National Research Council Reports Genetically Engineered Crops Yield ‘Economic and Environmental Benefits’

Kara Laney, Study Director

Kara Laney, Study Director

The National Research Council has released a report essentially crowing about the benefits of genetically modified seeds (the “Roundup Ready” variety), albeit with a caveat warning against overuse. Personally, I’m extremely skeptical and it makes me question the integrity of the report and the institution publishing it. Your thoughts in the comments section please. Here’s the press release, in full:

Genetically Engineered Crops Benefit Many Farmers,
But The Technology Needs Proper Management to Remain Effective

WASHINGTON — Many U.S. 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, says a new report from the National Research Council. However, GE crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate — a main component in Roundup and other commercial weed killers — could develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate. GE crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices.


The report provides the first comprehensive assessment of how GE crops are affecting all U.S. farmers, including those who grow conventional or organic crops. The new report follows several previous Research Council reports that examined the potential human health and environmental effects of GE crops.


“Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm,” said David Ervin, professor of environmental management and economics, Portland State University, Portland, Ore., and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “However, these benefits are not universal for all farmers. And as more GE traits are developed and incorporated into a larger variety of crops, it’s increasingly essential that we gain a better understanding of how genetic engineering technology will affect U.S. agriculture and the environment now and in the future. Such gaps in our knowledge are preventing a full assessment of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of GE crops on farm sustainability.”


First introduced in 1996, genetically engineered crops now constitute more than 80 percent of soybeans, corn, and cotton grown in the United States. GE soybeans, corn, and cotton are designed to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which has fewer adverse environmental effects compared with most other herbicides used to control weeds. In addition to glyphosate resistance, GE corn and cotton plants also are designed to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium that is deadly when ingested by susceptible insect pests.


Farmers need to adopt better management practices to ensure that beneficial environmental effects of GE crops continue, the report says. In particular, 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. To date, at least nine species of weeds in the United States have evolved resistance to glyphosate since GE crops were introduced, largely because of repeated exposure. 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.


Environmental Benefits


Improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of GE crops, the report says. 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.


However, no infrastructure exists to track and analyze the effects that GE crops may have on water quality. The U.S. Geological Survey, along with other federal and state environmental agencies, should be provided with financial resources to document effects of GE crops on U.S. watersheds.


The report notes that although two types of insects have developed resistance to Bt, there have been few economic or agronomic consequences from resistance. Practices to prevent insects from developing resistance should continue, such as an EPA-mandated strategy that requires farmers to plant a certain amount of conventional plants alongside Bt plants in “refuge” areas.


Economic and Social Effects


In many cases, farmers who have adopted the use of GE crops have either lower production costs or higher yields, or sometimes both, due to more cost-effective weed and insect control and fewer losses from insect damage, the report says. Although these farmers have gained such economic benefits, more research is needed on the extent to which these advantages will change as pests adapt to GE crops, other countries adopt genetic engineering technology, and more GE traits are incorporated into existing and new crops.


The higher costs associated with GE seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses. Even so, studies show that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that GE crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides.


The economic effects of GE crops on farmers who grow organic and conventional crops also need further study, the report says. For instance, organic farmers are profiting by marketing their crops as free of GE traits, but their crops’ value could be jeopardized if genes from GE crops flow to non-GE varieties through cross-pollination or seed mingling.


Farmers have not been adversely affected by the proprietary terms involved in patent-protected GE seeds, the report says. However, some farmers have expressed concern that consolidation of the U.S. seed market will make it harder to purchase conventional seeds or those that have only specific GE traits. With the exception of the issue of seed industry consolidation, the effects of GE crops on other social factors of farming — such as labor dynamics, farm structure, or community viability — have largely been overlooked, the report says. More research is needed on the range of effects GE crops have on all farmers, including those who don’t grow GE crops or farmers with less access to credit. Studies also should examine impacts on industries that rely on GE products, such as the livestock industry.


Research institutions should receive government support to develop GE traits that could deliver valuable public benefits but provide little market incentive for the private sector to develop. Examples include plants that decrease the likelihood of off-farm water pollution or plants that are resilient to changing climate conditions. Intellectual property that has been patented in developing major crops should be made available for these purposes whenever possible.


The study was funded by the National Research Council. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies’ conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf. A committee roster follows.


Copies of The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org ]


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources


Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability


David E. Ervin (chair)

Professor of Environmental Management

Professor of Economics

Department of Economics and Environmental Science and Management

Portland State University

Portland, Ore.

Yves Carrière

Professor

Department of Entomology

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

University of Arizona

Tucson

William J. Cox

Professor of Crop Science

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

Cornell University

Ithaca, N.Y.

Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo

Agricultural Economist

Economic Research Service

Washington, D.C.

Raymond A. Jussaume Jr.

Professor and Chair

Department of Community and Rural Sociology

Washington State University

Pullman

Michele C. Marra

Professor of Agricultural Economics

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

North Carolina State University

Raleigh

Micheal D.K. Owen

Professor of Agronomy

Iowa State University

Ames

Peter H. Raven*

President

Missouri Botanical Garden

St. Louis

L. LaReesa Wolfenbarger

Associate Professor

Department of Biology

University of Nebraska

Omaha

David Zilberman

Professor

Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics

University of California

Berkeley

RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF

Kara Laney

Study Director

* Member, National Academy of Sciences

, , , ,

  • gonnagetburned

    No mention of any harmful effects of consumption I see…

    • E.B. Wolf

      No mention of any effects of consumption whatsoever.
      I'm sure there is no possible danger.

      But interesting to note that of the eleven names attached to the article, four have “economist” in their title.
      At least they have their priorities in order.

  • oman28

    Mutant food. We are what we eat.

  • Anonymous

    All part of our continuing evolution, right?

  • radiac

    All part of our continuing evolution, right?

21
More in Food, Frankenfood, Genetic Engineering, GMOs
Playground Politics: Geopolitics Made Simple By Children, On a Playground (Video)

From HBO's Funny Or Die Presents, the lesson learned from this episode featuring the USA and Africa is: "If you have natural resources, then you'll receive food..."

Close