Genetic Engineering News List Dear Readers,     The two articles below are a great resource for anyone interested in the debate over GE Crops and, of course, labeling them.  Be sure to follow the links back to see tons of embedded resources. Onward, Thomas In Defense of Genetically Modified Crops -By Sarah Zhang | Tue Jun. 19, 2012 3:00 AM PDT shttp://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/06/gmo-bt-pesticides-crops Genetically modified Bt crops get a pretty bad rap. The pest-killing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria protein these plants are bioengineered to make has been accused of harming monarch butterflies, honey bees, rats, and showing up in the blood of pregnant women. Just one problem: None of that is true. (Click on any of those links to see a scientific refutation of each claim.) Seven independent experts in genetically modified crops I spoke to all confirmed that the science shows Bt crops to be safer than their alternative: noxious chemical insecticides. In Europe-where suspicions over GM crops run even deeper than in the United States-the European Food Safety Authority just rejected a French ban on Bt corn, saying "there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment." A comprehensive report on 10 years of European Union-funded research, comprising 50 research projects, drew the same conclusions about Bt safety. There are more scientific papers and reports backing the relative safety of Bt than PDF pages your browser can probably handle, which raises this question: How did the gulf between public perception and scientific evidence of Bt safety get so yawningly wide? The answer might be the very people who push GM the hardest-the agricultural industry. Suing a farmer for patent infringement is just one example of how Monsanto bullies its way into crop fields and courtrooms in pursuit of profit. "These crops are driven by large companies pushing practices that benefit their bottom line," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. But just as we do not blame a murder on, say, a knife, Bt technology is not to blame for the ills of industrial agriculture. After all, knives are pretty handy in the kitchen when we use them properly. Even critics will acknowledge that Bt crops have led to a sharp decrease in insecticide use, which is a huge net positive for the environment. Broad spectrum chemical insecticides kill often and kill widely, wiping out "natural enemies" that are helpful pest-eating critters like spiders. A massive 20-year study just published in the journal Nature found that using Bt cotton in China to control cotton bollworms closely tracked with a rebound in natural enemy populations, which in turn keep out secondary pests like aphids that usually proliferate when chemical insecticides kill the bollworms. If that last sentence sounds complicated, it is. Integrated pest management is about recognizing the interconnected complexity of these ecosystems of plants and all the insects living on them. The Nature study found that pest control through Bt cotton even had spillover benefits to the non-Bt soybeans growing around them. Natural enemies like ladybugs, spiders, and lacewings keep pests unaffected by Bt at bay. "Maintaining the biological control agents we already have is one of the cornerstones of integrated pest management," says William Hutchison, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota. In addition, a 2010 study by Hutchison in Science (PDF) showed that American farmers of non-Bt corn actually reaped two-thirds of the economic benefit (read: additional profit) from nearby Bt-related pest suppression. In a win-win for integrated pest management, non-Bt crops benefit from having Bt crops nearby, but the Bt crops need non-Bt crops around, too, to prevent resistance. Like antibiotics, pervasive use of Bt crops will only lead to resistance in the very bugs it's supposed to protect against. (This has already happened in certain cases, as Tom Philpott reported in this post.) One important strategy is refuges, or nearby crops that do not contain the Bt gene. In principle, a cotton bollworm that has evolved resistance to Bt can mate with a nearby bollworm feeding on non-Bt soybeans, and their offspring will still be susceptible. That's why going to 100 percent Bt crops would be a recipe for surefire disaster. Going to 100 percent Bt crops is a recipe for surefire disaster. Where scientists disagree over Bt crops is exactly how they should be used. In fact, the levels of 95 percent Bt among cotton in China (even with soybeans and other crops as refuges) may be too high, and University of Arizona professor Bruce Tabashnik recently published a study on emerging resistance among Chinese bollworms. He's also criticized current EPA refuge standards for corn in the United States as too low, advocating for the refuge size to be increased from 20 to 50 percent for corn with one Bt protein. Gurian-Sherman from the Union of Concerned Scientists says he thinks sustainable practices like crop rotation and mulching can eliminate the need for both Bt and chemical insecticides. However, there are no large-scale studies proving this, in part because there is so little research money devoted to these practices compared to GM research. Prevailing scientific opinion does see a role for Bt in sustainable agriculture, if not necessarily one Monsanto would envision for its bottom line. "I like to think of transgenic crops as just one tool in the toolbox," says Steven Naranjo, director of USDA's Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center. Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, said in an email that Bt should be only used at low levels, but not eliminated: "Bt toxins are just as valuable and irreplaceable for farmers as antibiotics are to doctors treating possibly life-threatening infections." In other words: Like any drug, use responsibly. Mother Jones: Blinded by "Science" on GMO Food    by Charles Margulis http://generationgreen.org/2012/06/mother-jones-blinded-science/ Sarah Zhang's defense of genetically modified (GMO) crops in Mother Jones purports to make the scientific case for the safety and environmental benefits of GMOs. It's an easier case to make when one focuses solely on one GMO variety, as Zhang does, while ignoring the majority of GMOs grown worldwide. Zhang writes only about the GMO insect resistant "Bt" crops, which she fails to note comprise just 15% of the global GMO acreage. Ignoring the adverse effects from the other 85% of GMO acreage is hardly a "scientific" approach, but considering the impact of GMO crops broadly would undermine her argument. Zhang's one point in favor of GMO crops is their impact on pesticide use: "Even critics will acknowledge that Bt crops have led to a sharp decrease in insecticide use, which is a huge net positive for the environment," she claims. But the "huge net positive" from Bt GMO crops is more than offset by the predominant GMO variety, crops engineered to withstand mega-doses of pesticides.  These GMO "herbicide tolerant" crops account for nearly 60% of all GMOs grown worldwide. How many more tons of pesticides are used as a result of all GMO crops? A 2009 analysis of USDA pesticide data by agricultural scientist Charles Benbrook (one of Zhang's sources) found that pesticide use from the adoption of all GMO crops in the US has put 318 million additional pounds of chemicals on our food and into the environment. That's some "net positive"! Given the recent rapid increase in superweeds from GMO crops -and the accompanying use of even more toxic pesticides to deal with the weeds-the burden of pesticides due to GMOs has surely grown even more since this analysis was published. Even if some do concede the short-term benefits of Bt crops, no one believes the crops will remain sustainable. Monsanto, the leading biotech crop maker (and the global supervillain responsible for progressive's "unscientific" response to GMOs, according to Zhang) told New York Times writer Michael Pollan in 1998 that insect resistance to Bt crops would not occur for thirty years. Five years later, scientists confirmed the first field resistance from Bt crops, in a study that found a dozen examples of resistant bugs in Bt fields between 2003 and 2006. As MoJo's Tom Philpott reported last year, Monsanto continues to deny the superbug problem, despite confirmed or suspected resistance in seven states. Moreover, a 2010 study in Nature found that GMO cotton in China has merely displaced the targeted pest for a new equally damaging insect, suggesting that GMOs create the same "pesticide treadmill" that has kept farmers dependent on the pesticide industry's unsustainable and toxic products for decades. Aside from the resistance issue, GMO Bt crops do not, as Zhang implies, replace all insecticides. Bt crops target only certain bugs, so farmers continue to spray GMO crops for many other insects. More than a decade after the widespread introduction of GMO cotton, insecticides used on cotton remain by far the highest of any crop, accounting for 16% of all insecticides used worldwide. And as the above mentioned 2008 paper found, Bt crops alone don't even control the targeted insects without additional chemical help: as the authors noted, other toxic insecticides "...have been used from the outset to augment control of (the targeted insect) H. zea on Bt cotton because (the GMO Bt variety) alone is not sufficient to control high-density populations of the pest." Resistance to Bt crops is not merely a public relations problem for Monsanto. Zhang describes the crops as if Bt was manna brought down from heaven by the biotech industry, but natural Bt sprays have been used safely by farmers for decades. The natural insecticide is so benign that organic farmers are permitted to use them, though only as a last resort and under strict guidelines. Consider then what happens when neighboring GMO farms create resistant insects: the nearby organic farmers last line of control, a Bt spray, will be useless - while the conventional farmer across the fence will simply go back to the more toxic chemical alternatives. One scientist studying Bt resistance created by GMO crops called this possibility "a particularly threatening scenario" for organic farmers. It's hard to see how crippling organic agriculture while forcing farmers to return to older, more toxic pesticides can be a "net positive" for the environment. Finally, Zhang notes that it's possible that both GMO crops and reliance on pesticides could be eliminated with sustainable farming, but complains that "there are no large-scale studies proving this." She must not be looking too hard. In 2000, in what was one of the largest agricultural experiments ever, thousands of rice farmers in China replaced their monocrop fields with diverse rice varieties, a simple sustainable technique, and using no chemicals or GMOs saw yields rise by 18% overall, with one diverse array of mixed rice varieties resulting in a yield gain of 89%. The authors noted that the diverse "mixed (rice) populations produced more total grain per hectare than their corresponding monocultures in all cases." Another report from the University of Essex involving 208 sustainable and/or organic farming projects from 52 countries showed increases in food production over more than 70 million acres and found nearly 9 million households benefited from increased food production and consumption. More recently, a 2008 report overseen by agricultural scientist and World Food Prize winner Hans Herren looked at global agricultural development in light of growing populations, and called for organic, agroecological approaches to address hunger and food inequities. In an interview on the report, Herren noted that "there is evidence from the field for now over three decades that sustainable agriculture cannot only nourish the world, but can do so for the long haul," and called organic and sustainable techniques "the only approaches" for long-term food production. These fields, he noted in another interview, will produce the kind of science that will truly support the small farmers globally who produce most of the world's food. But of course, that's just anti-science, anti-GMO propaganda - not Sarah Zhang's rigorous scientific analysis. This entry was written by Charles Margulis, posted on June 19, 2012 at 1:27 pm, filed under Safe Foods. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. The Genetic Engineering News is produced by Thomas Wittman and EcoFarm, and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation.  Please pass this vital information on.  If you would like to get on this list go to www.eco-farm.org and select Newsletters.