Monsanto has a goal of helping corn growers double their yield by 2030. Reiter says their biotechnology pipeline is helping make this a reality. His team is working on improving corn water use or as he puts it, “getting more crop per drop.” He says the amount of money being invested in these technologies is unprecedented.

You can download (mp3) and listen to my interview with Dr. Reiter here:

But I really don’t need to have a personal friendship with the specific farmer that grew the radish on my salad or the steak on my grill.  I sleep well at night knowing there are thousands of family farmers and ranchers across the nation toiling to feed the masses and committed to providing abundant and safe food. And we have federal agencies as an insurance policy to make sure the system works.

I like access to all kinds of food offerings – healthy and otherwise – even when things are out of season in my part of the world. And I don’t know what Mr. Pollan’s grandma was like but mine did indeed eat lots of vegetables from the garden in season and those she canned during the long winter months. But that old sweetheart also thought starch and lard were food groups.

She also built every meal around a large slab of meat because people labored hard then and the protein was crucial to getting through the day. Society spent more time lifting, bending and swinging heavy objects than we do in today’s computer-dominated society.

 So I have spent a lot of time in recent months contemplating what is driving the small but growing niche markets in our food system operating under various names like organic, local, and even slow food movements. I have finally figured out that just assuming “slow food” is for bad hunters may not be a good strategy.

Almost astonishingly, the San Francisco Chronicle offered up a really nice article discussing the trend and how it is moving across the nation. It has a number of great quotes in it that I won’t spoil here.

Although I have a personal preference for Kansas rancher Chris Wilson, president of American Agri-Women, condemning documentaries like “Food, Inc.” and “King Corn,” as “pastoral fantasies.” My guess is Chris could take Michael two out of three falls because she really works for a living.

Seriously though, it is concerning when an anti-biotech advocate, like Michael Pollan is listed as one of the top “Thinkers” of 2010 on Time Magazine’s top 100 list.  In the Oscar-nominated documentary Food, Inc. and in his books Food Rules and The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan, 55, does indeed tell complex stories in an engaging voice.

He has “pollanized” thousands into believing that local and organic is better, as Time states, without noting the potential pitfalls in execution, seasonality, and little things like plummeting yields.

At the end of the day this cultural evolution of food should be about consumer choice, consistency of supply and safety, and maybe even a little deference to Grandma.

An old farmer once told me “passion is good. It gets your blood moving, generates discussion, and gets you up in the morning. It also gives you a yardstick for finding a functional truth.” I guess what he meant is that if you investigate the extremes you will likely find the truth somewhere in the middle.

According to the report released Tuesday by the National Research Council, “farmers who grow genetically engineered (GE) crops are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits -such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields – compared with conventional crops.” The report also noted that “The proprietary terms under which private-sector firms supply GE seeds to the market has not adversely effected the economic welfare of farmers who adopt GE crops.” In other words, farmers are still making more money from BT crops, even though the seed costs more and they are legally unable to save it from one season to the next.

On the environmental side, the report concludes that improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of GE crops. “Insecticide use has declined since GE crops were introduced, and farmers who grow GE crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides that linger in soil and waterways. In addition, farmers who grow herbicide-resistant crops till less often to control weeds and are more likely to practice conservation tillage, which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion.”

The only bad news in the report was that weeds are becoming resistant to the Roundup herbicide glyphosate – which is genetically bred into a large percentage of the soybeans, corn, and cotton grown in the United States. “Farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need to incorporate a range of weed management practices, including using other herbicide mixes,” the report suggests. “Federal and state government agencies, technology developers, universities, and other stakeholders should collaborate to document weed resistance problems and develop cost-effective ways to control weeds in current GE crops and new types of GE herbicide-resistant plants now under development.”

The industry is well aware of this issue and has already been taking exactly those steps to address it for several years now. It’s interesting, although not surprising, that the vast majority of news stories about this report have chosen to focus on this negative finding, rather than the environmental and economic benefits attributed to biotech crops. That is mainly due to groups like the Center for Food Safety calling attention to it and making statements not backed up with any facts, such as this: “The leading independent study demonstrates that Roundup Ready crops and resistant weeds have increased use of herbicides (weed-killing pesticides) by 383 million lbs. over what would otherwise have been used in the 13 years from 1996 to 2008. Resistant weeds also trigger greater use of soil-eroding tillage, and in some cases manual hoeing to remove weeds, as well as higher production costs.”

Biotech crops are still relatively young, having only just come on the market 14 years ago – still just a teenager. Maybe they are just going through that rebellious teenage phase. But since the studies indicate more benefits than drawbacks to their use at this point and we have a growing world population to feed it seems like best to focus on the upside potential.

Discover Magazine has a little pictorial on “Frankenfoods That Could Feed the World” which include golden rice with vitamin A, purple tomatoes with an antioxidant punch, and multi-vitamin corn on the cob (image from National Academy of Sciences).

Maggie Romuld, who “studies rivers, teaches Earth Sciences at a local college, and writes for a sustainability magazine,” picked up on that little story and wrote about it here on IndyPosted. “While the developed world has the luxury of debating the ethics of GM food, recent crises in Africa have drawn attention to the use of GM food as emergency food aid, and in other countries millions of hungry people wait anxiously for field trials to be approved,” she writes.

She suggests a couple of sources for those who might “need help deciding whether you are for, or against, GM food.” One is FrankenFoods.com, a website dedicated to “Exploring whether Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms are safe for human and animal consumption or if they are a real and present danger to human beings, animals, plant life and the environment.” It’s only a one page website with no information about the authors, but it appears to be pretty objective on the issue – albeit with articles that are a little dated.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is taking an active role in the evaluation of GMO foods “on the grounds that public health could benefit enormously from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient food production.” WHO offers some objective answers to 20 questions on GMOs that indicate a desire to get some global consensus on the safety of biotech foods.

With the global population explosion, governments that have actively opposed GMOs may find themselves forced to accept crops that are engineered to be more productive, more nutritious and even offering pharmaceutical benefits. The evolution of less resistance to GMOs may be underway.

Key to the visit was NCGA’s reiterating the fact that there are serious concerns among our members with the cap-and-trade proposal in Congress. Ihnen noted that if significant progress for agriculture is not achieved in the legislation, we will come under increased pressure to oppose the bill outright. 

NCGA continues to be a part of the debate and development of climate legislation in order to make it as farmer-friendly as possible but Ihnen, a farmer from South Dakota, pointed out it’s difficult to convince farmers that a new “green” economy will be good for them when the renewable fuel that we already produce comes under such regular attacks from the environmental community.

NCGA also used the opportunity to discuss USDA Chief Economist Joe Glauber’s recent testimony before the House Ag Committee where he told lawmakers that Ag and forestry offsets would cause 35 million acres of cropland to shift to forestry by 2050.  Ihnen told the Secretary this raises serious concerns in the agriculture sector, and inquired whether the EPA model being used by the Department is accurate.  Sec. Vilsack responded by saying  the assumptions used in the model were incorrect and the Department would attempt to clarify the issue when the final economic analysis is released by Joe Glauber before the end of the year. 

This led into a discussion of food security and how to feed a growing world population on limited resources.  Vilsack reiterated his strong support for agricultural biotechnology and the role it will play in meeting increased demand and helping to adapt to climate change through more resilient crops.  He said that some European leaders are beginning to acknowledge the value of biotechnology but their consumers continue to resist. 

The morning began with a briefing from EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy about the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and Clean Air Act reporting rule.  EPA’s plans for regulating greenhouse gas are extremely complex and multifaceted.  The reporting rule takes effect on January 1 and initial reports are due to the Agency by March 31, 2011.  A new regulation for tailpipe emissions will likely be issued in March of 2010.  There are several other rules to follow in the coming year related to other sectors of the economy.  Large livestock production could also be required to monitor and report emissions. 

Following this briefing, NCGA representatives had a conversation with House Agriculture Committee staff about how NCGA might approach the threat of regulation vs. legislation. Several members of the House Agriculture Committee who were initially resistant to dealing with climate legislation are now engaging on the issue because of the belief that EPA Clean Air Act regulations are inevitable and will have far-reaching implications for the Ag industry. 

On the issue of ethanol, Vilsack believes that we are getting closer to a positive decision from EPA on E15 and that USDA has been a strong advocate both publicly and behind the scenes for higher blends.  He also believes tremendous progress is being made on the issue of indirect land use change and that EPA officials have changed their thinking dramatically over the past several months.  He also mentioned that the administration will continue to highlight the importance of biofuels in an upcoming joint report between USDA, EPA and the Department of Energy.  NCGA emphasized that without corn based ethanol, we would not have the infrastructure or industry support for second and third generation ethanol.

The announcement today that a team of scientists led by The Genome Center at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has completed the corn genome is nothing short of monumental. But in this man bites dog world we live in the story will likely miss the evening news and the front page of your local paper.

While the glass half full crowd runs about blathering about how we can’t grow enough corn for all uses we are already doing it and the record crops grown in recent years is just a hint of things to come. (Anybody have any more clichés I can stick in this blog?)

The corn genome is a hodgepodge of some 32,000 genes crammed into just 10 chromosomes. In comparison, humans have 20,000 genes dispersed among 23 chromosomes. That officially makes a corn plant more complex than some people I know, but I digress.

This $29.5 million maize sequencing project utilized the collective expertise of 150 scientists and resulted in a road map scientists will explore for many more years to come. In these waning days of petroleum predominance this is welcome news.

Virtually anything made from oil can be made from corn today. Understanding the intricacies of the genome will allow us to make these emerging corn based products more efficiently and economically. Oh, and there is also that feeding the whole world thing. That’s a good idea too.

The Pacific Research Institute (PRI) released a new report examining the environmental and health concerns associated with genetically modified (GM) crops, called “The Way in Which We Produce Our Food,” by Amy Kaleita, Ph.D. The report concludes that, “Over-regulation of GM crops has little to no environmental benefit, and instead discourages genetic diversity, encourages corporate monopoly, and limits opportunities for farmers on the margins.”

“Increased regulation of genetically modified crops does not have significant environmental or health benefits, and indeed, has a number of negative impacts on both,” said Dr. Kaleita. “The goal is to ensure an adequate and stable food supply, and GM crops can be a means to that end.”

Read a pdf of the study here.

The U.S. Grains Council reports that last week, Turkey placed an unexpected ban on imports of biotech crops.

Turkey, the 27th largest export market for all U.S. goods, issued a new regulation on Oct. 26, 2009, placing additional requirements on all food and feed products containing genetically enhanced components. This new regulation essentially came without warning, according to U.S. Grains Council Regional Director in the Middle East and Subcontinent Joe O’Brien. “This ban came at us pretty much out of the blue,” he said. “This regulation impacts everything from a bag of potato chips to grains and co-products.”

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) reported on its Web site that this signifies approval of the fourth draft of a National Biosafety Law and is similar in nature to the draft reviewed last year. O’Brien said the potential impact is substantial to U.S. coarse grains and producers. For example, Turkey is the largest buyer of U.S. corn gluten feed (GCF) and the third-largest buyer of U.S. distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS). Turkey imported 435,378 metric tons of CGF in 2008 and 202,422 tons in the first six months of 2009. Turkey imported 465,212 tons of U.S. DDGS in 2008 and 199,173 tons from January through August of this year. USTR reports the U.S. goods trade surplus with Turkey was $5.8 billion in 2008, an increase of $3.8 billion from 2007. USTR also notes the total value of U.S. “transgenic” crop exports to Turkey exceeded $1 billion in 2007, which are endangered depending on how this new regulation is implemented. O’Brien said one issue currently “up in the air” is the fate of the vessels currently on the water loaded with U.S. goods.

There is a good chance the regulation will be reviewed and possible reversed, but immediately after it was issued last week there was a big holiday in the country, which effectively shut down all government operations (it was Turkey Independence Day). USGC is working with USTR to get the decision changed.

According to an article published in Agricultural Economics, a multi-country study documents the significant role international maize research plays in reducing poverty. It finds that since the mid-1990s, more than one million people per year have escaped poverty through the adoption of new maize varieties.

Key economic benefits from maize research are primarily the result of the productivity gains farmers experience after adopting modern varieties. While notably scant prior to the 1980s, the percentage of MVs found in a maize area grew from 5 % in the 1970s to 60% in 2005. The study results suggest that without research to maintain or increase maize yields, poverty in the region would be substantially worse.

Googling around for more information on African maize production, I found this story on the Alliance for a Green Revolution in African (AGRA) website that tells the story of Able Traore, a West African farmer who started using modern seed varieties on his small farm two years ago that have increased his yields by 50 percent. “If I had known what I know now, I would not have left the country for any other place. I wish that all my kids become farmers. Farming is the most pleasant job you can do in Mali,” Traore says. How true is that?

Of course, it’s not just better, higher yielding varieties that will continue to help Africans feed themselves. It is also access to more modern farming methods, fertilizer and inputs. As the AGRA website states: “We know that through dramatic improvements to agriculture, prosperity can replace poverty. In most modern economies, no lasting success has been achieved without first building a strong agricultural foundation.” True again.

No doubt that much of the credit for the improvement over the past 30 years in Africa must be given to the late Dr. Norman Borlaug. In 1986, Borlaug began working with the Sasakawa Africa Association, which aims to defeat malnutrition and poverty in Africa. At a memorial for Borlaug earlier this month, Yohei Sasakawa promised to carry on Borlaug’s dream that African children would someday not have to go to bed hungry. “You cultivated a dream that would empower the farmers, you planted the seeds of hope, you watered them with enthusiasm, you gave them sunshine, you inspired with your passion, you harvested confidence in the hearts of African farmers,” he said. Amen.

“In the middle of the 20th century, experts predicted famine and starvation, but they turned out to be wrong – because they did not predict Norman Borlaug. He not only showed humanity how to get more food from the earth – he proved that farming has the power to lift up the lives of the poor,” Gates said.

The billionaire noted that Borlaug’s Green Revolution “helped avert famine, save hundreds of millions of lives, and lift whole countries out of poverty” but “it didn’t go far enough. It didn’t go to Africa.”

He blames that on ideological differences between technology and environmentalism that forces a “false choice” between productivity and sustainability. “It blocks important advances. It breeds hostility among people who need to work together. And it makes it hard to launch a comprehensive program to help poor farmers. The fact is, we need both productivity and sustainability – and there is no reason we can’t have both.”

“We have to develop crops, including new inputs to go with them that can grow in a drought,” Gates said. “We have to have crops that can survive a flood, that can resist pests and new diseases. We need higher yields on the same land, despite more difficult weather. And we will never get there without a continuous and urgent, science-based search to increase productivity, especially focused on the needs of small farms in the developing world.”

I’m no big fan of Bill Gates, but I was very pleased to hear him standing up to radical environmentalists who want us to move backward instead of forward and supporting the use of biotech crops to help the poor in developing countries grow enough food to feed themselves.

You can watch Gates’ address on YouTube in three different segments (due to the 10 minute limit on videos for YouTube). Here is the first installment.