Global Biotech Crop Acreage Grows 11 Percent—Activists Spin

Ronald Bailey | January 12, 2006

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications has issued its annual report on biotech crop adoption. In the tenth anniversary year since biotech crops were first planted, the ISAAA reports,

The global area of approved biotech crops in 2005 was 90 million hectares, equivalent to 222 million acres, up from 81 million hectares or 200 million acres in 2004. The increase was 9.0 million hectares or 22 million acres, equivalent to an annual growth rate of 11% in 2005.

Nearly one-third of all crop acres in the United States are planted with genetically enhanced crops.

Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth is still claiming, "Ten years after the first significant planting of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, no plants with benefits to consumers or the environment have materialized."

The industry-supported National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy counters with a report of its own. That report based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data finds that, compared to conventional crops, biotech "crop production was enhanced by 6.6 billion pounds; crop production costs were decreased by $1.7 billion dollars; and pesticide use was lowered by 62.0 million pounds in 2004."

Enhancing production means less land plowed down to grow crops, which is a definite environmental benefit. Reducing pesticide residues is often perceived as both an environmental and consumer benefit.

In any case, biotech seed companies are soon planning to release biotech crops with specific consumer benefits. The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that Monsanto will introduce:

-Soybeans bred with higher levels of beta-conglycinin, which will improve taste and texture in products such as soy milk, meat alternatives and energy bars.

-Vegetables bred for a variety of consumer characteristics, such as melons that last longer after cutting, or sweeter corn.

-Soybeans genetically modified to contain Omega-3 fatty acids, which improve heart health and may have other benefits such as reducing swelling in arthritis.

-Later versions of Vistive soybeans, genetically modified for further oil profile improvements - making the oil stable for baking uses; and adding oleic acid, a healthy monounsaturated fat that boosts good HDL cholesterol.

Most disheartening to the alleged Friends of the Earth must be the fact that China appears poised to widely adopt a variety of biotech crops, according to the Washington Post.

Disclosure: No biotech crop stocks were flogged in this blog item.

Comments

|1.12.06 @ 12:48PM|#

Hey, Ron, did you see this story?

Taiwan breeds flourescent green pigs

Green eggs and ham, indeed...

|1.12.06 @ 12:54PM|#

Incidentally, given that humans have been monkeying with the genetics of crop plants practically since the beginning of the agricultural revolution via cross breeding and other methods, how can Friends of the Earth honestly claim that there have been no benefits derived from genetically modified crops?

|1.12.06 @ 1:06PM|#

Plants are evil. It turns out they may have been secretly emitting methane (a greenhouse gas) all along. The bastards. Therefore, they deserve to be replaced by man-made substitutes.

Does this mean that Brazil is right to destroy all of its trees?

|1.12.06 @ 1:17PM|#

I have nothing against genetically engineered plants so long as I have the option to choose a non-GE option in the few cases where I care to make that choice. I have nothing against genetic engineering itself so long as people can still grow food without being thrown in jail by Monsanto's hired law goons because the field next door contaminated theirs and Monsanto perceives itself to be deprived of royalties.

Dave W.|1.12.06 @ 1:26PM|#

All biotech crop stocks were touted by virtue of selecting this news item to post about today. That includes biotech stocks R. Bailey owns and those he doesn't own (if any).

Ron, you may want to check out the recent patent thd here at HnR. People (not me) are saying things that could hurt biotech development there, but they could probably be made to see the light with a few words from a wise scientist.

|1.12.06 @ 1:27PM|#

I agree with speedwell.

If there is nothing at all wrong with genetically modified foods, why do they fight tooth and nail against having to label their foods as such? Why shouldn't I, as a consumer, be given a choice and the option of being able to make an informed decision whether its GM foods or the irradiated meats or whatever. Whether or not they are all safe or whatever is completely insignificant to me, I just want to know what the hell it is I am eating and be given an opportunity to avoid it if I choose to.

Warren|1.12.06 @ 1:29PM|#

PU That 11% figure looks to me to be a total bullshit number. Near as I can tell, all they're doing is counting up how many acres each country has. It seems to be an accounting of which countries ban biotech crops, and has nothing to do with how many acres are actually planted with them. Even so, it's worth looking at the green country/brown country map. The mix in Europe and nearly continent wide ban in Africa (only South Africa allowing biotech) is striking and telling.

I view Monsanto's press releases with as much skepticism as I do Friends of the Earth. But I just have to laugh at this one; "Ten years after the first significant planting of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, no plants with benefits to consumers or the environment have materialized". Who they kidding? If even remotely true there would be no need to campaign against it.

Timothy|1.12.06 @ 1:35PM|#

Plants are evil. It turns out they may have been secretly emitting methane (a greenhouse gas) all along. The bastards. Therefore, they deserve to be replaced by man-made substitutes.

I knew there was a reason I hated trees...pesky polluting bastards.

Warren|1.12.06 @ 1:44PM|#

ChicagoTom,
Of course you should be allowed to eat only food grown in virgin-loam fertilized by hand-raised earthworms and tended by Buddhist monks if you so desire. But it's up to you the rest of the 'enlightened food' community to standardize and regulate yourselves. The last thing we need is some bullshit bureaucratic regulation that puts labels reading:

WARNING
this product contains stuff made by big scary companies
and is unblessed by loving friendly folks
eating this food might cause you to sprout a foot out of your forehead.


on everything.

|1.12.06 @ 1:51PM|#

"Ron, you may want to check out the recent patent thd here at HnR. People (not me) are saying things that could hurt biotech development there, but they could probably be made to see the light with a few words from a wise scientist."

Are you this deliberately annoying in real life, as well?

R C Dean|1.12.06 @ 1:57PM|#

I have nothing against genetically engineered plants so long as I have the option to choose a non-GE option in the few cases where I care to make that choice.

You do. Of course, as the benefits of modern GE become more obvious, the day may come when you have to grow these heirloom varieties yourself.

I have nothing against genetic engineering itself so long as people can still grow food without being thrown in jail by Monsanto's hired law goons because the field next door contaminated theirs and Monsanto perceives itself to be deprived of royalties.

Then you can rest easy, because your Monsanto-goon scenario has never happened. As I recall, Monsanto sued a farmer who was growing something like 95% Monsanto-patented crops but who had never bought the seed for said crops. His defense was that his neighbor must have contaminated his seed with GE pollen. The jury laughed this defense out of court. You should too.

|1.12.06 @ 2:21PM|#

ChicagoTom -- (I've said this before on this blog, but...) The burden of labeling falls on the "organics" industry in order for them to please their customer base, not on producers/marketers of conventional agricultural products. It would be out of order for the orthodox Jewish community to railroad the producers of the vast majority of food products into carrying a "Nonkosher" label.

Larry A|1.12.06 @ 2:26PM|#

"Ten years after the first significant planting of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, no plants with benefits to consumers or the environment have materialized."

The FotE equivalent to Intelligent Design.

|1.12.06 @ 2:37PM|#

speedwell: You're probably thinking of the case of Percy Schmeiser. Activists still trot him out as example of being bullied by big bad Monsanto, but he is actually a convicted seed thief. If you care to know more, I published the details of the case here.

If you care to hear more about the problems with nonscience based labeling, look here. However, that said, I believe that foods made with biotech crops will one day be labeled--in fact, practically all foods will be labeled "may contain biotech ingredients" just so that companies won't have to be bothered to test and segregate foods. Will that satisfy you?

BTW, the latest estimate is that nearly three-quarters of all processed foods in the US contain ingredients from biotech crops. Since that's the case, do you really need a label? Just assume that it's all biotech.

|1.12.06 @ 3:24PM|#

The burden of labeling falls on the "organics" industry in order for them to please their customer base, not on producers/marketers of conventional agricultural products

This has nothing to do with organics. The burden should be on EVERY food producer to tell consumers what is in their food or what has been done to it. These foods are being scientifically altered to have different "genes" than a non-GM crop. Anyone who sells food that is altered from its natural state should be forced to tell people that it is altered.

I'm sorry but I don't consider altering the genetic makeup of foods as "conventional" production.

You want to have food scientists alter the food, fine, just tell us that its altered.

in fact, practically all foods will be labeled "may contain biotech ingredients" just so that companies won't have to be bothered to test and segregate foods. Will that satisfy you?

It would satisfy me quite well. If most food producers choose to be lazy and just label it as such, that's no skin off of my back. Then I will be able to avoid that companies products if I choose to. But without some kind of labeling like that, how am I supposed to know?

The reality is that these food companies don't want to label their foods as such because they fear that people will avoid those foods. If its so safe, then why be afraid to label it for what it is: Scientifically altered food. As much as some on this board want to pretend that what I am saying is some kind of code for attacking big bad business, the reality is that I am just being pro-consumer. All I want is information and choice. Companies already have to label most of their foods to tell you what ingredients they and nutritional data. Why is it such a problem to also be required to inform consumers when you altering the fundamental makeup of food? I have nothing against GM food, I just have something against companies trying to obscure / gloss over that fact. Say it loud and proud "This tomato has been scientifically modified for better/easier production" and then let the market decide if thats acceptable

|1.12.06 @ 3:31PM|#

Science makes northerners itchy.

|1.12.06 @ 3:49PM|#

There was a great link here a few weeks ago to an economist article on the origin of wheat (don't have it immediately available).

One of the major takeaways from the article was that wheat as we traditionally know it (and I imagine most other domestic crops) are by any definition GM crops, even those foods sold as organic.

It is just the methods that we are currently developing to modify the genes are more sophisticated than in the past.

Which implies that the entire fight for labeling of GM versus non-GM food is rather dubious.

|1.12.06 @ 3:59PM|#

ChicagoTom,
If the organic folks want to get the point across that their product is different than the GM stuff, they will certainly label their products accordingly. Why should we regulate the GM folks into labeling their foods, when it's the organic guys that want the distinction to be made?

|1.12.06 @ 4:05PM|#

" Anyone who sells food that is altered from its natural state should be forced to tell people that it is altered."

By that rational, you may as well assume that all of our food is genetically modified. After all, people have been cross-breeding food animals like pigs and cows for thousands of years, and have been doing the same with vegetables.

Ultimately I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Whether the genetic code is changed in a lab, or through methods of husbandry seems kind of immaterial to me.

|1.12.06 @ 7:11PM|#

Anyone who sells food that is altered from its natural state should be forced to tell people that it is altered.

That would be just about any crop grown by humans since the start of the Neolithic.

kgsam|1.12.06 @ 9:07PM|#

I try my best to avoid foods with the "organic" label.

|1.12.06 @ 11:46PM|#

Anyone who sells food that is altered from its natural state should be forced to tell people that it is altered.

Define "natural state." As Hak ponited out, just about every plant crop and domestic animal herd has been modified one way or another since the dawn of agriculture. Surely the ancient farmer who developed a hybrid crop got some of his "altered" pollen on unaltered crops. Why is this any different?

|1.13.06 @ 12:08AM|#

"The reality is that these food companies don't want to label their foods as such because they fear that people will avoid those foods."

Yes, and that's the problem. We put warning labels on products that science determines to be risky. A warning that says, "this product is GM", implies a safety risk where none exists. It makes as much sense as, "warning, this product may contain dihydrogen monoxide". Maybe H2O is dangerous, science says not". Shouldn't we apply the label, just in case?

There's a Monty Python joke in here...


The Crunchy Frog Sketch from "Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl" and
"Monty Python Live at City Cente 1974"

Inspector: 'ELLO!
Mr. Hilton: 'Ello.
Inspector: Mr. 'ilton?
Hilton: A-yes?
I: You are the sole proprietor and owner of the Whizzo Chocolate Company?
H: I am, yes.
I: Constable Clitoris and I are from the 'ygiene squad, and we'd like to have
a word with you about your box of chocolates entitled the "Whizzo Quality
Assortment".
H: Oh, yes.
I: If I may begin at the beginning. First there is the Cherry Fondue.
Now this is extremely nasty. (pause) But we can't prosecute you for that.
H: Ah, agreed.
I: Then we have number four. Number four: Crunchy Frog.
H: Yes.
I: Am I right in thinking there's a real frog in 'ere?
H: Yes, a little one.
I: What sort of frog?
H: A...a *dead* frog.
I: Is it cooked?
H: No.
I: What, a RAW frog?!?
H: Oh, we use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq,
cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and sealed in
a succulent, Swiss, quintuple-smooth, treble-milk chocolate envelope, and
lovingly frosted with glucose.
I: That's as may be, but it's still a frog!
H: What else?
I: Well, don't you even take the bones out?
H: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?
I: Constable Clitoris et one of those!! We have to protect the public!
C: Uh, would you excuse me a moment, Sir? (exits)
I: We have to protect the public! People aren't going to think there's a real
frog in chocolate! Constable Clitoris thought it was an almond whirl!
They're bound to expect some sort of mock frog!
H: (outraged) MOCK frog!?! We use NO artificial additives or preservatives of
ANY kind!
I: Nevertheless, I advise you in future to replace the words "Crunchy Frog"
with the legend, "Crunchy, Raw, Unboned Real Dead Frog" if you wish to avoid
prosecution!
H: What about our sales?
I: FUCK your sales! We've got to protect the public! Now what about this
one, number five, it was number five, wasn't it? Number five: Ram's
Bladder Cup. (beat) Now, what sort of confectionery is that?!?
H: Oh, we use only the finest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish Ram's bladder,
emptied, steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue, and
garnished with lark's vomit.
I: LARK'S VOMIT?!?!?
H: Correct.
I: It doesn't say anything here about lark's vomit!
H: Ah, it does, at the bottom of the label, after "monosodium glutamate".
I: I hardly think that's good enough! I think it's be more appropriate if the
box bore a great red label: "WARNING: LARK'S VOMIT!!!"
H: Our sales would plummet!
I: (screaming) Well why don't you move into more conventional areas of
confectionary??!!
(the constable returns)
I: Like Praline, or, or Lime Creme, a very popular flavor, I'm lead to
understand. Or Raspberry Lite. I mean, what's this one, what's
this one? 'Ere we are: Cockroach Cluster! -- -- Anthrax Ripple!
C: MMMMWWWAAAAAGGGGGHHHH!!

Wild Pegasus|1.13.06 @ 3:28AM|#

I think it is fair to claim there is a difference between cross-breeding several types of cattle and putting (for example) the genes of a fish into the genes of wheat.

Considering how incredibly subsidised these monstrous agribusinesses are, how heavily they rely on third-world governments stealing land from peasants, and how heavily subsidised their research is, libertarians shouldn't be so quick to rush to their defence.

- Josh

|1.13.06 @ 5:50AM|#

...and putting (for example) the genes of a fish into the genes of wheat.

Ahh, there are no such products in the market. What you are referring to is academic research not examples of marketed products.

|1.13.06 @ 12:46PM|#

I defiently think organics should be labeled, I want to know if my produce has been treated with feces.
:)

|1.13.06 @ 4:19PM|#

...how heavily they rely on third-world governments stealing land from peasants...

Errr... excuse, but many of these "third world governments" (e.g. Robert Mugabe) were convinced by Greenpeace and other anti-GM groups to turn away modified grain crated by these "monsterous agribusinesses" that could have fed these starving "peasents."

It must be easy to live environmentally-pure lives here in the rich and well fed West, right?

|1.13.06 @ 7:27PM|#

>I try my best to avoid foods with the "organic" label.

Me too.

>I defiently think organics should be labeled, I want to know if my produce has been treated with feces.

There's a good reason to avoid organics.

I am not a scientist and don't have a strong grounding in the sciences. Nevertheless, the idea of GM agriculture doesn't worry me at all. It really baffles me that so many people are easily swayed by the arguments against it. I can only look at my friends blankly when they object it.

|1.13.06 @ 7:55PM|#

Economist wheat link: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323362&no_na_tran=1

After an epiphany in a taxi in a crowded Delhi street, the environmentalist Paul Ehrlich wrote a best-seller arguing that the world had ?too many people?. Not only could America not save India; it should not save India. Mass starvation was inevitable, and not just for India, but for the world.


Borlaug refused to be so pessimistic. He arrived in India in March 1963 and began testing three new varieties of Mexican wheat. The yields were four or five times better than Indian varieties. In 1965, after overcoming much bureaucratic opposition, Swaminathan persuaded his government to order 18,000 tonnes of Borlaug's seed. Borlaug loaded 35 trucks in Mexico and sent them north to Los Angeles. The convoy was held up by the Mexican police, stopped at the border by United States officials and then held up by the National Guard when the Watts riots prevented them reaching the port. Then, as the shipment eventually sailed, war broke out between India and Pakistan.

Natural-born mutants
As it happened, the war proved a godsend, because the state grain monopolies lost their power to block the spread of Borlaug's wheat. Eager farmers took it up with astonishing results. By 1974, India's wheat production had tripled and India was self-sufficient in food; it has never faced a famine since. In 1970 Norman Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for firing the first shot in what came to be called the ?green revolution?.

Borlaug had used natural mutants; soon his successors were bringing on mutations artificially. In 1956, a sample of a barley variety called Maythorpe was irradiated at Britain's Atomic Energy Research Establishment . The result was a strain with stiffer, shorter straw but the same early harvest and malting qualities, which would eventually reach the market as ?Golden Promise?.