Confused about GMOs? You’re probably not alone. There’s a war of words going on, and as with any war, there’s plenty of propaganda and hyperbole to go around. Are GMOs a dangerous, unproven technology or the only way to feed the world?

What have you been reading?

As an illustration, let’s take a look at the way the same story was covered by two different news outlets.

This NPR story and this New York Times piece both cover the same report by The National Research Council Committee. The report found that farmers who adopted GMO technology had received benefits, but also, that if the technology is overused and not managed properly, it could have detrimental effects in the future.

Starting with the headline, “Biotech Crops Are Good for Earth, Report Finds,” the NPR piece looks like a fluff, pro-GMO piece.

The Times headline, on the other hand, lays out both sides of the issue succinctly, like so: “Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops.”

On the whole, the Times piece is much more nuanced and also wide reaching, offering readers helpful background about GMOs, links to more information about what exactly The National Research Council Committee is, and more facts both pro and con. This piece goes into detail about the problem with herbicide-resistance superweeds, while the NPR piece downplays it.

One important aspect of the study that is the subject of both articles was to find out if the overall higher prices of GMO seeds are worth it to farmers. Therefore, it seems like an omission that the NPR piece didn’t even mention that Monsanto, one of the leading producers of GMO seeds, is being investigated by the Justice Department for unduly increasing prices, and for violating antitrust laws by using licensing agreements to kill competition.

The NPR piece likewise didn’t mention that Monsanto share prices are falling, while the Times piece did. Recently Monsanto reported that its profit fell 19 percent in the second quarter, partially because sales of its herbicide Roundup are down due to cheaper generic imports. Likewise, neither story mentioned that, on a recent “listening tour” with farmers, Monsanto found that farmers were upset about high prices and they weren’t adopting the technology as enthusiastically as Monsanto would like.

Remember that what’s good for Monsanto isn’t necessarily good for farmers. As the report found, overuse will threaten farmer gains from adoption of the technology. Monsanto CEO, Hugh Grant has said that Monsanto may be forced to lower its seed prices to increase adoption rates, which in the long run, according to the report, is likely to erode farmer gains.

Another aspect of the report that was not mentioned in either piece is the report’s assertion that more investigation is needed about the impact of GMOs on farmers who grow organic and conventional crops. If we’re looking at the impact of GMOs on farmers, how can we not look at the impact of GMOs on farmers who don’t choose to grow them? How can GMOs be good for these farmers if they are no longer able to make a profit marketing their crops as GMO-free because the crops they choose to grow are contaminated by genetically modified traits?

Where do these differences in editorial outcome originate? It’s difficult to tell. I’ve heard NPR criticized for its coverage of GMOs because it takes advertising money from Monsanto. But so does the New York Times. In this case at least, the Times seems to have the editorial independence necessary to cover the issue more thoroughly than NPR.

In other GMO news this week, over at The Boston Globe, this pro-GMO op-ed by Elliot Entis, CEO of the American Salmon Company and founder of Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc. got reader comments rockin’. The piece paints organic farming proponents as hopeless romantics who ignore science and want to return to the past. Granted this is an op-ed, not a news story, but the Globe should have some responsibility to its readers to not print such dreck. Who is this Elliot Entis fellow? I looked into his companies. The only information I was able to find about American Salmon is that it is a foreign corporation registered in Massachusetts. Aqua Bounty, however, is a company that develops genetically modified fish that are designed to grow faster in aquaculture operations.

Speaking of science, if opponents of GMOs really are ignoring science, they are not the only ones. Another article hit last week in The Washington Post about how few science-based tests are done on GMO crops. Many sources interviewed for the piece charged that the agencies assigned to regulate GMO crops often ignore the science that is out there.

One of the scientists studying biotech crops for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Robert Kremer, expressed alarm that regulators were not paying enough attention to the potential risks from biotechnology on the farm.

The article also quotes Nina Fedoroff, a special adviser on science and technology to the U.S. State Department, which promotes GMO adoption overseas, saying, “We preach to the world about science-based regulations but really our regulations on crop biotechnology are not yet science-based.”

It’s clear from this one week roundup of GMO news that if you want to stay informed about any topic, especially the most controversial ones with the biggest PR spin machines behind them, it’s up to you to do your own research and look at many different stories on the same topic. Invariably editorial policy, ideological slant, or simply poor reporting can mean the difference between finding the truth (or at least a balanced view) and swallowing a big bucket of spin.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Oculator

The post 4 Different News Stories, 4 Different Answers: The Truth About GMOs appeared first on EcoSalon.

A few months back, alarming news reports like this ABC news video surfaced about the rise of superweeds.

But the sensational story failed to focus on the most important point: these menacing superweeds are found in fields where GM crops are planted.

This situation is rife with irony.

The biotech companies that produce the GM seeds and the pesticides that go with them tout technological farming as the only viable alternative to feed a growing population of which fewer and fewer of people are farmers. There have even been accusations thrown around that organic farming advocates just want to return farmers to the “dark ages.”

Yet, these weeds, which kill crops, stop combines, break equipment and make it impossible to harvest, are causing farmers in especially hard hit areas of the south to resort to hand-management of weeds and good old fashioned people-powered harvesting.

The very crops that promised to save farmers on labor in exchange for shelling out more money for chemicals and seeds are actually threatening to return farmers to those so-called “dark ages”.

Blaming the Victim

In the news report above, Monsanto, the company that manufactures the herbicide Roundup, which is no longer killing the weeds, blames the superweeds on “over application” by farmers.

It only stands to reason that a farmer, in order to combat ever larger, faster growing, and more tenacious weeds, would use the only ammunition available to him or her: more poison.

Back in 2008, an article in Business Week noted that superweeds are a real nuisance for farmers, who have to work harder to tend their fields and spend more on buying and applying herbicides.

The same article noted that the increase in Roundup-resistant weeds is a very, very good thing for Monsanto. In fact, the article reports on an investor conference in which EVP Brett Begemann told investors that the company would raise its 2008 earnings guidance, thanks in part to better-than-anticipated Roundup sales. In the company’s first fiscal quarter of 2008, sales of Roundup and other chemicals jumped 47%.

New Report Measures Pesticide Use

This jump in sales corresponds to a dramatic increase in actual pounds of pesticides applied.

How much? A report, released in November by The Organic Center quantifies this. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First 13 Years relies on USDA data to measure the amounts of pesticides applied to genetically modified corn, soybean, and cotton fields over the past 13 years of commercial use (1996-2008).

As expected, in the first years, pesticide use was lower in the resistant crops, but usage has spiked over the past few years. The primary cause is the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds. The data measures all pesticides including insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Though insecticide use has decreased, herbicide use more than makes up for that decrease. And there is some evidence that insecticide-resistant insects are emerging.

Over the past 13 years Bt (insecticide resistant) corn and cotton have delivered reductions in insecticide use totaling 64.2 million pounds, as compared to likely use if the crops had been conventional. On the other hand, herbicide resistant crops have resulted in a whopping increase of herbicide application totaling 382.6 million pounds over the same time period, with 45% of this increase taking place between 2007 and 2008. This sharp sudden increase is due to the emergence of superweeds.

Resistant horseweed is the most widely spread and extensive Roundup-resistant weed. It was first found in Delaware in 2000 and now infests millions of acres in the South and Midwest. Some farmers are resorting to ever stronger and more toxic herbicides including 2,4-D, which is one of the components of Agent Orange.

The Silver Lining

The report says that in 2009, plantings of Roundup Ready soybeans are slowing as farmers turn toward conventional crops. Demand for conventional soybeans is outstripping supply in several states. Reasons given by farmers include resistant weeds, increasing GM seed prices, higher sales prices for non-GM soybeans, lower than expected yields, and the cost savings farmers realize when they can save seeds from year to year, which is illegal with GM seeds.

Industry’s answer to superweeds is simply to engineer the crops to withstand higher doses of chemicals or different chemicals altogether. The report tells us of “next-generation” resistant crops that will likely be sprayed with two or three times the amount of herbicides typically applied today.

Are the superweeds simply an evolutionary response to high doses of chemicals or have they picked up resistant traits through gene transfer from the very crops they are infesting? Way back in 2001 scientists thought it was possible that weeds could pick up traits from the GM crops engineered to withstand high doses of pesticides, creating a new class of superweeds. There’s no guarantee that’s what is happening here, but it seems likely. We already know that gene drift occurs between GM and conventional crops.

Image: pawpaw67

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

The post Report: GMO Crops Require Extra Chemicals to Combat Weeds appeared first on EcoSalon.

People buy organic foods for many reasons: their health, better taste, a desire to keep pesticides and herbicides out of our air, water and soil and a conviction that buying organic is one way to eat GMO-free.

One of the big problems with GMOs is that non-GMO crops can be contaminated through pollen drift. The fact that the organic field of soybeans used to make your organic soymilk could contain genetically modified material from a neighboring farm hasn’t been a possibility that most organic food producers have wanted to talk about or a question they have wanted to ask.

Independent organic and natural food producers, independent natural food stores and the largest natural/organic foods grocery store and natural/organic food distributor in the country have joined forces in the Non-GMO Project. Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, UNFI (a distributor of natural and organic foods), Straus Family Creamery, Whole Foods Market and many others have signed on. (Check out the complete list of enrolled products.)

The idea is simple, though the outcome will likely be complicated. Enrollees in the project agree to test any ingredients in their products that are grown in GMO form in America. Products that are verified as (nearly) GMO free by the process will be labeled with a GMO Verified seal. But because contamination is already so likely, the project wants to make sure consumers understand that this doesn’t mean the product is 100% GMO-free.

From the Non-GMO Project website:

“It is not a guarantee that the product is 100% GMO free. The reason for this is that our program is process-based, using a set of best practices to avoid contamination. We do require testing of all ingredients (everything being grown in GMO form in North America), but we don’t require testing of every single finished product. Instead, testing can be done at any one of a number of places in the production chain, for example right after harvest.Following the test, which must indicate that the ingredient is below 0.9% GMO (in alignment with laws in the European Union), we require rigorous traceability and segregation practices to be followed in order to ensure that the tested ingredients are what get used in the product. So in short,  what our seal means is that a product has been produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance, including testing of risk ingredients.”

The non-GMO project is radical.

With all of the recent bad press about organics, the organic establishment does not want to be looking for any GMO skeletons in any closets. Whatever they find could be very bad for business and very bad for the organic label. But that’s short-term thinking. The forward thinking companies that have signed onto the non-GMO project recognize that the credibility of the organic label is in question without further reassurance.

Getting the problem out in the open and being transparent about the process is not only the right thing to do, it’s a smart business decision, as well. Ignoring the problem in hopes that it won’t blow up is a poor way to do business.

Transparency was a huge part of organics in the beginning and some companies still uphold the value of transparency. As the Chicago Tribune points out, large conventional companies usually don’t want you to know that they own your favorite organic brands. That being the case, they certainly wouldn’t want you to know their products might be contaminated with GMOs.

It’s instructive to take a look at the list of food companies that have signed on to the non-GMO project. The few remaining independent organic and natural food companies that have refused to sell to large conventional conglomerates are there: Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, Turtle Island Foods and Straus Family Creamery are some of the participants with the most widely distributed products.

These companies are also some of the most principled in the business. Eden foods was the first company to stop using BPA-lined cans. Turtle Island won’t use any ingredient that is processed using hexane. None of these companies are owned by anyone other than their founders. Though I don’t buy a lot of packaged foods, when I do, these are the types of brands I’ll choose. When faced with a choice between Silk (owned by Dean Foods) and Eden, there is no contest. This handy visual chart will tell you who owns your favorite organic brands.

A number of retailers have endorsed the project – mostly small independents and co-ops. Whole Foods Market has signed on, which is hugely important in my opinion, and something they deserve praise for (they need it right now).

In related news, a U.S. District judge rejected the USDA’s decision to allow genetically modified sugar beets to enter the market. The decision was based largely on the risk of contamination to non-GMO crops due to cross-pollination. According to SFGate.com, the judge “cited studies that said winds can carry sugar beet pollen at least 2 1/2 miles, much farther than the voluntary buffer zones between beet crops recommended by Oregon agriculture officials.”

Want to buy non-GMO certified products? According to the New York Times, labels could start appearing on products this fall.

Image: jonboymitchell

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

The post Non-GMO Project Brings Transparency to Organic Foods appeared first on EcoSalon.