Philpott responds to Nathanael Johnson

http://grist.org/food/crop-flops-gmos-lead-ag-down-the-wrong-path/

Crop flops: GMOs lead ag down the wrong path

By Tom Philpott

Martchan / Shutterstock

Grist editor’s note: After we ran What I learned from six months of GMO research: None of it matters, Nathanael Johnson’s essay concluding his “Panic-Free GMOs” series, we heard from a lot of people who think that GMOs really do matter. We’re publishing three responses: one from Denise Caruso, author of Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet; one from Ramez Naam, author of The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet; and — to kick things off today — one from Tom Philpott, whose work long graced these pages and who is now at Mother Jones.

Lousy Grist magazine coverage of GMO issue

Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:00 PM, Carmelo Ruiz wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Marcia Ishii-Eiteman" <mie@panna.org>
Date: Oct 10, 2013 9:34 AM
Subject: Concerns re: GRIST Nathanael Johnson's "GE series 

Dear colleagues: 

As most of you know, Nathanael Johnson (GRIST) has been posting a series on GE (genetic engineering) for some time now. I have become increasingly disturbed by the lack of rigor in these posts, which purport to offer an objective “balancing” of facts surrounding GE technology, crops and foods. 

It appears to me that Johnson is so determined to come off as “neutral” that, whether intentionally or not, he sacrifices intellectual rigor, consistently taking the “pro-GE” statements he receives at face value without attempting to apply an independent critical lens or scrutinize them for their veracity. At the same time, he glosses over the detailed evidence-based critiques that many of us in the science community have provided him. (In his latest post on Bt crops, for example, Johnson misquotes me and then omits 99% of what I shared with him regarding the science, technology, application and real-world impacts of GE crops, increasing pesticide sales and seed industry concentration on farmers’ livelihoods and rural communities’ health and economic well-being. I have posted the following comment to the GRIST site.)

The result is a disturbing and dangerous over-simplification  often-times outright omission) of the evidence— agronomic, ecological, economic and political—that a truly rigorous assessment of GE crops and their real-world impacts demands.

I encourage COMFOOD/FOOD CRISIS readers to share your concerns (if you have them) regarding this coverage with GRIST editors, and call for better editorial oversight and more rigorous reporting, as we received in the past from GRIST.

Here is the comment I posted to Johnson's piece on Bt GE crops.

 Marcia Ishii-Eiteman

Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network

My comment posted to GRIST, 10/10/13:

After spending nearly an hour in conversation with Nathanael Johnson about the biology, ecology and politics of corn pest management, as well as the overall failures of GE crops to deliver on their promises, I am disappointed to see this misrepresentation of my statements in this article.

First of all, I never stated that Bt crops have led to a “vast decrease” in insecticide use. I acknowledged that we have seen a decline in insecticide use since the advent of GE crops in the 1990s (and that, at least initially, resistance management - where practiced - was successful in slowing evolution of resistance to Bt), but that decrease has not been sustained and is trivial in comparison with the tremendous surge in herbicide use associated with GE crops over the same period. (I also pointed out that a potentially significant load of Bt insecticide has been introduced into the fields through the Bt plants themselves, a fact noted by molecular biologists and biotech experts, but missing from Johnson’s piece.)

Johnson states, “There’s broad agreement that, so far, GMOs have helped the environment by cutting use of chemical insecticides.” He then goes on to quote me, presumably as evidence of this “broad agreement,” while ignoring the much larger evidence of harmful GMO impacts which I provided him. I would emphatically state that GMOs—including the insecticide-based Bt crops—have had a largely negative impact on the environment, for many reasons which I do not have space to go into here, but not least because they are designed to drive and maintain industrial mono-cultural production. (When assessing impacts, one cannot separate the “idea” of a technology from how it is used in practice.)

As for “broad agreement” about impacts of GMOs, I provided Johnson with an eight-page Issue Brief I wrote, which synthesizes the findings on GMOS from the UN and World Bank-convened International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD, 2008), a comprehensive report produced by over 400 scientists and development experts from more than 80 countries. This report concludes that “benefits” of GMOs have gone mostly to large corporates manufacturers of the technology, and not to the world’s poorest farmers, nor to the environment.

As for impacts in the U.S., it’s important to put GMOs in historical context, as I told Johnson: few insecticides were used—or needed—in corn back in the 1980s, as crop-rotating conventional corn farmers will explain. So part of the push for insecticide-containing corn came with the economic incentives to plant corn-on-corn year after year (and abandon well-established corn IPM practices), driven in no small part by the larger political and trade agenda of a government eager to push biofuel production and funnel the overproduction of American corn into export markets.

 Regarding the efficacy of Bt crops globally, I sent Johnson the two separate Chinese studies he mentioned in his article and explained to him their findings: a) cultivation of Bt cotton in China reduced cotton bollworm levels but led to emergence of secondary pests as new, economically damaging pests and b) farmers who purchased Bt cotton often still applied insecticides as insurance to protect themselves from possible crop damage, precisely because they had paid so much for the Bt seed to begin with. I also pointed out the frequent failure of Bt cotton in India; the Bt variety requires irrigation and fertilizer, inputs that low-income farmers operating in rainfed areas simply do not have access to. When the Bt crops fail (whether because insects have evolved resistance to Bt or because farmers are relying on rains which don’t come), they fall deeper into debt.

I gave Johnson these and other examples to emphasize the point that the “in-the-box” (or “in the lab”) design often has little to do with the “on-the-ground” reality. It is the latter which is relevant. If he is truly interested in the facts rather than futuristic scenarios, as he says, he needs to examine more closely the reality of the GE industry’s success at driving up pesticide sales, and its failure to deliver on so many of its promises.

I also explained to Johnson the money-politics behind the erosion of Bt resistance management in the U.S., and how Monsanto successfully lobbied EPA to reduce the percentage of non-Bt crop refuges that had been initially required as a way to slow Bt resistance. Bill Freese of Center for Food Safety has explained all of this in his comment above. I provided Johnson with the statement by Dow AgroScience’s scientist, John Jachetta (quoted in the Wall Street Journal), that pesticide resistance driven by GE crops  “will be a very significant opportunity" for chemical companies. Strange that neither of these points —or much else of what I told Johnson—made it into his piece.

More problematic is that Johnson appears satisfied with misquoting and then slivering comments out of the larger context in which they were delivered, in order to make his own case. On the other hand, he seems perfectly willing to take “pro-GE” statements at face value, without employing a critical lens or scrutinizing or fact-checking these statements for veracity.

What I find most disappointing among many things about Johnson’s coverage throughout his GE “series” is a tendency towards extreme over-simplification (or deliberate omission?) of the evidence—whether agronomic, ecological, economic or political—that a truly rigorous assessment of GE crops, the industry and their real-world impacts demands.

GRIST readers deserve better.

**********************************************
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD
Senior Scientist
Pesticide Action Network North America 
1611 Telegraph Ave.| Suite 1200 | Oakland, CA 94612  
Tel: (+1) 415 728-0175 (M, Th)
www.panna.org | www.whatsonmyfood.org | www.panna.org/blog

Nathanael Johnson: Grist to whose mill?

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15012-nathanael-johnson-grist-to-whose-mill

Grist's new food writer fails to see beyond industry spin in his series of articles on GM.

Claire Robinson takes Grist’s new food writer to task for falling for pro-GM spin
GMWatch, 21 August 2013

The online magazine Grist is well known for its coverage of environmental issues and for its incisive writing on food, agriculture, and GM, from the likes of Tom Philpott (now with Mother Jones) and Tom Laskawy, the founder and executive director of the Food and Environment Reporting Network.

Recently, Grist has offered us a new food writer, Nathanael Johnson, a Philpott replacement who has started to pen a series about GMOs. Johnson says a friend asked him before he started, "So are you for them, or against?" to which he answered, "I'm trying to figure that out."

His figuring out has given considerable pleasure to GM supporters. Jon Entine of the Cato Institute, whom Tom Philpott has called an "agribiz apologist", has celebrated in the columns of the business magazine Forbes "the sudden and surprising turn” of Grist. Entine uses Johnson’s pieces to pontificate on what constitutes good science journalism – the creators of which, in his view, include himself, Mark Lynas, the pro-GM blogger Keith Kloor, and the bloggers at Biofortified, who are keen admirers of the GM plant scientist Pam Ronald.

Ronald might be said to typify the problems with Johnson's series exploring the GM issue. In the third piece in this series, Johnson set out to explore the differences between conventional breeding and genetic engineering, with Ronald as his principal guide. For additional information he turned to another pro-GM plant scientist, Margaret Smith of Cornell. Unsurprisingly, the resulting article was supportive of GM’s safety.

The only real balance he offered to these two keen GM supporters were some things he had heard at a talk given by the microbiologist Dr Ignacio Chapela. This juxtaposition would seem to suggest a severe lack of balance: on the one hand, direct quotes arising out of hours apparently spent meeting and talking to Ronald and her assistant, and a direct interview with Margaret Smith, contrasted with notes from a lecture Chapela gave “years ago”. Again unsurprisingly, it's Smith who gets the final word.

Sadly, Johnson's latest article, "Is extremism in defense of GM food a vice?", is full of the mistakes and misleading statements that I have come to expect from his supposedly open-minded series.

Philpott on GM sugar beets

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-05-usda-defies-court-order-partially-deregulates-gm-sugar-beets

Tom Philpott: USDA ‘partially deregulates’ GM sugar beets, defying court order

Big Ag -- can't beet 'em.A week ago, the USDA shocked the organic-farming community by "fully deregulating" genetically modified alfalfa, after acknowledging that organic farmers had legitimate concerns about the move and hinting they'd be taken into account.

On Friday, the agency didn't simply skulk away from its own words in an apparent attempt to appease the agrichemical industry. This time, it defied a court order banning the planting of GM sugar beets until a proper study of their environmental impact can be done. The USDA announced that it would allow farmers to begin planting Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets -- genetically tweaked to withstand copious lashings of Monsanto's herbicide -- even though the environmental impact study has yet to be completed, The Wall Street Journal reports.

"The USDA decision is the second big victory for the crop-biotechnology industry in a week," the Journal noted.

Sugar beets provide about half of the sugar consumed in the United States -- and Monsanto controls 95 percent of the sugar beet seed market with its Roundup Ready genes. The company's stranglehold over the beet market demonstrates its insidious market power. When a federal judge demanded in August 2010 that farmers stop planting Monsanto's GM beet seeds pending an impact study, farmers quickly found out that virtually no non-GM seed was available. Between 2005, when the USDA first greenlighted GM beets, and 2010, Monsanto had essentially driven all competition out of the market.

That August court order roiled the food industry, raising the specter of higher sweetener costs because farmers would be forced to plant fewer beets due to lack of seeds. Rather than seeing this effect as an opportunity to reduce U.S. sweetener consumption, the USDA evidently saw it as a crisis that needed to be addressed by defying the court order.

As with alfalfa, blanketing cropland with GM beets raises the threat of cross-pollination -- genetic material from modified beets could make its way into organic table beet and chard crops, both of which can cross-pollinate with sugar beets. Moreover, the problem of "superweeds" -- weeds resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, which require heavier doses of more powerful herbicides -- will only compound.

But the decision didn't reflect a complete cave-in to the industry, according to the Journal:

The USDA, in a move that seemingly expands its regulatory powers over crop biotechnology, will for the first time "partially deregulate" a genetically modified crop. USDA is permitting farmers to plant genetically modified sugar beets this year only if they adhere to rules designed to prevent the plant's wind-blown pollen from reaching organic fields, where its biotechnology traits could spread.

I'm glad the USDA is at least finally placing restrictions on a GM crop. But it has again avoided tackling the serious issue of Monsanto's vast market power -- and the environmentally damaging nature of its ubiquitous Roundup Ready products, which now dominate virtually all of the largest U.S. crops: corn, soy, cotton, sugar beets, and, soon enough, alfalfa.

Philpott takes on the GM banana

TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.grist.org/article/food-2011-01-13-banana-crisis-and-gmos

Peeling back the problems

Why the banana crisis doesn’t make me stop worrying and love GMOs

by Tom Philpott

14 Jan 2011

Bananas ripening (and over-ripening) in bunches on the tree -- which is actually a giant herbAs a life-long and still die-hard banana eater -- locavoreanism be damned, they don't grow well in the North Carolina mountains -- I've been meaning to read the recent bunch of well-regarded books on the travails of Americans' favorite breakfast fruit. (Emily Biuso's 2008 Nation review piqued my appetite on this front.) The trouble with bananas is this: the export market is dominated by a single variety that's being stalked by a ruinous blight.

Well, lucky me: bananas have gotten the New Yorker treatment. Rather than plow through books, you can now read Mike Peed's recent, quite good and not-very-long piece ($ub req'd) on the looming banana crisis. The article has generated plenty of buzz in sustainable-food circles. Before I had a chance to read it, I saw a couple of list-serv postings arguing that it presents a compelling case for subjecting bananas to genetic modification.

The argument seems to go like this. Bananas are a massive source of nutrients and income in the global south. The one variety that has been deemed fit for the export market -- the Cavendish, selected for bland flavor, portability, and monster yields -- risks being wiped out by a fungus bearing the oddly frightful name of Tropical Race Four. If only geneticists could find a gene that resists Tropical Race Four and splice it into banana plants, the catastrophe could be averted. Moreover, unlike with, say, corn or alfalfa, there's no chance of a GMO Cavendish spreading genetic material to wild or non-GMO bananas, because the Cavendish is sterile.

But I came away from Peed's article with the opposite conclusion: I see no compelling case for GMO-izing bananas. First of all, such a project would probably have little effect on how people eat where bananas are actually grown. Peed reports that despite the yellow fruit's ubiquity in U.S. and European supermarkets, 87 percent of bananas produced in the world are consumed right where they're grown: in the hot parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And guess what? Tropical Race Four doesn't threaten this bounty.

TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.grist.org/article/food-2011-01-13-banana-crisis-and-gmos

Supreme Court’s ruling on Monsanto’s GE alfalfa: Who won?

by Tom Laskawy

21 Jun 2010 12:27 PM

• 
  
• 
  

Read More About

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Share

• Print

Updated 2:20 pm Pacific, June 21

The sustainable agriculture world is abuzz today with news of the Supreme Court's ruling regarding an earlier lawsuit, brought by alfalfa farmers, that sought to stop any planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready alfalfa seed. While the press coverage heralds the ruling as a decisive victory for Monsanto, a close reading shows that, in fact, it's a fairly significant win for opponents of biotech crops.

Hay dudes, not so fast

The background: As the fourth most-planted U.S. crop behind corn, soybeans, and wheat, alfalfa is worth $9 billion a year -- the dairy industry is the biggest consumer -- with annual seed sales valued at $63 million, according to a USDA study. Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa seed has been genetically engineered to be tolerant of glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto's herbicide Roundup.

Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco found that the USDA had illegally approved Roundup Ready alfalfa for planting -- which the agency refers to as "deregulating" -- by allowing Monsanto to sell and farmers to plant the seeds without the USDA completing a required full Environmental Impact Statement. (A preliminary one was under way.)

In response to a lawsuit filed by GMO-opposed alfalfa farmers along with the Center for Food Safety on behalf of consumers, the District Court halted all planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa until the USDA completes the EIS, which could take years. It also issued two injunctions: one that prevented the USDA from performing a so-called "partial deregulation" of Roundup Ready alfalfa, i.e. allowing restricted and otherwise limited planting, while it prepared the final environmental statement; the other stopping farmers from planting any Roundup Ready alfalfa starting with the 2010 crop year. (For a deeper look into the lead-up to the case, read Matt Jenkins' excellent 2007 feature "Brave New Hay" from High Country News.)

Today, in a 7-1 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court reversed both District Court injunctions, saying that the Court had overreached itself procedurally in halting the plantings. (Both Justices Steven Breyer and Clarence Thomas had conflicts of interest in the case -- Breyer's brother was the District Court judge on the case, while Thomas was corporate counsel for Monsanto earlier in his career, but only Breyer saw fit to recuse himself.)

Despite the news reports claiming victory for Monsanto, the Supreme Court did not overturn the central tenet of the case: that the USDA prematurely approved Roundup Ready alfalfa. The District Court, in effect, made it once again illegal to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa -- and the Supreme Court endorsed that ruling. While the Justices did declare that the USDA, if it wants to, has the right to give the seed a preliminary approval (i.e. for limited, restricted planting), the Supreme Court decision does not by itself give Roundup Ready alfalfa the green light.

And it's important to note that the USDA has not yet formally announced any intention to re-authorize the restricted plantings, which would come in the form of a rule for "partial deregulation" of Roundup Ready alfalfa. In fact, the agency and Monsanto hed preciously submitted such a plan to the District Court in hopes that it would be incorporated into the final ruling, and instead, they received an injunction.

To some, that move appeared to be an attempt at an end run around the official rulemaking process. It's not clear if the USDA will move forward with anything other than the "final" environmental review.

[Update:] The USDA office that oversees biotech crops, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), just released a brief statement via email in response to the Supreme Court's ruling. In it, the agency leaves the door open to some sort of preliminary approval for the alfalfa seed, without indicating its intention one way or the other: "APHIS is carefully reviewing the Supreme Court ruling before making decisions about its next regulatory actions related to the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa." It also announced its intention to complete the full environmental impact statement "in time for the spring planting of alfalfa crops in 2011." That start date presumes they get through the process without any more lawsuits or injunctions -- not a safe bet, at all.

No mo' gene flow?

More importantly, the Supreme Court has also now ruled for the very first time that "environmental harm" includes economic effects such as reduced agricultural yield or loss of market due to genetic contamination, as well as the concept of what biologists refer to as "gene flow" (in practice, the idea that genetically engineered material may get into conventional plants through cross-pollination). The Supreme Court now accepts that this phenomenon in and of itself is harmful and illegal under current environment protections.

"That’s a huge win for our side ... That’s gigantic!" Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist of Consumers Union, told me. Future lawsuits can now confidently use the gene-flow argument against approval and use of genetically engineered crops.

Others share his glee. The Center for Food Safety called the ruling "a victory for the Center for Food Safety and the farmers and consumers it represents."

For its part, Monsanto is spinning the ruling positively. In a statement posted on its website, the company said:

This is exceptionally good news received in time for the next planting season. Farmers have been waiting to hear this for quite some time. We have Roundup Ready alfalfa seed ready to deliver and await USDA guidance on its release. Our goal is to have everything in place for growers to plant in fall 2010.

Well, from all appearances Monsanto has this flat wrong. Farmers can't plant Roundup Ready alfalfa just yet. And even if the USDA tries for that preliminary approval, the Supreme Court made very clear that today's ruling does not presume that any preliminary approval is (or isn't) legal.

Indeed, the legal issues at the heart of the ruling aren't over the rights of corporations or the science behind genetically engineered seed, but about the separation of powers between co-equal branches of government. The Supreme Court today stopped a District Court from telling a federal agency that it couldn't make regulatory rules. For the judiciary to stop the government from doing its job requires meeting a very rigorous set of standards. After the Supreme Court decided to make this point the crux of its ruling, all the other issues fell by the wayside. Another way of looking at it is that the supposed "overreach" by the District Court was against the USDA, not Monsanto.

The Supreme Court has also made the point very clearly that outside groups have the ability to file lawsuits in order to stop any poorly conceived or improperly executed rule that a federal agency passes. And surprisingly enough, the Court -- with its expansion of the definition of "environmental harm" to include things like gene flow -- just gave consumer groups a whole new set of legal weapons to wield against the same companies currently crowing over the implications of today's events.

Scientists show ‘growing’ fuel is waste of energy

http://www.grist.org/article/scientists-show-growing-fuel-is-waste-of-energy/

by Tom Laskawy

22 Apr 2010

It's no mystery where Grist comes down on the food vs. fuel debate, aka the Great Ethanol Boondoggle. But it's nice to see the science continuing to support our side of the argument (via Science Daily):

Using productive farmland to grow crops for food instead of fuel is more energy efficient, Michigan State University scientists concluded, after analyzing 17 years' worth of data to help settle the food versus fuel debate.

"It's 36 percent more efficient to grow grain for food than for fuel," said Ilya Gelfand, an MSU postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study. "The ideal is to grow corn for food, then leave half the leftover stalks and leaves on the field for soil conservation and produce cellulosic ethanol with the other half."

Other studies have looked at energy efficiencies for crops over shorter time periods, but this MSU study is the first to consider energy balances of an entire cropping system over many years. The results are published in the April 19 online issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

"It comes down to what's the most efficient use of the land," said Phil Robertson, University Distinguished Professor of crop and soil sciences and one of the paper's authors.

The researchers go on to observe that using some of the crop waste from, say, corn fields to make fuel (while reserving the rest to plow back into the soil) increases the efficiency of the process. But they also point out that that technique won't provide nearly enough fuel for our gas tanks.

They also hold out hope, as do many in the biofuel industry, for cellulosic biofuels that can be grown on marginal land. But the fact is that a cash crop on marginal land is worth even more on prime farmland -- once we go that route it will be very hard to keep biofuel crops from displacing food crops, especially in the developing world.

The conclusion I draw from this study is that it's a terrible idea to put fuel in competition wtih food for productive farmland. The system is designed to favor fuel production at this point and now we know that's actually a waste of energy, rather than a source. With any luck, this new data will be included in the EPA's controversial review of its indirect land-use calculations for the climate impact of biofuels.

Ultimately, I do think biofuels have a role in our economy, but it will be through farmer cooperatives that grow and process biofuel for their own tractors and not for suburban warriors and their SUVs.

USDA downplays own scientist’s research on ill effects of Monsanto herbicide

What would happen if a USDA scientist discovered that one of the most commonly used pesticides on the planet with a reputation for having saved millions of tons of US soil from erosion was -- rather than a soil savior -- a soil killer?

First came superweeds; now come the superbugs!

by Tom Laskawy

24 Mar 2010 11:37 AM

• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Share121

• Print

The pink bollworm: the bug that ate Monsanto\'s Bt franchise?Photo: North Carolina State UniversityThe current crop of superweeds plaguing farmers who rely on Monsanto's RoundUp pesticide represents by now a well documented crisis. But watch out, world! Here come the superbugs.

That’s right, Monsanto’s other flagship product, its "Bt" line of genetically modified seeds which emit their own pesticide in the form of a naturally occurring toxin, is now under threat from resistant insects. Science Magazine ($ub req’d) has the details:

Monsanto has revealed that a common insect pest has developed resistance to its flagship genetically modified (GM) product in India. The agricultural biotechnology leader says it "detected unusual survival" of pink bollworms that fed on cotton containing the Cry1Ac gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which codes for a protein that's toxic to many insect pests. In a statement to Science, Monsanto claims that the finding from western India "is the first case of field-relevant resistance to Cry1Ac products, anywhere in the world."

This development comes despite Monsanto's long history of downplaying the probability of the evolution of Bt resistant insects. In some ways, this is a worst case scenario for the biotech giant with both its main genertically engineered seed traits now under attack by Mother Nature. As a result, some analysts marveled at Monsanto's casual announcement of a development that could lead to a collapse of one of its main money-makers:

One prominent researcher questions whether the Gujarat bollworms truly are resistant. Monsanto's conclusions and methodology are "flawed," charges CICR Director Keshav Raj Kranthi, an entomologist. In 8 years of monitoring Bt cotton, he says, CICR has "not found any resistance." Kranthi argues that Monsanto "should have analyzed tens of thousands of specimens before making this claim. ... It's a mystery why Monsanto is trying to kill its own technology." Monsanto disputes that charge; it says its resistance tests were "standard practice" but declined to elaborate on its methodology.

Perhaps it's worth keeping in mind that Monsanto is in the midst of trying to move farmers from its first-generation Bt seed, to its newer [more expensive] second generation Bt seed which expresses multiple versions of the Bt toxin. In theory, this new seed would kill pests that the first gen version might not. Do I smell an ulterior motive?

It's also true that scientists who don't get their paychecks via Monsanto have been warning of Bt resistant insects for quite some time -- and the Science article mentions the fact that, despite Monsanto's claim, resistance to Bt has been seen in North America already. These risks are one of the reasons why the EPA requires farmers to plant "buffer zones" of non-GMO crops around any GMO field which theoretically minimizes the resistance risk. However, as the NYT reported last fall, a surprising number of US farmers ignore those guidelines and increasing the probability of resistant insects.

But it's not just Monsanto we should be worried about -- the NYT observed that widespread Bt resistance would be a huge problem for large organic growers because Bt toxin insecticides are one of the few organic options available. India, which is in the midst of an agricultural crisis and is attempting a significant increase in organic agriculture, is the last place you'd want to see something like this happen.

As one expert summed up the significance of this latest news on GMOs:

I hope that this episode will cut down on the belief ... that Bt has some magical immunity to resistance.

Huh. And I thought it was GMO opponents who were the ones accused of indulging in magical thinking. Well, Monsanto, how's that shoe feel now?

Gates Foundation throws its lot with agribusiness, by Tom Philpott

[Update below; see final paragraph.] The Gates Foundation has emerged as a kind of de facto USDA for Africa: a deep-pocketed funder with a focus on agriculture, in a continent that has seen ag-research funding plunge over the past several decades.

For a while, the Gates Foundation sought to avoid a reputation as a cheerleader for biotech “solutions” to Africa’s agriculture troubles.

Sure, our nation’s best-funded foundation hired a former Monsanto exec, Rob Horsch, as a program officer. But its official ag-development documents (see, for example, this one) brim with statements on the importance of small-scale farming—a wise idea, given that a majority of Africa’s residents rely on small-scale farming for their sustenance.

And the foundation lavished some cash—a small amount, relatively—on appropriate-tech, farmer-friendly, ecologically sound initiatives.

Then Bill Gates himself gave his blunt pro-biotech speech in October 2009—which I commented on here—at the awards ceremony of the industrial-ag-friendly World Food Prize.

And now the Gates Foundation has finally named a new director of agricultural development—a position left vacant since April, when Rajiv Shah left to take a post at USDA. (Shah is now director of USAID within the State Department—the top development position in the U.S. government). The foundation named long-time biotech exec and investor Sam Dryden to the post.

In doing so, the foundation could hardly have sent a stronger signal: In its vision, at least, Africa’s future as a prosperous continent hinges on the benevolence of patent-wielding Western biotech behemoths like Monsanto and its very few peers in the GMO-seed space. Here is how The Seattle Times describes Dryden’s background:

At Wolfensohn and Company, which was founded by former World Bank President James Wolfensohn, Dryden focused on investments in alternative energies. He formerly headed Emergent Genetics, which develops and markets seeds. Emergent Genetics, the third largest cotton seed company in the U.S., was acquired by Monsanto in 2005 in a $300 million deal. [Emphasis added.]

According to his Emergent Genetics bio, Dryden stayed on with the company until June 2006, at least six months after its acquisition by Monsanto. At Wolfensohn, Dryden “focuses on private equity investments in biofuels and other alternative energies.”

GMO cotton, biofuels ... this is an industrial-ag man through and through. Indeed, if his resume is any indication, he seems to fixate more on using land to produce fiber and fuel than on food for people to eat.

And his experience in the ag-biotech industry dates to its early days. From his Emergent bio:

In 1980, Sam led the spin-out of Union Carbide’s biotechnologies and related business operations and was subsequently co-founder, President and CEO of Agrigenetics Corporation. The company grew to become one of the world’s largest seed enterprises and was acquired in 1985—it is now part of Dow AgroSciences. During this same period, he was also chairman of an affiliated partnership which managed and invested $60 million in proprietary plant sciences research conducted in leading universities, as well as private and public research institutions worldwide.

The bio goes on:

Following the sale of Agrigenetics, Sam founded and was President of Big Stone Inc.—a private venture investment and development company focused on the life sciences. The firm participated in founding over a dozen companies in area such as biopesticides, novel nucleic acid-based therapeutics and diagnostic products, transgenic animals, fermentation based production of vitamins, pharmaceutical clinical trialing, environmental toxicological testing and bio therapeutics. Sam also served as the non-executive chairman of Celgro, Inc, and independent venture of Celgene Corporation, a company focused on the development of novel, single-isomer, agricultural chemical compounds.

Whether Western biotech can really “feed the world” remains a matter of great debate. But the Gates Foundation’s position on whether GMOs are a panacea no longer need be debated.

[Update:] I just want to add, and I hope the foundation’s decision makers will think hard about that this, that Dryden (like Shah before him) seems to have zero experience working in the field with actual farmers. He is a titan of the board room, the conference hall, the offices of World Bank executives. Intentions of the decision to hire Dryden aside, the appearance is this: an attempt to “solve” Africa’s agriculture problems in a way that works for Western shareholders. What we need now, though, are solutions that work for Africa’s farmers, citizens, and broader ecology.

Link:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-08-gates-foundation-agribusiness-dryden/

From Grist: Monsanto targets US public radio

SOURCE: http://www.grist.org/article/national-public-propaganda/

By Meredith Niles

For years my alarm has been set to pubic radio so I can lie in bed for five minutes and have a grasp on the day’s news before I even get up. I, like many other Americans, rely on NPR and other public-radio shows for news that is what I deem to be as unbiased and fair as possible. But this morning my ears burned as I listened to an on the American Public Media show Marketplace sponsored by Monsanto, the world’s largest corporate agribusiness chemical firm, touting how its genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. It left me wondering, particularly in tough economic times, how do media ethics hold up? (The GMO seed giant has been bombarding liberal-minded publications with similar propaganda, see image to the right, for months.)

The Monsanto ads are quite simply false. The premise of the ad is more or less that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. All while the corporation made more than 11 billion dollars in 2008 amidst a world food crisis. The catch phrase, “Produce more, conserve more” even has its own website, which conveniently links directly to Monsanto’s website section on “sustainable agriculture”. But the reality of Monsanto’s seeds and the company’s ethics and commitment to fighting world hunger have nothing to do with producing more or conserving more.

Let’s get a few facts on the table. Eighty-five percent of all GM seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance. Most of these crops are Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. What this tolerance means is that the plant can actually withstand significant amounts of pesticides being sprayed on it—in effect promoting pesticide use. In the past farmers were motivated to spray judiciously since their crops could be adversely affected. Farmers growing GM seeds don’t worry about this, and as a result there has been an increase in pesticide use in the United States since the introduction of GM seeds. The most comprehensive independent research done utilizing USDA data demonstrates that since the introduction of GM crops in the United States, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides were used. This seems to be a growing trend as well, as the active ingredient in Roundup Ready crops—glyphosate—s becoming less efficient and creating scores of resistant weeds, resulting in increased use.

In 2008 Monsanto’s total sales for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides was more than $4 billion—up 59 percent from 2007. Perhaps more importantly, its gross profit from such sales was nearly 2 billion dollars- up 131% from 2007. So, what is Monsanto conserving more of? Certainly not biodiversity, human health, wildlife, pollinators or the soil, which are all adversely affected by pesticide use.

The claims of “producing more” that Monsanto touts in the NPR ads are also completely unfounded. Not a single GM crop has been commercially introduced that is intended to increase yield. Agronomists and plant scientists made far greater advances in yields through conventional breeding methods in the 20th century than they ever have with GM crops. In fact, there have been several studies which show that there are actually yield losses associated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans. What biotech companies have been effective at doing is crafting media messages that persuade the average person to believe that their crops increase yield and that without GM crops we simply couldn’t feed the world.

In fact, GM crops account for less than 3% of total agricultural acreage globally. Five countries in North and South America account for more than 90% of total global acreage, with the United States, Argentina and Brazil making up 80% of total global GM crop acreage. In Africa, only two countries-South Africa and Burkina Faso-allow the commercial planting of GM crops, which are minimally grown. Less than 3% of the cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, and in India most of that is cotton- not food. This leads me to my next point- four cash crops- soy, maize, cotton and canola make up almost 100% of GM crops planted worldwide. Of these commodity crops, most are used to make biofuels, processed foods, animal feed, and vegetable oils-they are not fed directly to people in their whole form. The bottom line? GM crops are not feeding the world, and they are not enabling us to produce more.

Perhaps the most important consideration for Monsanto’s ads on Marketplace is the unethical implications behind their words. They want us to believe their crops are feeding hungry children in Africa and that they are allowing farmers to use fewer chemicals. But their actions demonstrate that their concern lies otherwise- in their profits. In 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) a global group of scientists, NGOs, private sector officials, and country governments initiated by the World Bank and the United Nations released its long awaited report, “Agriculture at a Crossroads”. The report painted a grim picture for food security and described the harsh reality of the challenges that agriculture and food systems must overcome to ensure food security in the future. What made the IAASTD report so groundbreaking was its unprecedented questioning of the role of GM crops to aid in food security and environmental improvement. IAASTD authors paraphrased the conclusions of the report in Science stating, “The assessment found GM crops appropriate in some contexts, unpromising in others, and unproven in many more. No conclusive evidence was found that GM crops have so far offered solutions to the broader socioeconomic dilemmas faced by developing countries.”

This was certainly not the golden ticket for GM crops that Monsanto hoped for from the IAASTD. So, what did they do? They bailed. The failure of biotech corporations to influence the IAASTD led Monsanto and Syngenta to withdraw from meetings and collaboration just a few months before the final release of their report. According to the journal Nature, which published a story on the issue titled “Deserting the Hungry?”, such actions resulted after drafts devoted more space to biotechnology’s risk than its benefits and failed to recognize that GM crops produced higher yields. In a year with unprecedented world hunger, Monsanto pulled out of the most comprehensive international attempts to examine the problems and solutions of the situation. And, they made 11 billion dollars the same year, mostly from their Roundup chemicals and biotech seeds-both which they increased in price at the height of a global food crisis. So, producing more and conserving more, or deserting the hungry?

I encourage American Public Media and all other news media services to think about their principles, ethics, and mission statements and consider applying these principles to the ads they are running.

Meredith Niles is coordinator of the Cool Foods campaign at the Center for Food Safety. The Cool Foods Campaign is a national public advocacy, education and policy campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our food and agriculture systems. The Campaign is working with a variety of organizations, businesses, schools, restaurants, city councils and individuals to help reduce “foodprints”. The Campaign is also working on climate change and agriculture policies that will promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial agriculture in our food system, and reward small-scale sustainable farmers for their positive contribution to climate change mitigation.

'Sack it to 'em
Tom Philpott
Grist, 16 Dec 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/16/2326/6775

*Brushing aside pressure, Obama taps a big-ag man as USDA chief

"Tom Vilsack was one of the first governors to see the promise of biotechnology. He has a very balanced view of agriculture and understands its potential." -- Ted Crosbie, vice president of global plant breeding and director of Monsanto's Iowa operations

"Governor Vilsack would be an outstanding choice for Secretary of Agriculture. He would bring great leadership and experience to the position. Governor Vilsack understands what it takes to increase agricultural productivity to meet growing global demand for food and feed." -- Paul Schickler, president of Dupont's Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of Monsanto few rivals in the genetically modified seed industry. (Both quoted from a Dec. 16 Des Moines Register piece.)

In 2007, Thomas Vilsack ended an eight-year stint as Iowa's governor. Before that, he had served as a state senator. During his time in Iowa politics, he promoted the interests of large agribusiness firms in several ways.

As a state senator, he voted for the infamous House File 519 in 1995, which stripped counties of the right to impose restrictions on CAFOs. In 2005, as governor, he signed into law House File 642, which barred local governments from regulating the planting of genetically modified seed.

In 2001, the Biotechnology Industry Organization named him "governor of the year" for his "support of the industry's economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research." Vilsack also briskly promoted biofuels as governor; he served as chair of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition.

After stepping down after his second term in 2007, Vilsack ran for president. When that bid failed, he joined the Minneapolis-based corporate law firm Dorsey & Whitney. The firm's broad range of corporate clients include food giants Cargill and Conagra. According to Dorsey & Whitney's website, Vilsack was hired to focus on "strategic counseling and advising clients in the fields of energy conservation, renewable energy, and agribusiness development." He also serves as a distinguished fellow at Iowa State University's Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, where he sits on the advisory board with representatives of Monsanto, Dupont's Pioneer Hi-Bred, and the World Bank.

President-elect Obama has reportedly plucked Vilsack from those posts and tapped him to be USDA chief. The decision comes after a wave of hope that Obama might choose a less agribusiness-oriented candidate. I'll be writing more on this pick in the days to come.

• Monsanto still reading blogs
• PR firm Edleman launches charm offensive for the GMO giant
  By Tom Philpott
  Gristmill, June 13, 2008
  Straight to the Source
  
  

Not so long ago, I was an utterly obscure farmer-blogger dashing off indictments of industrial agriculture for some 30 loyal readers (many of them house-mates and relatives).

And then, evidently by the miracle of the Google search, a functionary from Monsanto's legal office discovered my blog and fired off a cease-and-desist letter. I published it, added a tart response, and alerted a few editors to the exchange. Within days, my site meter showed thousands of readers piling in. Within months I had a paid writing gig. Thanks, Monsanto! Evidently, the GMO seed giant is still paying folks to scan Google for blogs that dare criticize it -- only now it has evidently outsourced the task to the PR-flack powerhouse Edelman.

Just today, a week after we published a (highly sarcastic) guest post by Claire Hope Cummings titled "All Hail Monsanto," a gentleman from Edelman wrote to one of my Grist colleagues to offer his services "tracking down information or putting one of you in contact with a representative from Monsanto that can insightfully answer any questions you may have concerning the company and its sustainability goals."

You never know -- we might just take him up on that.

I have recently heard similar tales from other food-politics bloggers who have had the unbridled nerve to question Monsanto's benevolence: A cordial email from an Edelman employee offering informational services that might better explain Monsanto's intentions.

In her post that inspired the Edelman missive, Cummings had some fun at the expense of Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant for declaring that "Skepticism is a commodity the world can't afford right now." What he meant was: Let us benevolent experts take care of the food supply -- you consumers just shut up and eat!

Well, I'm here to inform our readers over at Edelman that while we're always open to new information, we'd prefer to keep our skepticism well-honed, thank you very much.

And while we're happy to engage in friendly email exchanges, we also remember that Monsanto is fully capable of turning that smile upside-down -- and even baring its fangs. I remember that cease-and-desist letter. I also note that, according to a 2005 Center for Food Safety report (PDF), Monsanto wields an "annual budget of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers" deemed to violate its draconian gene-patent claims.

Read comments at: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/12/11
1847/690?source=daily

Yes it can be done

From Grist magazine:

It Can Be Done

Images of a sustainable-food revolution

10 Oct 2007

(less)

Share: digg | hugg | stumbleupon | reddit | newsvine | fark | facebook

Bookmark: del.icio.us | google | yahoo

Imagine a place where residents pull together to create a thriving store and restaurant serving fresh, local food. Imagine a place where the money appears, the dreams become real, the produce and pastured meat taste like home. Imagine a place where officials support these dreams with policies that fund organic farmers and encourage the purchase of local food.

You can stop imagining. It's happening in Woodbury County, Iowa.

It may seem an unlikely place for a food revolution, but in some ways it's absolutely fitting. Surrounded by an increasingly industrial landscape, the people here decided they were hungry for change, and now they're making themselves a better -- and healthier -- way.

Click the play button above to see images by Mark Hirsch that show what this sustainable-food revolution looks like in the flesh, and to hear Grist's Tom Philpott share some behind-the-scenes reflections on his visit. (To read more about Tom's trip, check out "A Tale of Two Counties.")

Story continues below

It may not be the cheapest option, but local food pays off -- and it tastes dang good.

Illustration: Keri Rosebraugh