue to increasingly go to farmers in developing countries. The environment is also benefiting as farmers increasingly adopt conservation tillage practices, build their weed management practices around more benign herbicides and replace insecticide use with insect resistant GM crops. The reduction in pesticide spraying and the switch to no till cropping systems is continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.”

Insect-resistant traits have been especially important in the developing world, Brookes told CBI in an interview, while herbicide tolerance has provided the largest benefit in North and South America.

“Insect resistance has delivered increased yield from increased control of pests in cotton,” he said, which has been very beneficial in countries such as India where pest control has traditionally exposed farmers to pesticides.

“IR technology has solved a lot of the problem,” he said. “We’ve put insect resistance in the seed, and this has delivered health and safety benefits to farmers.” Farmers in India and China have enjoyed $25 billion in net economic benefits -a staggering amount considering India adopted Bt cotton only in 2002.  Cotton yield in India has shot up 40 percent since biotech cotton was introduced, making India a major exporter of cotton, he said.

In North and South America, herbicide tolerance has had economic benefits but also “non-pecuniary benefits” in making it easier for farmers to manage their operations and has encouraged no-till farming, which has had environmental benefits such as more carbon sequestration and less soil erosion, Brookes said.

The report can be viewed here:  http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/

A new educational resource on agricultural biotechnology has been released by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation. “Food Biotechnology: A Communicator’s Guide to Improving Understanding, 3rd Edition,” will provide health professionals and food and nutrition stakeholders with tools to help them communicate about the science and benefits of food biotech.

“Whether it is to provide an overview of the science or respond to a media inquiry, the guide provides communicators with key facts and resources on food biotechnology to help tailor the message to the specific audience,” IFIC said.

The guide includes key messages and a menu of science-based supporting points on food biotechnology as it relates to food safety, consumer benefits, sustainability, and feeding the world; ready-made handouts that can be shared with audiences; and guidelines for working effectively with journalists and bloggers on food biotechnology stories.

The new version reflects the latest developments in food biotechnology research, regulation, and product availability, as well as new consumer insights and changing communications methods, most notably the advent of online media.

An electronic version of the full guide and PDF files of the individual chapters are available here. The PowerPoint slides are also available on the homepage of www.whybiotech.com.

Whole Foods got some attention today with an announcement that it will require the makers of food products sold in its stores to state on the label if a product contains an ingredient produced through agricultural biotechnology - a “GMO.” It is giving manufacturers five years, until 2018, to provide the labels.

But the facts don’t support Whole Foods’ new policy. It’s just commercial positioning rather than a scientifically-based initiative.

Leading scientific authorities, including the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academies of Science, and the World Health Organization, agree that foods derived from biotechnology are as safe and nutritious as food manufactured from organic and conventional ingredients.

All methods of agricultural production — biotech, conventional and organic — use inputs to fertilize plants and control weeds and insects. Voluntary labeling of foods that is consistent with the production method used is already available.

Mandatory labeling, however, applies only to information regarding nutritional content or health-related characteristics, such as allergenicity or toxicity, which are not issues that have ever been associated with biotech ingredients.

Labeling of “GMO’s” is thus not necessary for health and safety.  It’s just part of the differentiation strategy in a particular segment of the retail industry.