2010 ISAAA report shows benefits of GE crops for farmers worldwide

A USA Today article citing the 2010 ISAAA report on the global status of biotech crops points out that biotech crops “have been enthusiastically embraced by farmers in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina and China.” Higher yields from biotech varieties will help to feed a growing world population faced with the shrinking availability of land.  Dr. Peggy Lemaux, at the University of California, Berkeley’s Department of Plant and Microbial Biology (and a CBI expert!), discusses the need for humanitarian assistance in order to ensure that the benefits of genetic engineering reach the world’s poorest farmers.

Dr. Lemaux says, “because of the expenses involved, creating engineered crops for developing countries requires humanitarian contributions by philanthropists like (Bill) Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation or perhaps by companies who see value in such endeavors.” Read more.

Forbes blog: Dr. Henry Miller responds to myths about GE crops

In a Forbes article, Dr. Henry Miller, author of The Frankenfood Myth and former founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA, criticizes the New York Times for propagating myths about genetically engineered crops instead of recognizing the worldwide success of the technology. Dr. Miller points out that arguments against the safety and benefits of GE crops fail to explain their widespread adoption. “Higher productivity, lower costs for inputs (including chemical pesticides), economic gains to farmers and environment-friendly agronomic practices have made it the most rapidly adopted agricultural technology in history.”

As was discussed at a recent AAAS panel on GMO crop regulations, Dr. Miller also questions the logic of regulations on genetically engineered crops, “Although they boast significant benefits and an unblemished record of safety, genetically engineered crops are subject to excessive, hugely expensive regulation in every country of the world that grows them.” Read more.

The Atlantic: Concerns about GM alfalfa contamination not backed by data

According to an article in The Atlantic, media reports that are critical of the USDA’s recent decision to deregulate genetically modified alfalfa neglect to provide supporting data.  Author and food columnist James McWilliams says, “As I encountered one condemnatory article after another regarding Tom Vilsack’s choice to deregulate GM alfalfa, I kept wondering what I often wonder when grappling with an agricultural controversy: where’s the data?”

 Dr. Dan Putnam, a forage expert at UC-Davis, conducted extensive research finding that the chances of cross-contamination from Roundup Ready alfalfa seed are nominal. “With a contamination possibility that’s less than 1 percent, we are not looking at a scenario in which GM alfalfa is going to overtake its organic counterpart,” Mr. McWilliams says citing Putnam’s study.  Read more.

Sugar growers and sweetener users support biotech sugar beet seed

A National Journal article by prize-winning agricultural journalist Jerry Hagstrom points out that support for genetically modified seeds has created a rare source of agreement for sugar growers and sweetener users. When the two interest groups gathered this week for their annual International Sweetener Colloquium in San Diego, rather than clash on the usual hot topic of sugar prices, they found common ground over concerns that federal district court rulings on genetically engineered sugar beet seed have caused uncertainty about the American sugar supply.

In a recent letter to the USDA, the Federal Sweetener Association said the U.S. economy would be negatively impacted if growers could not plant genetically engineered beets. “The lack of alternative strategies for securing adequate supplies would create shortages, place large numbers of manufacturing jobs at risk, drive some already-struggling small businesses into bankruptcy, and raise consumer prices,” the association of candy companies and other industrial consumers of sweeteners said. Read more.

GM Prairie Grass produces cheaper, more abundant ethanol, Bloomberg reports

According to Bloomberg, research shows that genetically modified prairie grass, called switchgrass, could one day provide a cheaper biofuel, and the Department of Energy says it has the potential to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The authors of a research report from the National Academy of Sciences indicate that bioengineered switchgrass can produce ethanol more efficiently and may also help with the production of other newly emerging fuels made from the cellulose in plants. Read more.

GM crops necessary to improve ag productivity

As part of the New York Times online series “Is the World Producing Enough Food?”, Michael J. Roberts, assistant professor of agricultural and resource economics at North Carolina State University, says that genetically modified crops are important for agricultural productivity.

 “The greatest hopes against truly catastrophic declines in crop production are a possible boost from CO2 fertilization and improved productivity through breeding or genetically modified crops.” Dr. Roberts discusses the need for improved productivity to meet the demands of a growing world population and increasingly high food community prices. Read more.

New York Times columnist Nick Kristof

New York Times columnist Kristof supports biofortification to battle malnutrition

In a New York Times article, Nicholas Kristof discusses the importance of biofortified crops in aiding the battle against poverty and malnutrition. He points out that sweet potato, golden rice and other crops genetically engineered with vitamin A help poor countries like those in Africa where distribution of vitamin A capsules is costly and vitamin-rich crop varieties are scarce. Kristof also addresses critics of biofortification: “the European left’s sad hostility to scientific tinkering with crops may slow acceptance of biofortification. If that hostility gains ground, it will be harder to save children from blindness and death.” Read more.

 USDA petition for genetically modified apples that won’t turn brown

 According to the Associated Press, a Canadian biotechnology company petitioned the USDA to approve a genetically modified apple that won’t brown soon after it is sliced. Neal Carter, president of the company that developed the apples, says the improvement could make apples more popular in snacks, salads and other meals. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service explains that biotechnology regulations are meant to ensure that genetically modified crops are just as safe for agriculture and the environment as conventionally bred crop varieties. Read more.

Anti-biotechnology crimes pressure Europe’s brightest researchers to quit

A Wall Street Journal piece calls it “a shame and a tragedy” that France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research will no longer develop new varieties of genetically modified crops. Marion Guillou, head of the organization, explains that the decision followed the destruction of €1.2 million in experimental crops by radical activists, and was just one example of crimes that have caused many other European farmers to quit. Guillou pointed out that advancements in the genetic research of wealthy countries such as France have made significant contributions to improvements in agricultural production. Read more

New York Times dispels notion that genetic modification is unnatural

The New York Times Freakonomics blog put to rest the assertion that GMOs are “unnatural” in a recent post titled “GMOs and Mother Nature? Closer Than You Think.” The author, James McWilliams, cites a discovery by Swedish scientists that cross-species gene transfer happens even without human intervention in nature, and has been occurring for 700,000 years. This supports the scientific position that genetic modification is just a continuation of the trait selection, and underscores the importance of not excluding any means of food production by incorrectly deeming it “unnatural.” Mr. McWilliams writes, “To divide the precious manifestation of that fight - our food supply - into “real” and “frankenfood” insults not only those who grow and produce our food, but nature itself.” Read more.

Scientists recognize need for GM to feed growing population

According to a Reuters article, the world’s population is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050, and many scientists agree that it will take a variety of farming approaches to feed this increased population, including the application of genetically modified crops. Sir Gordon Conway, an agricultural ecologist and former President of the Royal Geographical Society, says “the organic movement has to evolve, to recognize the enormity of the challenge we’ve got, and look more seriously at sound, sustainable ecological approaches which make minimal use of inorganic fertilizers, industrial pesticides and GM.” Read more.

Golden rice’s golden opportunity

Golden rice could convince skeptics of the technology’s benefits, according to a recent Atlantic article. Golden rice is rice that has been genetically engineered to produce beta-carotene, which the body processes into vitamin A, and which can stave off blindness in children in developing nations. The rice, which was produced through a public-private partnership and will likely become available in the next year or two, has the potential to improve the health of millions and provides a concrete example for consumers of the benefits of genetic modification. Read more.

Here are a few stories that caught our eye this week. From Arkansas to Brussels, policymakers across the globe are considering the benefits of genetically modified (GM) food, and an international consortium continues its work to improve rice crop yields. Read more below.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee

Court decisions curbing sale of genetically modified foods counter ’science-based regulatory decisions’

Court decisions setting back the sale of genetically modified foods do not comply with sound science, according to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). The Hill reports that the senators sent a letter to USDA Sec.Tom Vilsack last month, arguing that such court decisions may “thrust the U.S. regulatory system for agriculture biotechnology into a non-functioning regulatory system.” READ MORE »