Jeff Pope and I have produced the Ag Markets and More program for over a decade. When we envisioned the program, we initially modeled it on the format of early morning and noontime farm programs that I listened to while growing up in the rural Midwest. Those programs gave farmers, and ranchers in the West, up to date market reports, weather and news that affected their lives and businesses.
However, from feed back we received early on, we realized that our audience was made up largely of non-farmers. While market prices are important to farmers and ranchers, today they usually find that information on their computers or RFD TV. Most of you, we learned, are interested in the big picture of farming and ranching, and how it affects your life and our community.
I enjoy preparing for the program each week, because I'm interested in all thing agricultural. My sifting of information gleaned from main stream and alternative agricultural publications, weekly, regional agricultural news papers, management news letters and university web sites always yields lots of material for the program. Jeff and I attempt to condense the four most interesting stories down into three minute programs, but we often must leave out many details. With this in mind, we hope that this Ag Markets and More Blog will complete some of those stories each week.
Today, we discussed the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine analysis of genetically modified crops. A committee of 20, mostly from academia, examined more than 1,000 studies, heard testimony from 80 witnesses in a series of public meetings and webinars, and analyzed 700 comments submitted by the public to reach their conclusions.
Condensed down, the 400 page report says that Genetically modified crops are safe for human and animal consumption, and do not harm the environment. But this report is unlikely to end the highly polarized debate over these crops, better known as G.M.O.s.
The report says that foods made from genetically modified crops don't appear to pose health risks, based on chemical analysis of the foods and on animal feeding studies, though they concluded that many animal studies are too small to provide firm conclusions. The committee members also looked at the incidence of certain diseases. By comparing rates in North America, where genetically modified crops have been part of the diet since 1996, and Western Europe, where food from similar crops is not eaten much, they found no evidence that the crops had contributed to an increase in the incidence of cancer, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, autism, celiac disease or food allergies.
One of the common arguments we hear to support the move to genetically modified crops in this country is that they are necessary for farmers to be able to “feed the world. However, the study found that there little proof that these crops had better yields than non genetically, modified crops.
My problem with genetically modified crops is not whether they are healthy to eat, show me creditable studies that prove harm, and I'll join that chorus, but that I am concerned about the the unintended consequences associated with production practices associated with these crops.
My first concern is that farmers are encouraged to plant monocrops of corn, soybeans and cotton, because they have not had to plant crops as a rotation, a practice commonly used in the past to control weed and insect pests. Now you can travel for miles in the rural Midwest and see very little else other than corn and soybean fields. This monocropping has been tough on bees, butterflies and birds, and certainly apparently has screwed up diversity in the region.
Second, depending on glyphosate herbicide to control weeds has resulted in over 40 weed species that are resistant to this herbicide. New traits are now added to allow for additional herbicides to be used, but weed scientists tell us that it is only a matter of time before weeds resist those herbicides as well.
Third, common sense tells me that using 1.4 million pounds of glyphosate to control weeds isn't the best approach to maintaining a healthy environment, especially since tests are finding the herbicide in surface water and as residue in grain samples.
Fourth,the introduction of genetically modified crops hasn't made crop farming more profitable, just more expensive. Input costs such genetically modified seed has continued to rise, even into this downturn in crop prices.
Fifth, farm equipment has grown in size, complexity and price, over the past 20 years, as farmers have expanded their operations to try to gain economies of scale by farming ever more land faster. It is not uncommon to see a Corn Belt farmer heading out to plant a field, driving a train of equipment that may weigh over 50 tons, be 100 feet in length and cost over $1,000,000. This equipment takes a toll on both the land, through compacted soils, and on the farmer who has to pay for it.
Finally, I am concerned that we are following a track in agriculture that may lead us down a route that is not sustainable over the long haul. By continuing to depend too heavily on technology alone, while jettisoning the wisdom of the past, we may leave our children and grandchildren without options in future.