Imagine how differently a day at the office might have been in 1961. A secretarial pool takes the place of word processing software. Googling a subject might take hours and physical labor sifting through back editions of the paper or encyclopedias and still yield limited results. Email communications require a phone call, paper memo or even a written letter sent through courier or mail without the Internet. Once out of the office, communication ceases unless a coworker dials a landline nearby.
While most people have capriciously wished for an end to modern technology following a particularly annoying late-night text from an employer, only the smallest minority actually advocates a return to the workplace technology of 50 years ago.
So, why do so many people outside of agriculture think that a return to equally antiquated technology would actually improve farming?
Recently, a column in Stock and Land magazine examined the impact of a large-scale return to the farming methods of our forefathers, a romantic notion with dismal consequences. Instead of growing a crop large enough to share with the world, U.S. farmers would produce only enough food to feed half of the country’s current population. Maintaining levels of dairy, meat and milk production would require two-thirds more land. Increased environmental degradation and social unrest further complicate this already hungry scenario.
Simply, removing technology and scientific advances from modern life seriously damages productivity and effectiveness whether done in corporate or agrarian America. Notably, the negative impact on farming creates a food shortage thus depriving an incredible number of those in towns and cities of the sustenance needed to survive.
Instead of buying into the soft-focus vision of farming that replaces knowledge and understanding with a vague sense of nostalgia, get the facts. Question the farmers and ranchers who produce food about how and why they use the technology and practices that they do. Look at the bounty of healthy options U.S. agriculture offers. Become part of national discussion about food that seeks a better tomorrow instead of a rose-tinted version of the past.
France’s top administrative court on Monday overturned a government order banning French farmers from planting genetically modified crops France’s agriculture ministry imposed a ban in February 2008 amid concerns over public safety, but its decision had already been called into question by the European Court and has now been annulled by the State Council.
Truthfully, their ongoing and Zombie-like fight against proven GMO technology has been like watching a bad movie that you just can’t stop watching. The ludicrous and persistent effort has been watched by farmers, scientists, regulators and some consumers without cable TV around the world. And one might suspect there might even be some betting pools initiated regarding who would finally put a bullet in the head of this persistent, riveting political theatre. (Ok, I have France planting their first GMO crop in 2013 with 3-1 odds).
Both courts overturned the national ban declaring the French Government presented no scientific evidence of any risk to health or the environment from these crops. EuropaBio’s Director of Green Biotechnology Europe, Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, said: “These judgments from the highest European court and the highest French court send one message loud and clear: bans of GM crops cannot be based on political dogma. As both judgments state, no ban on planting GM crops can be declared without valid scientific evidence, something that France and other European countries have not produced.”
Even if French corn growers don’t get to enter the modern world of corn production in 2012, this is yet another positive sign that the belabored and disingenuous GMO soap opera is on its final legs. Forgive me for saying this but I can hear the EU fat lady signing.
The French court’s decision also offers support for what U.S. scientists, regulators, and industry have been saying all along….there has been copious scientific testing and years of actual use in the real world and the GMO bogeyman remains firmly in the closet where he belongs. However, evidence rises that France will launch new restrictions. French president Nicolas Sarkozy said this week the government was preparing a “new safety clause” to forbid sowing of MON810 produced by Monsanto.
“The French government keeps and will keep its opposition against the cultivation of the Monsanto 810 maize on our soil,” Sarkozy said during a visit in southwestern France. Why do I have this feeling that President Sarkozy DVR’s the “Walking Dead?”
Today, guest blogger Dawn Caldwell shares a post on her experience as a farmer and a CommonGround volunteer responding to questions about biotechnology and agriculture.
Of all the things I am; a wife, an employee, church council member, lawn mower, bill payer, grocery getter, cook, friend, aunt, daughter, granddaughter, niece, you get the idea…I feel that one of the most, if not the most important title I hold is that of Mom. Oh believe me, there are definitely days I wonder why God ever entrusted me with two spawn (as they humorously call themselves)! None-the-less, I take my opportunity to be a Mom VERY seriously (with as much humor built in as possible)! Like any mother of teenage “spawn”, I face all of the fun situations (never wanting to pay for their own gas), challenges (two broken cell phones at one time), celebrations (major part in the one-act play & great grades), and heartbreaks (oh the hard choices that have to be made…especially for teenage girls!). And like every other mom, especially moms of athletes, nutrition and food safety come to mind all the time; especially when I’m buying ANOTHER $100 in groceries for the week. Teenage spawn eat a LOT!
Big Eater (Spawn #1)
The Other Big Eater (Spawn #2) and his Dad don't like facing the camera.
Since becoming a CommonGround volunteer, one of the most common questions I get is about the safety of food derived directly or indirectly from GMO grains. After a lengthy conversation with a fellow ag enthusiast recently at Husker Nation (for all of you non-Huskers reading this, that’s the entire area surrounding and including Memorial Stadium in Lincoln where we Huskers like to gather by the droves), I decided I just need to get the info in writing and hope that many, many people read and share what I am about to divulge.
I have to admit, it has been quite some time since I was in a science class daily. So, I had to do some digging and reading to be able to verify what I thought was right and make sure that what I share isn’t just me trusting all that is out there to be used in the wide world of technology.
Let’s begin with what GMO stands for: it is not “Get More Oreo’s”, though this afternoon, I wish someone would – cookies and milk sound really good right now! GMO really stands for Genetically Modified Organism. Do not let that scare you! For perspective, the organism is only the seed, in fact, just a small part of the seed. Now, as for the genetically modified part… When a gene from one organism is purposely moved to improve or change another organism in a laboratory, the result is a genetically modified organism (GMO). It is also sometimes called “transgenic” for transfer of genes. See further explanation of this here. If you read through that article, you will find that genetic engineering is certainly not new! In fact, Bt proteins, a very common GMO in today’s farming, has been used in many organic farms for over 50 years as a microbial pest control agent. A complete article on Bt strains used in organic farming can be seen here.
After all of the reading and questioning I have done to put together this blog post, I am even more comfortable with farmers utilizing GMO technology when raising crops. GMO’s for insect resistance are typically very specific proteins that can affect only the target insect. My take on this: fewer pesticides being applied topically. I think that is a good thing! Of course there are GMO’s for a few other things such as certain herbicides (Round-Up Ready) and drought resistance. I can see wonderful opportunities coming from this technology! For those of you VERY science-minded people, check out this document.
One more thing…the folks developing the technologies and the farmers using them are people just like you, with families and friends and neighbors. We are purchasing food in the grocery store and we are drinking the water from under our fields and pastures. None of us would ever do anything to intentionally harm our food and water supply. GMO’s have been around now for more than 5 decades. We can all rest assured that the dinner we serve our families tonight, whether it is meat from animals fed GMO grains or cereals from those grains, they are as safe and nutritious as ever. And, because of modern farming and technology, there is enough for all of us to have plenty of choices of product when we do our food purchasing.
I know – I can already see the comments coming in… “But it is primarily one or two big companies putting those GMO’s out there and hauling in the mother load financially.” I can tell you – anyone in the world had the opportunity to put forth the time, effort, and risk to do the same work they have done. In any other business, the successful leaders are rewarded, as they should be in agriculture. Is it frustrating being on the purchasing side of the technology? Of course! Am I glad we have the choice to purchase or not purchase that technology? Absolutely!!! This is America, folks. We are supposed to be able to enjoy free enterprise. All of us need to continue working hard to live the life we think is best for ourselves and our families. I am not here to tell you have to purchase food grown with or without GMO technology or any other specific quality or label. I am only trying to reassure you that food in the United States is the safest in the world.
Now, go enjoy a wonderful meal with someone you love. I think we get to enjoy some left over roast beef at our house tonight – probably in the form of roast beef salad sandwiches. YUM!!!!
While some fringe activists continue to push their anti-biotech agenda, most Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the many benefits biotech offers us as a society. From New York to Texas, Americans are talking about the need for biotech agricultural products in order to produce enough safe, affordable food for everyone.
This week, the generally left-of-center New York Times ran an op-ed hopping on the pro-biotech bandwagon. Using arguments reminiscent of those made by Norman Borlaug, the article explained how our growing global population direly needs higher-yielding biotech crops in order to meet rising food demand. Noting the safety of the crops, it advocated a more stream-lined approval process and a return to sensible regulation. The New York Times realized what many had long ago, that biotech crops aren’t only safe but are also a necessity if we are to avoid an epic humanitarian crisis.
Farmers in Texas, worlds away from the country’s largest city, certainly agree that timely, yet thorough, biotech approvals play a key role in maintaining their operations. Simply, the first trait that will help corn plants tolerate an abiotic stressor, in this case drought, is scheduled to hit the market for the 2012 planting season. With drought loss forecasts for 2011 reaching a record $5.2 billion, the importance of getting this well-tested trait into farmer’s fields is apparent, particularly as drought has cost the state’s agricultural sector $13.1 billion dollars since 1998.
So next time you hear arguments against biotech, why not ask what exactly the nay-sayer would do in the face of massive population increases and seemingly unending weather difficulties? Science has provided us with the answer. Now, we just have to educate ourselves enough to understand it and accept its many benefits.
With a name like smut, it just has to be bad – and it is.
Smut fungi are agents of disease responsible for significant crop losses worldwide, especially in corn, where the airborne fungus is found most frequently on ears, tassels and nodes. According to the National Corn Growers Association, corn smut accounts for approximately $1 billion in crop losses annually. Sweet corn is more susceptible to smut than field corn with annual losses often as high as 20%.
Researchers with at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center have been working on a project to develop a smut-resistant variety of corn, specifically corn smut caused by the fungus, Ustilago maydis.
Dr. Thomas Smith and Dr. Dilip Shah explored an approach using a naturally found killer protein, KP4, made by a virus that lives in one specific strain of corn smut. “This is the only symbiosis I know of in the virus world,” said Smith. “Viruses like the common cold and the flu infect the host cell and destroy it after they have reproduced. In contrast, these corn smut viruses cannot leave the cell and the viruses ‘know’ that the host has to live if they hope to survive. To make sure its captive host lives, this virus, UMV4, makes a protein that is exported from the host cell and will kill off the other strains of corn smut trying to infect the same ear of corn. It’s an infection of an infection; the corn smut infects the corn, the virus infects the smut, and virus produces the KP4 protein to kill competing fungi, and thus insuring the host will outcompete other corn smut strains. With our genetically modified corn, the plants are producing so much KP4 protein, that the corn smut strains commonly found in the field are killed by the plant before they get a chance to establish an infection.”
Toxicity studies have shown that the KP4 proteins are safe for humans and animals to consume. Smith and Shah will continue to explore KP4 and other antifungal proteins ability to control other pathogenic fungi.
Even as media reports bemoan rising food prices, foodie elitists don’t get the picture. An ongoing poll on msnbc.com seems to shows that many people still do not understand that GMO crops allow farmers to grow enough food to feed the world’s growing population in an affordable manner.
Early this afternoon, over 77 percent of voters responded that they would prefer GMO foods be labeled. While a request for information is not shocking, many of the comments posted are. With cries to ban all GMO based upon false, misstated science and uninformed to fabricated anecdote, the wave of snobbish respondents demonstrates their lack of understanding. Frankly, the comments show that they do not understand farming, the science behind food safety and show a genuine lack of concern for their fellow man who cannot afford to tool over to Whole Foods for organic kale every Sunday.
The poll is still open, so time is left to show that reasonable citizens support scientifically-proven, safe crops that help feed the growing population. Simply click here and leave a comment showing that people in the know still have common sense and compassion.
It may not come as a surprise to many that the Prince of Wales does not appear to understand the common man. But, it may shock Brits to learn that he is now promoting an illogical approach to saving the planet and feeding a growing population that could actually decrease food production and increase greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. While there have always been cases of royal inbreeding, this seems more illogical than determining official leadership through a sword pulling contest.
In a recent Guardian article, Prince Charles criticized modern agricultural practices calling for a movement to organic practices that would save the environment and meet incredible increases in demand. His ideas may be well-intentioned and there is a good and growing market for organic products but, unfortunately, if implemented, these measures would have the opposite effect.
Modern agriculture is good for the environment. A new study from Stanford University says that advances in high-yield agriculture have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere – the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Hence the greenhouse gas emissions that he rails against would actually increase should Great Britain switch to the system Charles proposes.
Furthermore, the yield intensification biotechnology facilitates actually helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting increasing demand. Yield intensification has lessened the pressure to clear land and reduced emissions by up to 13 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. So, the exact type of farming the Prince eschews could meet all of his goals.
The science is behind modern production techniques. The 2009 Field to Market Study released by the Keystone Alliance for Agricultural Sustainability clearly demonstrated that modern farming techniques are more environmentally friends showing that between 1987 and 2007:
- Corn’s productivity gains have allowed for a 37 percent reduction in the land needed to produce one bushel.
- When combined with productivity advances, soil loss per bushel of corn produced has decreased by 69 percent.
- Irrigation efficiency per bushel has seen a decrease of 27 percent.
- Factoring in improved yields, the energy used to produce a bushel or unit of corn has decreased by 37 percent.
- Corn has seen a 30 percent decrease in emissions per bushel.
So let Prince Charles go back to gazing upon beautiful vistas of heritage variety sheep and munching lustily on heirloom variety vegetables. The common man will continue the hard work that characterizes successful farming. While the food most people eat may not come with a certified pedigree, farmers take advantage of scientific advancements to continue a proud tradition of stewardship that produces a harvest bountiful enough to meet growing demands.
Anti-biotechnology advocates are at it again. Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a quiz about biotechnology-enhanced salmon in the nutrition section of its website. While initially frightening, it makes thoughtful readers scratch their heads and ask, “Why?”
Clearly, the quiz designer fervidly believes that biotechnology is a terrible thing. From the use of the term “Frankenfish” in the headline to images that make the fish appear more frightening than those in Piranha 3D, the slides roll through asking simple questions while creating panic and dread through artfully selected language and menacing images.
The quiz fails to explain, even once, how biotechnology harms humans. Instead, it relies on readers to become worked-up to a point that they throw reason aside and buy into agenda-driven propaganda. In explaining that 75 percent of our food includes a biotech ingredient of some sort, it aims to shock the reader through the use of a large number. What it does not do is explain why anyone should feel a moment of anxiety over this statistic. Without any data, it manufactures unnecessary stress using smoky words and distorted mirrors.
Moreover, as it is placed in the nutrition section, it promotes the idea that biotech foods are detrimental to human health. Insinuating that the fish might cause an allergic reaction in those with a here unnamed allergy according to unidentified “experts,” the quiz deviates from citing sources to take its only near stab at using data to demonstrate a negative impact people may experience from the fish. Unfortunately, it does not take into account that many people already suffer from salmon allergies and cannot eat salmon ever, even wild.
So, stop trying to fill in the blanks for them. Ask for hard, scientific evidence proving that biotechnology is somehow detrimental to human health. Until the anti’s can produce credible data, consider that this carefully researched, scientific ability allows us to feed a growing population in an affordable manner with safe food. Instead of falling prey to the propaganda, thank the scientists working tirelessly to ensure the safety of our planet and security of our food.
The emcee for the Global Farmer to Farmer Roundtable conducted by Truth About Trade & Technology was Bob Thomson. He says the participating farmers were looking at what it’s going to take to thrive in the next several years. High on their list is modern technology. He says they realize that to feed the projected population equivalent of two more countries the size of China in the next forty years it will take very high productivity agriculture. The alternative will be massive destruction of forests and that will lead to a lot of undesirable results.
Bob says a real concern and frustration expressed, especially by European participants, was the extent that some activist organizations have dominated the debate and how little their governments are doing to help them. It’s hard to be competitive when you’re overburdened by regulations. Participants from countries like India said that biotechnology products will be critical for them. They weren’t so much interested in subsidies as being on a level playing field. A need to communicate their stories was also expressed.
Have you ever wondered what a seed laboratory does? Participants at the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer to Farmer Roundtable found out during a tour stop at the Iowa State University Seed Science Center. One of our hosts was Michael Stahr, Seed Laboratory Manager, seen showing seeds to the group at one of the stops during the tour.
The first thing that really got my attention was their herbarium which contains over 6,000 vials of seeds that date back to when George Washington Carver was doing work there. These are used primarily to compare and identify seed samples. It is of course in a locked cabinet! Michael says they test seeds for a variety of things. In fact, they’re the largest public seed lab in the country doing over 40,000 tests/year. Besides testing they also do seed conditioning. They conduct workshops for seed company personnel to improve the quality of their seed.
I asked Michael what percentage of American corn grower seeds get tested in his lab and he laughed. He says there are many labs out there unlike when he got started many years ago.
Imagine how differently a day at the office might have been in 1961. A secretarial pool takes the place of word processing software. Googling a subject might take hours and physical labor sifting through back editions of the paper or encyclopedias and still yield limited results. Email communications require a phone call, paper memo or even a written letter sent through courier or mail without the Internet. Once out of the office, communication ceases unless a coworker dials a landline nearby.
With a name like smut, it just has to be bad – and it is.
