Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Mark Armfelt, DVM, DAVBP

By choosing technologies that increase productivity, the American Farmer has consistently provided an ever increasing number of American consumers with an abundant, economical, safe food supply. They have also been able to produce that food in a sustainable manner.

Abundant Food – Today’s farmer produces enough food to feed 143 people, which is five times as many people as each one fed in 1950. Some examples of how they did it:

• American dairy farmers have led the way by increasing the total production of milk by over 50% since 1950. They have done this with 62% fewer cows!

• Since 1950, total world production of all major cereal grains has tripled. That extra food was produced off approximately the same amount of land.

• U.S. beef cattle producers have increased their production per cow by 80% since 1955.

Economical Food – The average American consumer spends 6% of their disposable income on food prepared at home. In the European Union that number is 11%, in Mexico it is 24%, and in the Philippines it is 48%.

Safe Food – The following scientific organizations have acknowledged that today’s food supply is safe: World Health Organization, Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Society of Toxicology, Institute of Food Technologists, American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Surgeon General’s Office, and the American Dietetics Association.

Sustainable – By having the freedom to choose technologies, farmers today can increase productivity while minimizing the footprint agriculture leaves on the environment. Here are a few examples of that:

• In the dairy industry, the decrease in cow numbers from almost 24 million in 1950 to just over 9 million cows today has decreased the amount of water, feed, land and fuel it takes to produce dairy products for today’s consumer. Decreasing cow numbers has also decreased manure and greenhouse gas production.

• Without new technologies in crop production we’d have had to cut down approximately three times as much forest or plowed up three times as much grazing land…to produce a harvest equivalent to 2000. That’s how much land high-yield technology saved for Mother Nature.

• In 2004 the use of biotech crops in the United States provided for a reduction in pesticide use by 64.6 million pounds, saved millions of tons of topsoil, and millions of gallons of fuel.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

The following was excerpted from the April 11, 2007 issue of The Biotech Advantage.

Dr. A. M. “Tony” Shelton, who is a Professor of Entomology at Cornell University and a visiting scientist at Lincoln University, recently wrote an opinion piece in The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand) that the debate on biotech crops is misleading New Zealand’s public.

This article is a great example of the ongoing misinformation campaigns run by opponents of biotech crops in New Zealand, and throughout the World.

Shelton addresses the issue that organic agriculture farming practices are safer than those used by farmers of biotech crops. The benefits of biotech crops have been clear to agricultural scientists and many working within agricultural sectors, but may be less clear to the public, he says. Over the last 10 years the use of biotech crops has resulted in the reduction of 224 million kilograms of active pesticide ingredients being sprayed.

Organic standards require farmers to apply only pesticides that are “natural” and not synthetic, but being “natural” does not ensure safety. For example, sulphur, a major fungicide used in organic agriculture, is toxic to a broad range of organisms and is a longer-term soil and environmental contaminant than most of its synthetic counterparts.

Another claim, according to Shelton is that the use of Bt crops will lead to the development of insects resistant to Bt, eliminating one of the tools organic growers have to control caterpillar pests. After 11 years, there has not been a case of insects developing resistance to Bt plants in the field. When Bt plants were developed, scientists knew about the potential for resistance and developed strategies that have proven effective in preventing resistance to Bt plants.

Shelton says that many conventional farmers now employ some organic practices to add to soil health on their farms. He also says that many organic farmers he knows have expressed interest in using some biotech plants to help control pests in a more environmentally sustainable fashion, but the organic lobby will not allow it for philosophical, not scientific, reasons.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Mark Armfelt, DVM, DAVBP

By choosing technologies that increase productivity, the American Farmer has consistently provided an ever increasing number of American consumers with an abundant, economical, safe food supply. They have also been able to produce that food in a sustainable manner.

Abundant Food – Today’s farmer produces enough food to feed 143 people, which is five times as many people as each one fed in 1950. Some examples of how they did it:

• American dairy farmers have led the way by increasing the total production of milk by over 50% since 1950. They have done this with 62% fewer cows!

• Since 1950, total world production of all major cereal grains has tripled. That extra food was produced off approximately the same amount of land.

• U.S. beef cattle producers have increased their production per cow by 80% since 1955.

Economical Food – The average American consumer spends 6% of their disposable income on food prepared at home. In the European Union that number is 11%, in Mexico it is 24%, and in the Philippines it is 48%.

Safe Food – The following scientific organizations have acknowledged that today’s food supply is safe: World Health Organization, Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Society of Toxicology, Institute of Food Technologists, American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Surgeon General’s Office, and the American Dietetics Association.

Sustainable – By having the freedom to choose technologies, farmers today can increase productivity while minimizing the footprint agriculture leaves on the environment. Here are a few examples of that:

• In the dairy industry, the decrease in cow numbers from almost 24 million in 1950 to just over 9 million cows today has decreased the amount of water, feed, land and fuel it takes to produce dairy products for today’s consumer. Decreasing cow numbers has also decreased manure and greenhouse gas production.

• Without new technologies in crop production we’d have had to cut down approximately three times as much forest or plowed up three times as much grazing land…to produce a harvest equivalent to 2000. That’s how much land high-yield technology saved for Mother Nature.

• In 2004 the use of biotech crops in the United States provided for a reduction in pesticide use by 64.6 million pounds, saved millions of tons of topsoil, and millions of gallons of fuel.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

The following was excerpted from the April 11, 2007 issue of The Biotech Advantage.

Dr. A. M. “Tony” Shelton, who is a Professor of Entomology at Cornell University and a visiting scientist at Lincoln University, recently wrote an opinion piece in The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand) that the debate on biotech crops is misleading New Zealand’s public.

This article is a great example of the ongoing misinformation campaigns run by opponents of biotech crops in New Zealand, and throughout the World.

Shelton addresses the issue that organic agriculture farming practices are safer than those used by farmers of biotech crops. The benefits of biotech crops have been clear to agricultural scientists and many working within agricultural sectors, but may be less clear to the public, he says. Over the last 10 years the use of biotech crops has resulted in the reduction of 224 million kilograms of active pesticide ingredients being sprayed.

Organic standards require farmers to apply only pesticides that are “natural” and not synthetic, but being “natural” does not ensure safety. For example, sulphur, a major fungicide used in organic agriculture, is toxic to a broad range of organisms and is a longer-term soil and environmental contaminant than most of its synthetic counterparts.

Another claim, according to Shelton is that the use of Bt crops will lead to the development of insects resistant to Bt, eliminating one of the tools organic growers have to control caterpillar pests. After 11 years, there has not been a case of insects developing resistance to Bt plants in the field. When Bt plants were developed, scientists knew about the potential for resistance and developed strategies that have proven effective in preventing resistance to Bt plants.

Shelton says that many conventional farmers now employ some organic practices to add to soil health on their farms. He also says that many organic farmers he knows have expressed interest in using some biotech plants to help control pests in a more environmentally sustainable fashion, but the organic lobby will not allow it for philosophical, not scientific, reasons.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.