in which i rant about the USDA awhile.
the USDA report.
the language is biased against organic methods (shocker), and the charts of releases of genes are alarming (shocker). but some hopeful news in the decrease in overall approvals since the late 1990's/early 2000's? (Figure 1). also not a shock that Monsanto is the clear leader in releases (Figure 4), that nearly a quarter of all releases are aimed at herbicide resistance (Figure 3), and that corn is the most frequently modified crop (Figure 2). if the words "non-regulated status" doesn't send a chill through you, you should probably stop reading now.
no where in this report will you find data on how many countries have destroyed and eliminated GE crops, though it does contain data on where they've been adopted. the increase in acreage under cultivation in the US has, at least, tapered in the last few years (Table 3) after an explosion in the early 2000's, but the numbers are still increasing. according to Figure 5, only the acreage of GE cotton has gone down (Bt decreasing, HT leveling).
significant GE acreage has made it to NY (Figure 6).
take a close look at Figure 7 and Table 4: farmers cite that their overwhelming reason for switching to GE strains is "increased yield", and yet data does not support they're getting it in many cases. ironically, one of the crops where yields DID increase almost across the board - Bt cotton - is the one crop whose acreage is decreasing. most alarming, however, is the data on Bt corn: even though yields increased, net returns decreased. so why are farmers increasing acreage? is it seed price manipulation, especially on the "stacked" (HT and Bt) varieties? is it the subsidies?
that's another item that didn't make this report: monies paid to farmers to plant - or not plant - certain items.
the report does insinuate (page 21) that adopters and non-adopters of GE technology may differ in management practices, which would bias the crop yields data. while i agree that it is impossible (one hopes) to order all the farmers in the country to plant or not plant GMOs based on random sampling to secure better data, i would look at the choice to commercial farm/make a living off a certain amount of land/acreage as the defining characteristic of the group. some may manage their land in a more expeditious manner, but they're trying to make a maximum profit. you likewise can't control for the increase in drought conditions springing up in the Midwest. and if they were to do a study (or perhaps they have done one, and not published the results) where they asked farmers why they didn't adopt GE crops, they might find a bias wherein non-adopters have some greater concern than money.
they do clearly admit on page 16 that the effect of HT seeds on yield is mixed. (shocker)
Table 7 illustrates one of the biggest lies regarding GE technology: that it will decrease overall pesticide and herbicide use because their use is targeted, less is needed. but non-adopters of GE technology used less overall herbicide than adopters. and while the t-tests (or whatever measure was used to analyze the data) judged the difference as "NS" (not significant), shouldn't we be seeing a decrease? the report makes clear that the benefit to these GE crops is the _type_ of herbicide used is less toxic and persistent; this is the gain. glyphosphate is the gain. indeed Figure 14a shows that corn is the only crop followed where overall herbicide use fell with adoption, and even that is on the rise again. herbicide use in cotton production from 2007 on could even be correlated with the _decrease_ in adoption of Bt and HT cotton (Table 4).
Figure 14b is damning wrt to the claim that GE crops will lead to less herbicide use (HT strain). halfway through the report they touch on the appearance of super-weeds (page 24) and how resistance to herbicides is increasing their use, an issue than ANY evolutionary scientist or ecologist could have told them was on the horizon. later in the report they do detail efforts to curtail resistance.
this is their stunning conclusion wrt the strict monetary gains of GE farming (page 20): " The impacts of GE crop adoption vary by crop and technology. Most studies show that adoption of Bt cotton and Bt corn is associated with increased net returns (Table 4). However, some studies of Bt corn show that profitability is strongly dependent on pest infestation levels. The impact of HT seeds (for corn, cotton, and soybeans) on net returns depends on many factors."
they also conclude, at various points in the report, that the primary force behind better economic conditions for the farmers of adopting households might be the reduction in management of the farm, or TIME SPENT FARMING DECREASED, ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE JOBS ELSEWHERE. _this_ is success?
the data does clearly show that GE insect resistance (forcing plants to produce their own insecticidal properties) (that you are eating) *has* resulted in a massive decrease in the use of applied pesticide (Figure 12), at least on corn. of course Figure 13 also illustrates decreasing use of insecticide for _non-adopters_ of GE technology. so either we killed off enough corn borers to allow everyone to benefit (the claim on page 25), or pest levels naturally fluctuate, or both? not touched on in the report is the fact that if we were more careful with exotic species, we would not be battling the European corn borer at all. and the report obviously isn't geared to address the loss of other native insect species (such as the Monarch butterfly) who are also eating from these toxic crops.
on page 27 they introduce the idea that GE adoption is allowing more farmers to practice soil conservation practices, to which i can only snort in derision. and, in case all of this wasn't infuriating enough, on page 34 the USDA reveals they have been gathering the data from studies that track what you are and aren't willing to spend on GE and non-GE foods. in Germany, there is a Herrmann involved in the research! (they found that GE canola must be discounted over 100%, page 35).
(sarcasm)feels good to know the USDA cares more about your health than your money, doesn't it? care so much about farmers they've approved all these seeds so that farmers can help make a living by working two jobs.(/sarcasm)