According to a new USDA report released July 1, American farmers have adopted genetically engineered crops widely since their introduction in 1996, especially corn, cotton and soybean varieties. The Economic Research Service report includes key findings:

• Adoption of GE soybeans is 91 percent in 2009.

• Adoption of all GE cotton reached 88 percent in 2009.

• Adoption of all biotech corn climbed to 85 percent in 2009.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, Executive Vice President, Food and Agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), issued the following statement in response to the report’s findings:

“Because of the compelling benefits that biotech crops provide, herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant varieties of corn, cotton and soybeans continue to be the choice of American farmers. Since 1996, these crops have proved to yield more per acre and reduce farmers’ production costs with more environmentally friendly farming practices.”

The report summarizes the extent of adoption of herbicide-tolerant and insect–resistant crops since their introduction in 1996. Three tables within the report devoted to corn, cotton, and soybeans cover the 2000-09 period by U.S. state.

A copy of the USDA ERS report, Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. (July 1, 2009) including data tables, can be read here.

On organic fruits and vegatables Los Angeles Times “California Cook” columnist Russ Parson in today’s Los Angeles Times writes that organic “is not a surefire solution to all of life’s (or even agriculture’s) ills.” He states that organic advocates oversimplify the benefits of organics:

“[T]he ones who need to do the apologizing are the often-well-meaning organic advocates who paint such a black-and-white picture of the way farming works that it seems there should be no choice at all.”

Parson takes exception with those who put forward organics as the “only” option in sustainable farming. He writes that “there is a huge gray area, and this is where most farming is done.”

“You can be a bad farmer growing organically, and you can be a good farmer and still use chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.”

Parson’s thoughts echo Dr. Clive James remarks in a video we posted last week:

“Can biotech crops contribute to more affordable food? Can biotech crops help mitigate climate change and contribute to sustainability? Can biotech crops contribute to global food security and the alleviation of poverty? We believe the answers to each of these questions are unequivocally yes. Biotech crops can make an important contribution, but are not a panacea. They can provide a contribution but are not the whole solution for these three questions.”

Farmer Gene writes about “misconceptions floating around in the internet with regard to biotech crop opposition in Europe and Japan.”

At a time when the United States and the world are looking for science-based solutions to help feed a growing population, agricultural biotechnology is able to deliver heartier crops that produce more food, often in areas with less-than-perfect growing conditions. If a technology can produce more food while helping farmers and the environment, isn’t it worth pursuing? 

Read more.

North Dakota corn, soybeans and wheat farmer Terry Wanzek shared his views on Forbes.com on the recent favorable review of agricultural biotechnology by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

“There are some people around the world who think religion and science shouldn’t get along. For some reason, they believe the men of the cloth should disagree with the men of lab coat.
They’ll be disappointed to learn that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences–an arm of the Vatican–has given its blessing to genetically modified crops. At a conference last month in Rome, it praised genetically modified food for having ‘great potential to improve the lives of the poor.’ This is a welcome marriage of religion and science–and two powerful forces joining for the betterment of society.”

Click here to read Terry’s comments from the BIO International Convention in Atlanta in May.

Karl Haro von Mogel on his Biofortified blog provides his analyis of SEED Magazine’s examination of the debate over GMOs in Europe. He writes:

“The important distinction being made here is that there is a consensus within plant science, but not necessarily one between disciplines. The key difference between how these two kinds of genetic changes are being treated politically and socially have more to do with the political and social climates in different hemispheres and less to do with the science that has been conducted around the world. In some cases, science is being ignored in the interest of societal issues, and in other cases, bad science is being wielded as a weapon to draw attention away from the good science that exists.”