http://nyti.ms/oD5Qba This excellent response from Bill Freese was not among them.
–-
–-
Letters to the Editor
New York Times
August 22 2011
In “Engineering Food for All” (op-ed, 8/18), Ms. Fedoroff rehashes industry-sponsored myths about genetically-engineered (GE) crops, while ignoring some ugly facts. First, massive adoption of GE crops has coincided with a swelling of the world’s hungry by over 100 million, consistent with science showing no yield boost from GE [1]. Second, herbicide-resistant GE crops have not reduced soil erosion (the no till farming revolution preceded their mid-1990s’ introduction) [2]; but they have increased herbicide use, spawned an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds, and forced a return to tillage and even hand-weeding for many farmers [3]. That beneficial GE crops have not been developed is due to the technology’s high failure rate, not the extremely lax US regulatory system [4].
William Freese, Senior Science Analyst
International Center for Technology Assessment
660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20003
Notes to Editor:
[1] Frankly, we do not share Ms. Fedoroff’s simplistic assumption that increasing yields equate to less hunger. Yet this emotive card is regularly played (always in the future tense!) by biotech proponents who do not understand or care to learn about the overriding political factors that cause poverty and hunger. That said, increasing yields in exporting nations where most GE crops are grown would mean more abundant harvests; all other things being equal, this could slightly lower world food prices, benefitting the urban poor in import-dependent developing countries. Yet, as stated: 1) The world’s hungry have increased by over 100 million since the mid-1990s, when GE crops were first introduced (see chart of UN FAO figures at http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm ); and 2) GE crops are not designed to, and do not, increase yields. See Gurian-Sherman, D. (2009). “Failure to Yield,” Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html. Real solutions must come from helping poor farmers produce more, and GE crops do not do that. 84% of world GE crop acreage is planted with herbicide-resistant crops that are irrelevant to poor farmers, who cannot afford herbicides.
[2] USDA National Resources Conservation Service (2010). “2007 National Resources Inventory: Soil Erosion on Cropland,”
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_012269.pdf. See the table on page 2, which shows a large decrease in soil erosion from 1982 to 1997, attributable to rapid adoption of conservation tillage (including no-till), and a leveling off of soil erosion in the years GE herbicide-resistant crops were massively adopted, from 1997 to 2007. (Note: GE herbicide-resistant crops in the U.S. expanded from just 16.0 to 117.2 million acres from 1997 to 2007, as documented in Benbrook, C. (2009). “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.: The First Thirteen Years,” The Organic Center, Supplemental Table 5, at http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159 ).
[3] See Benbrook, C. (2009), cited above. The NYT's Andrew Pollack also reported on this last
year http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html. It is disingenuous of Ms. Fedoroff to ignore the responsibility of GE crops for increasing herbicide use, resistant weeds, increased use of soil-eroding tillage, and sharply rising weed control costs, regarded by agricultural scientists as major challenges facing U.S. farmers.
[4] See pages 2-3 of the letter (the section entitled “Regulation does not 'stifle' GE crop innovation”) to USDA Secretary Vilsack, August 3, 2011, from 22 farming and consumer protection groups, food companies and trade associations regarding US regulation of GE crops, at http://www.agra-net.com/content/agra/ips/pdf/APHIS-Rules-Letter.pdf.
NOTE: The New York Times has printed several letters in response to Nina Fedoroff's recent op-ed:- Main Menu
- Home
- News
- Articles
- Videos
- Must see videos
- Agriculture videos
- Labeling videos
- Animals videos
- Corporations videos
- Corporate takeover videos
- Contamination videos
- Latin America videos
- India videos
- Asia videos
- Food safety videos
- Songs videos
- Protests videos
- Biofuel myths videos
- Index of GM crops and foods
- Index of speakers
- Health Effects
- Gene Editing videos
- Contact
- About
- Donations
- News
- Articles
- Donations
-
Videos
- Index of speakers
- Glyphosate videos
- Gene Editing
- Must See videos
- Health Effects
- Agriculture videos
- Labeling videos
- Animals videos
- Corporations videos
- Corporate takeover videos
- Contamination videos
- Latin America videos
- India videos
- Asia videos
- Songs videos
- Protests videos
- Biofuel myths videos
- Index of GM crops and foods
- Contact
- About
News Menu
News Archive
- 2023 articles
- 2022 articles
- 2021 articles
- 2020 articles
- 2019 articles
- 2018 articles
- 2017 articles
- 2016 articles
- 2015 articles
- 2014 articles
- 2013 articles
- 2012 articles
- 2011 articles
- 2010 articles
- 2009 articles
- 2008 articles
- 2007 articles
- 2006 articles
- 2005 articles
- 2004 articles
- 2003 articles
- 2002 articles
- 2001 articles
- 2000 articles
PLEASE SUPPORT GMWATCH
If you like what we do, please help us do more. You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card. Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. We greatly appreciate that as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!
Web Development By SCS Web Design