Posted By Cathryn April 10, 2014
Today, Corn Commentary features a guest post from blogger, CommonGround volunteer, farmer and dietitian Jennie Schmidt. Schmidt testified last month at the Maryland House and Senate in opposition to a state bill which would require labeling of certain products containing GMOs. As similar battles rev up across the country, she offers not only her perspective as a farmer but also as a registered dietitian who earned an advanced degree in science.
There has been much discussion over whether or not the labeling of “GMO” foods would add to the cost of food production or not. This was one of the supporting arguments for GMO labeling at the legislative hearing at the Maryland House of Delegates Committee on Health and Government Operations during which Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Michael Hansen of the Center for Food Safety, both insisted that labeling costs would be minor at best.
So does Mother Jones
So does The Grist
Wow, do these scientists and journalists have any understanding of the food supply chain from farm gate to grocery shelf?
Apparently not, nor does anyone else who thinks that “GMO” labeling won’t increase the cost of food.
Here is my pictorial analysis of the food supply chain from my farm gate:
Seed corn is ordered and delivered to farm, then planted in the spring around May.
By summer, it looks like this.
By fall, it looks like this.
It gets harvested between September and November.
Corn is transferred from the combine to a tractor trailer truck.
The grain is hauled here to our on-farm grain bins for storage. We have storage for about 50,000 bushels, less than 25 percent of our total yields in a normal year for corn, soybeans, wheat and barley, all of which need to be stored until they’re needed by our customers. This includes the specialty seeds we grow that require segregation from commodity grains.
When it’s time to sell, we reload the trucks and haul it to the local grain elevators.
The tractor trailer delivers the corn here,
And that’s just three of the local grain elevators. We have several other options depending on who is buying our grain. We and all our farming neighbors deliver to the same elevator and unload grain. This is called “commingling” where our crop is combined with everyone else who delivers to the same elevator and stored together in these large bins, regardless of what variety or trait of corn was grown.
So where’s the cost you ask? Well, every farmer in the region is hauling grain usually around the same time… to the same group of elevators. Hopefully you read my blog on seed choice last year and realize that all farmers determine their own purchases for seed and we don’t all grow the same thing. In fact, we grow 3-4 different varieties of corn ourselves. Why? Because we match the varieties of corn to our soil types. That’s called good stewardship and good business practice.
The food supply chain in the United States relies on a system of commingling, grain delivered to the elevator by farmers throughout the region. Maryland has 2 million acres of farmland, nearly a half million of which grew corn in 2012. In a not very good growing year, Maryland farmers produce 53 million bushels of corn.
If GMO labeling were to pass, that would require a HUGE addition to both on and off farm storage. Nationally, we’re talking billions of dollars in infrastructure needed to segregate grain. What none of these labeling laws is clear about either is how to achieve this segregation? Should it be segregated by trait? By variety? Both? The more layers of segregation, the more infrastructure is required and the more the costs escalate.
Segregation is costly. We know because we do it every year, year in and year out, and have for years. We do it because we get paid a premium for ensuring that the specialty grains and seeds we grow are “identity preserved”, very much like the certified organic process, involving higher management, higher tracking, and systems in place to ensure that the grains and seeds are genetically consistent and true to their traits, of highest quality meaning they are uniform in size, shape, color, free of weed seed and contamination. We will have 900 acres of grains and seeds this year that will require some protocol for identity preservation. They will be tested for the presence of GMO and tested to ensure that they are genetically consistent to parent seeds. This requires us to use some of our grain tanks for segregation. It requires us to do more “housekeeping”, cleaning equipment, trucks, trailers, planters, harvesters, grain bins, etc… all along the food supply chain to ensure that we have preserved the identity of that crop. It is an inherently more costly system.
So what are the costs? Here is my rudimentary analysis from the USDA Crop Production 2013 Summary.
There is 13 billion bushels of on farm storage in the United States.
There is 10.4 Billion bushels of off farm storage in the United States.
Last year, U.S. Farmers grew the following crops ALL of which require storage:
- 13.9 billion bushels of corn
- 389 million bushels of sorghum
- 421 million bushels of rice
- 3.3 billion bushels of soybeans
- 2.1 billion bushels of wheat
- 215 million bushels of barley
- 1 million bushels of oats
- 7.6 million bushels of rye
- 18 million bushels of millet
- 3 million bushels of flax seed
- 7.8 million bushels of safflower
- 1 million bushels of canola
- 65 million bushels of sunflower
- 38 million bushels of rapeseed and mustard seed
- 301 million bushels of lentils
- 937 million bushels of dry peas
- 250 million bushels of peanuts
- 1.5 Billion bushels of other dry edible beans including:
- light red kidney
- dark red kidney
- Great Northern
- baby limas
- large limas
- pinto beans
- small white
- navy beans
So 2013 produced roughly 23.5 billion bushels of 26 different grains and seeds, including those already in some form of identity preservation protocol, and have storage capacity of 23.6 billion bushels… without the extra infrastructure to segregate “GMO” from “non-GMO”. To segregate, additional infrastructure would be required along the entire food supply chain from farm gate to grain elevator to processor to manufacturer, in order to separate corn, soybeans, and canola.
A new grain bin cost approximately $2/bushel to buy and install, so a 50,000 bushel bin will cost $100,000. If we currently have sufficient storage for commingled grains and seeds, what will be the astronomical figure to segregate them by trait? That answer is dependent on how we are going to segregate. In order to have true traceability, GMO seeds and grains would have to be segregated by trait, so RoundUp ready traited grains would have to be segregated from Bt traited grains, and the stacked or combined traited grains would have to be segregated from those that are just Bt or just RoundUp Ready, and the combinations of traited grains would have to be segregated by the combination or stack of traits in the seeds too, because otherwise, you don’t have “truth in labeling” to say which GMO is in the product.
I mean surely, we need to label it by GMO trait right? Because otherwise “we don’t know”. This is the premise by which the activists say is the problem right? The uncertainty of GMO? We can’t commingle traited seeds and grains because then we no longer have true traceability. Absolute and utter segregation by trait or combination thereof is required to meet the demands of what is being called for in the GMO labeling legislation across the United States.
True GMO labeling will require vast capitalization of infrastructure to segregate grains and seeds by trait. (Read $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$).
And I’ve only been talking about the costs of grain storage. I can’t even begin the fathom the costs that it would take to segregate all along the entire food supply chain, keeping GMO corn, soybean or canola ingredients segregated by trait from conventional counterparts from the farm to the processor to manufacturer. We’re talking billions of dollars in order to maintain the absolute traceability of a certain genetic trait in a seed from farm to final product.
Those who say GMO labeling won’t add to the consumer’s grocery bill need to go back to Economics 101 and some basic high school math.
True traceability in our food supply system will be hugely expensive.
It’s likely that as a nation, we’d never capitalize all that infrastructure to achieve true traceability.
Which goes to the crux of the matter – this isn’t about labeling, as I cited in my last GMO blog, labeling is a means to an end. As noted by many activist groups, the ulterior motive behind labeling is not about a consumer’s right to know, it is about banning the technology.
Say NO to mandatory GMO labeling. Stand for science.
Interested? Read more posts authored by Schmidt on her blog, The Foodie Farmer, or follow her on Twitter @FarmGirlJen.
Posted By Cindy March 17, 2014
Martin’s got to wear shades.
That was National Corn Growers Association president Martin Barbre looking like a rock star at the final Corn Congress session of Commodity Classic. Not by choice, he actually broke his regular glasses the night before and had to wear his prescription shades to read.
But, Martin really does think the future is bright for corn farmers and agriculture in general, especially now that we finally have a finished farm bill and NCGA has reached a new membership record of 40,287 as of the end of February.
Two initiatives Martin is especially excited about right now are the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food (CFSAF) and the Soil Health Partnership.
“There’s no doubt that GMOs have become a hot button issue in recent years,” he said of the CFSAF, which advocates a federal solution that would establish standards for the safety and labeling of food and beverage products made with genetically modified ingredients. “We’re just getting the coalition together and getting a game plan together and when we do we’ll start moving forward.”
The Soil Health Partnership has the support of Monsanto and the Walton Family Foundation and relies on a science advisory council made up of government and university experts as well as environmental groups. “These are just examples of the coalitions we’ve been able to work on.”
Martin is even optimistic about the number one policy issue facing NCGA this year – protecting the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). “We’re proud of the grassroots action we saw on the part of our nation’s corn farmers” to get thousands of comments in to the EPA on the proposal and thousands of calls to the White House. “We don’t know when the decision will come down or what it will be but we know we’ve done our part and we’ll continue to keep pressure on the administration.”
Martin talked about these issues and others in the following audio segments:
Interview with Martin Barbre, NCGA president
NCGA president on the Classic stage
NCGA Press Conference with Martin Barbre
2014 Commodity Classic Photos
Posted By Cathryn March 13, 2014
Today, Corn Commentary features a guest post from blogger, CommonGround volunteer, farmer and dietitian Jennie Schmidt. Schmidt testified March 11 in opposition to a state bill which would require labeling of certain products containing GMOs. As similar battles rev up across the country, she offers not only her perspective as a farmer but also as a registered dietitian who earned an advanced degree in science.
I Grow GMO: Not Ashamed or Embarrassed
Yesterday, I testified before the Maryland State Senate Committee on Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee. I was speaking against SB778 ”Genetically Engineered Foods – Labeling Requirements”
My interview with WBOC on GMO labeling.
Introduced by Senator Karen Montgomery, of Montgomery County, the bill synopsis states:
“Requiring specified raw foods and packaged foods that are entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering to display a specified label beginning on July 1, 2015; requiring a manufacturer to include a specified label on specified foods; requiring a supplier to include a specified label on a container used for packaging, holding, or transporting specified foods; requiring a retailer to place a specified label on a shelf or bin containing specified foods; etc.”
She introduced the hearing legislation by asking why people acted “ashamed or embarrassed” about GMO. She claimed she was a supporter of biotechnology and wasn’t afraid of it but that consumers have the right to know.
But many of the groups who claim that consumers have the “right to know” are actually working toward a ban of the technology.
Organic consumers Association: “Once GMOs foods are labeled, informed consumers will move to protect themselves and their families by not buying them. Once enough consumers shun GMO-tainted and labeled foods, stores will stop selling them and food manufacturers will stop putting GMO food ingredients in their products.”
Center for Food Safety: ”Labeling #GMO food is not enough. We must keep new GE crops out of food supply to begin with take action @TrueFoodNow”
March Against Monsanto: “Many presume the March Against Monsanto is a protest about GMO. While food plays a very big role in the global protest, there are many insidious tentacles to the biotech giant. MAM seeks to destroy the root.”
Truth-Out: “GMO labeling laws are the cornerstone of the anti-GMO movement. But consumers are also expanding the fight by demanding outright bans on the growing of GMO crops.”
In fact, two consumers who testified at the same hearing in favor of labeling voiced the very same thing, that labeling didn’t go far enough, that biotechnology needed to be banned.
The Consumers Union, Food and Water Watch, and Union of Concerned Scientists had their legal team of suits presenting. I’m not going to restate their position because if you google Michael Hansen or Doug Gurian-Sherman, you will find pages of testimony nearly word for word identical to what they told the senate hearing yesterday, including continuing to claim the validity of the retracted Seralini study.
In response to Senator Montgomery’s comment: I am an unashamed and unembarrassed supporter of biotechnology. On my Maryland farm it has resulted in higher yields and lower pesticide applications, year after year, wet season, dry season, normal season. Even when Hurricane Irene knocked our corn flat, biotech held its ears better than non-GMO corn by 26 bushels per acre, which in a very crappy year, makes a world of difference to our family farm’s ability to stay afloat.
Our corn yield comparison data
Our soybean yield comparison data
Biotech outperform our specialty seeds: non-GMO & Identity Preserved. Yes, we grow and segregate a variety of different types of grains and seeds, all of which are tested and verified as pure to the variety they are supposed to be. This year, we will have 900 acres of grains and seeds under some protocol for identity preservation. The seed must be genetically consistent and true to its traits, uniform in shape, size and color, and free from weed seed and contamination. They are tested and verified to meet those standards. So co-existence of conventional, biotech, and organic/Identity Preserved/nonGMO grains and seeds is possible. We do it every day on our family farm and have for many years now. Biotech threatens none of our niche or specialty markets. These farming systems are not and should not be considered mutually exclusive.
When you combine higher yields consistently, with less man hours on a tractor, burning less diesel fuel, and saving pesticide sprays, you have a far more sustainable family farm on the environment: less greenhouse gases, less fuel consumption, less pesticide use = protecting and preserving more resources.
But to the larger picture, biotechnology has brought us Humulin, Epogen, Herceptin and many, many other excellent lifesaving medical therapies.
Biotechnology means we don’t harvest insulin from hogs or cattle pancreas anymore.
Biotechnology means we don’t harvest the enzyme chymosin from young calves to extract rennet from their stomachs which is then used to coagulate milk in the cheese making process.
To me, this is progress. To me, these are reasons to oppose mandatory labeling of “GMO”. It is both safe and efficacious in medicine and in food.
Science and research concurs. Published last year, An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research reviewed 1783 studies, 312 of which were GE food & feed consumption studies finding “no scientific evidence of toxic or allergenic effects”. The researchers concluded that “that genetic engineering and GE crops should be considered important options in the efforts toward sustainable agricultural production.”
1783 studies… 312 of them on consumption of GE food and feed. That’s a safety track record.
Nicolia, et al, 2013. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology
The technology is valuable in both medicine and food. The technology has many benefits to mankind. No one but the activists are saying biotech was supposed to be a “silver bullet”. Farmers know it’s one of many tools in the tool box to improve sustainability and produce more food on less land. Efforts to undermine the technology through mandatory GMO labeling that falsely implies there are safety concerns where none exist is misleading and a disservice to consumers.
I oppose Maryland SB778.
Interested? Read more posts authored by Schmidt on her blog, The Foodie Farmer, or follow her on Twitter @FarmGirlJen.
Posted By Cindy March 4, 2014
The granddaughter of the father of the Green Revolution is carrying on with his mission to help feed the world, and Julie Borlaug believes that must include communicating the benefits of biotechnology on a more personal level.
“For years, we in the ag sector have been on the losing end of the argument, partly because we thought we could win the day on science alone and with scientists doing the talking,” said Borlaug, who is Associate Director of External Relations at the Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture, during the Bayer CropScience Ag Issues Forum prior to Commodity Classic last week. “Scientists like my grandfather were unfortunately a lot better at doing science than communicating about it.”
Borlaug says her famous grandfather Dr. Norman Borlaug, who will be honored this month with bronze statue in the U.S. Capitol, had a “lifelong passion for feeding the hungry and miserable” and was a supporter of biotechnology just as she is. But she says that agriculture needs take a more personal approach to talking about biotechnology. “We must remember we are talking to those outside of agriculture who have never been on a farm,” she said. “We are talking to moms who believe everything on Facebook.”
You can listen to Julie’s remarks here: Julie Borlaug Remarks
Posted By Cathryn February 13, 2014
A Reuters news story released today confirmed that the advanced tools and practices used by modern American farmers can have a massive positive impact in reducing global hunger if more widely adopted. Assuming the idea of reducing human suffering holds near universal appeal, this finding demonstrates how arguments for a return to the farming ways of yesterdays and against the use of tested, proven technologies would actually have a negative impact on anyone financially unable to pay the high price of adherence to these pseudointellectual ideals.
The study, conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute, concluded that widespread adoption of an array of technologies, including biotech seeds, could cut commodity prices in half and reduce global food insecurity by as much as 36 percent by 2050. Noting that no single technology alone can produce this impact, the researchers found that used together practices such as no till farming, irrigation and biotech seed technologies can substantively change the future of global hunger.
For an infographic summarizing the findings, click here.
An over-fed, under-questioned segment of the population is pushing to take away the very tools farmers need to feed a growing world. With full stomachs, they use misinformation and empty rhetoric to launch a full sail assault on scientific advancement in agriculture. Whether for personal profit or out of sincere short-sightedness, anti-GMO activists and their anti-ag allies fight for misguided movements that would directly result in a future where more poor children go hungry.
The fight for modern farming is a fight to feed the world. Eschewing science in favor of foolish fanaticism has repercussions that reach far beyond U.S. borders and far into the future. Don’t let those born tomorrow suffer for the ignorance ignited today.
Posted By Cindy February 10, 2014
There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.
- Winston Churchill -
Some of the nation’s largest media outlets were on-line for the conference call Thursday announcing the new “Coalition for Safe Affordable Food” (CFSAF), a group of nearly 30 companies and organizations united to seed a federal solution on the labeling of food products derived from genetically modified ingredients (GMOs). Many of the resulting reports were predictably cynical of the effort.
Several of the headlines read some modification of Bloomberg’s “Food Industry Forms Group to Stop Gene-Modified Labeling Laws”, referring to CFSAF as an “anti-labeling coalition.”
The goal of the group makes perfect sense in seeking national standards for labeling of food that may or may not contain genetically modified crops, instead of the looming potential of a patchwork quilt of laws in different states and municipalities. “A federal solution on GMO labeling will bolster consumer confidence in the safety of American food by reaffirming the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) role as the nation’s foremost authority on the use and labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients,” said National Corn Growers Association president Martin Barbre.
American Soybean Association President Ray Gaesser of Iowa used Missouri, bordered by eight states, as an example of what kind of nightmare various labeling laws could create. “If every one of those states passed their own labeling requirements with different thresholds for GM ingredients, your average soybean farmer would have to establish eight different supply chains, sanitize his equipment between each one, and then trace them religiously,” he said, noting that it could increase prices by 15-30%.
“When you look at the real world impact of these state-by-state regulations, it simply becomes too much for farmers to bear,” Gaesser said.
With a growing number of states and municipalities from Hawaii to Vermont considering some kind of GMO labeling, the coalition is asking Congress to take action, but as of yet no bills have been offered. With the farm bill off the plate now, farmers are optimistic it will happen soon.
Listen to the conference call here: GMO Coalition Announcement
Posted By Cathryn January 23, 2014
The following blog post was authored by Minnesota family farmer and CommonGround volunteer Kristie Swenson. Swenson participates in CommonGround, which is a joint project of the National Corn Growers Association, the United Soybean Board and their state affiliates, to help moms off the farm know how the moms on America’s farms grow and raise their food. By sharing her stories, she hopes to help consumers enjoy their food without fear.
The topic of GMOs is complex, challenging, and emotional, regardless of your stance. I have yet to have a straightforward conversation where we simply talk about one aspect of the GMOs because it’s so hard to talk about just one aspect when there are so many sides to the issue. If one starts talking about the science itself, or the methodology used to genetically modify an organism, the conversation often goes on tangents like research, ethics, side effects, chemical use, labeling, corporations and so on. It is so hard to separate each individual issue because they are connected and they are all valid issues that should be addressed.
Straight away, you should know that I am pro-GMO. I do not believe that GMOs are the silver bullet or the solution for everything, but I do believe that GMOs have merits that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Do I think every single organism needs to be genetically modified? No, I don’t. But I do believe that genetically modifying some organisms can provide us with benefits, and I think those modifications should be researched.
Take papayas, for example. In the 1990s, Hawaii’s papaya crop was devastated by the ringspot virus. A Hawaiian scientist, Dr. Dennis Gonsalves, developed a virus-resistant variety of papaya through genetic modification and found a way to help the papaya industry. In Hawaii today, both GMO and non-GMO papayas are produced. (Read this article for an interview with Dr. Gonsalves.)
Am I saying that since I see GM papayas as a good thing, that all GMOs are a good thing? I’m not going to use one positive situation to blanket the entire topic of GMOs. I am just saying that there are other industries that could benefit from genetic modification. The citrus industry comes to mind as it has been hit by citrus greening (the scientific name is Huanglongbing, or HLB). In this particular case, biotechnology could save our citrus. Here are two articles that further explore the citrus greening issue: Article 1 and Article 2.
To me, genetic modification and biotechnology are tools. Having multiple tools to pick from enables us to determine which tool fits the best for the situation at hand. People will choose tools based not only on the situation, but also on their personal preference. You and I may be faced with the same situation, yet we may choose different tools to achieve similar outcomes. And that’s ok – it is ok to have different opinions, different beliefs, different comfort levels.
I understand people have questions and concerns. It’s so easy for us to look to sources of information with which we are familiar, or which share our perspective. In today’s society, with the constant barrage of information and the vast amount of information available, it is so hard to sort out what’s fact from opinion; what’s twisted from what’s true. What one person finds credible may not be a credible source for someone else. I encourage you to seek out sources of information that provide facts rather than perpetuating myths, to have respectful conversations with people who work with biotechnology, and to think critically about what you find. I encourage you to continue asking questions until you are satisfied with the answers, and to know not just what you believe but why you believe it.
Posted By Cindy January 14, 2014
Most people are unaware that much of our nation’s seed corn supply hails from the Aloha State. In fact, seed corn is now the biggest segment of Hawaii’s agriculture sector, valued at $243 million, according to the most recent statistics.
The seed crop industry started about 50 years ago in Hawaii, but since 2000 the industry has grown by an astronomical 548%, with all of the major seed players having a stake in about ten farms totaling some 25,000 acres on four of the Hawaiian islands. These farms use both conventional as well as biotech plant breeding methods to grow seed crops, mostly corn, and all of it is exported to both North and South America for further development and distribution.
Needless to say, the industry is very valuable to Hawaii in terms of employment and economic benefit – as well as to farmers working to feed a growing world population – but in the past year movements have cropped up to place restrictions on seed companies in terms of pesticide use and genetically modified crops. After a heated and prolonged battle last year that included a veto by the mayor who then received death threats, Kauai County passed such an ordinance in November. Now three major seed companies impacted by the law have filed suit against the county.
Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in August, open-air testing of experimental pesticides would be prohibited and a moratorium would be placed on the development of new genetically modified crops. In the lawsuit, the companies note that their activities are already regulated by state and federal governmental agencies and that the local law would place “burdensome and baseless restrictions on farming operations.”
While cloaked with the purpose of protecting the “health and natural environment” of Kauai and its people, this is clearly the work of anti-GMO activists, such as The Center for Food Safety which has been heavily involved in the local action. Just another weapon being used in the war against progress to feed a growing world population.
Posted By Cindy January 7, 2014
General Mills made headlines last week with the announcement that that they will begin marketing original Cheerios “not made with genetically modified ingredients.”
In a post about the change, General Mills VP of global communications Tom Forsythe noted that it really is not a big change. “Original Cheerios has always been made with whole grain oats, and there are no GMO oats. We do use a small amount of corn starch in cooking, and just one gram of sugar per serving for taste. And now that corn starch comes only from non-GM corn, and our sugar is only non-GM pure cane sugar.”
But it’s even less of a change than that, according to Margaret Smith, Cornell University professor of plant breeding and genetics, who says Cheerios are just the same as ever.
“Corn starch and sugar are highly refined products, so they contain no DNA, which is what is introduced into a genetically engineered organism, and no protein – which is what the new DNA would produce in a genetically engineered organism,” she explains. “Because of that, corn starch and sugar from a genetically engineered corn variety are nutritionally and chemically identical to corn starch or sugar from a non-genetically engineered variety.”
Forsythe notes that General Mills’ support of GMOs remains the same, which is well-articulated in an on-line company position statement that links to a separate website on Facts about GMOS.
The reason General Mills made the “change” and announced it as they did is really simple – money. “We did it because we think consumers may embrace it,” said Forsythe. Chances are the “new” Cheerios will actually be more expensive, as another company spokesman quoted in the Wall Street Journal said it “required significant investment” to make the changes to the original cereal and that it would be “difficult, if not impossible” to make other varieties without GMOs.
Time will tell if the cereal will be more expensive and if GMO-fearful consumers will pay the price. The bigger question is what message this will send to the general public if all they hear is that one of the nation’s largest food companies is going GMO-free.
Posted By Cathryn December 27, 2013
The Washington Examiner needs to examine their facts before publishing pure poppycock. In an article which ran on December 20, the paper claimed that National Corn Growers Association National Corn Yield Contest record holder David Hula grew his record-breaking bounty using organic production practices. Contest records clearly show this is completely untrue.
Hula, a perennial winner, deserves both recognition and admiration for his abilities. NCGA enthusiastically congratulates him on his accomplishment. The contest aims to encourage innovation and improvement, a goal Hula undoubtedly achieved. The fact that he did not grow his corn organically in no way, shape or form diminishes his success.
The false story published in the Examiner does detract from the overall success of modern famers though. Within days, anti-GMO activists have latched on to this pseudo-story to aid in their agenda-driven arguments. A record yield such as Hula’s would support arguments for the production possibilities using organic methods. But the record was not set using organic methods. So, the support they so desire does not exist.
NCGA keeps detailed records from each entry submitted to the NCYC. The information these forward-facing farmers provide sheds light on possible advancements and supplies the documentation needed to ensure the integrity of the contest. . The Biovante™ soil treatment Hula used may qualify as an organic treatment, but none of his other practices would qualify as organic. Like the vast majority of corn growers, he planted corn hybrids that contain biotechnology, used synthetic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. Organic production practices would not allow the use of any one of these tools.
The Examiner should take a closer look at how it fact checks its stories prior to publication. By not getting the story right, they turned a success story from America’s farms into a tool for activists who advocate against them.
Page 1 of 912345...»Last »