NOTE: The New York Times has printed several letters in response to Nina Fedoroff's recent op-ed: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.