We often hear that modern agricultural technologies (like biotechnology) primarily benefit farmers budgets and agribusiness' profit margins but provide little social benefit. On the contrary, in fact,
positive benefits associated with the development of biotech crops include non-trivial decreases in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the removal of nearly 12 million cars from America's roads - this is roughly 50% of the number of new cars purchased annually. (Brookes & Barfoot, 2017). Additionally, we see benefits in terms of improved health and safety related to decreased levels of mycotoxins, reduced pesticide exposure, reduced groundwater pollution, and improved biodiversity to name some of the health and environmental benefits as well as social benefits related to gender equity.
In the livestock sector we've also seen incredible improvements in the health and environmental benefits related to beef. For instance, consider Brad Johnson's work at Texas Tech related to increasing marbling and healthy fats without increasing unhealthy backfat while also reducing time on feed. Or like the research in beef genetics and air quality and emissions at U.C. Davis.
It's not just theory. In 2007 compared to 1977 we were able to produce the same amount of beef using roughly 30% fewer cattle and 30% less land. Feed and and water usage were down between 15-20% with a 16% lower carbon footprint (Capper, 2007). All in all, based on full lifecycle analysis, U.S. beef consumption accounts for less than .5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Below is a review of some of the literature discussing the sustainability of modern agriculture.
The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science,Capper, J. L., Cady, R. A., Bauman, D. E. 2009; 87 (6): 2160 DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1781
-reduced carbon footprint in dairy production
"Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for the Food System." Doyle et al., Institute of Food Technologists
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol.5, Issue 3, 2006ter for Molecular
-safety of pharmaceutical technologies in food production in relation to antibiotic use in livestock
"Microbiological Quality of Ground Beef From Conventionally-Reared Cattle and "Raised without Antibiotics" Label Claims" Journal of Food Protection, July 2004,Vol 67 Issue 7 p. 1433-1437
-factors other than the sub therapeutic use of antibiotics in beef production contribute to antimicrobial resistant bacteria in ground beef
San Diego Center for Molecular Agriculture: Foods from Genetically Modified Crops ( pdf)
-summary of environmental and health benefits of biotechnology
''Hybrid Corn.'' Abelson, P.H. (1990) Science 249 (August 24): 837. -improved diversity of crops planted
Enterprise and Biodiversity: Do Market Forces Yield Diversity of Life? David Schap and Andrew T. Young Cato Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 1999)
-improved diversity of crops planted
A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates. Michelle Marvier, Chanel McCreedy, James Regetz, Peter Kareiva Science 8 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5830, pp. 1475 – 1477
-reduced impact on biodiversity
''Diversity of United States Hybrid Maize Germplasm as Revealed by Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms.'' Smith, J.S.C.; Smith, O.S.; Wright, S.; Wall, S.J.; and Walton, M. (1992) Crop Science 32: 598–604
-improved diversity of crops planted
Comparison of Fumonisin Concentrations in Kernels of Transgenic Bt Maize Hybrids and Nontransgenic Hybrids. Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.
-Improved safety and reduced carcinogens in biotech crops
Pellegrino, E., Bedini, S., Nuti, M. et al. Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data. Sci Rep 8, 3113 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2
The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science,Capper, J. L., Cady, R. A., Bauman, D. E. 2009; 87 (6): 2160 DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1781
-reduced carbon footprint in dairy production
"Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for the Food System." Doyle et al., Institute of Food Technologists
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol.5, Issue 3, 2006ter for Molecular
-safety of pharmaceutical technologies in food production in relation to antibiotic use in livestock
"Microbiological Quality of Ground Beef From Conventionally-Reared Cattle and "Raised without Antibiotics" Label Claims" Journal of Food Protection, July 2004,Vol 67 Issue 7 p. 1433-1437
-factors other than the sub therapeutic use of antibiotics in beef production contribute to antimicrobial resistant bacteria in ground beef
San Diego Center for Molecular Agriculture: Foods from Genetically Modified Crops ( pdf)
-summary of environmental and health benefits of biotechnology
''Hybrid Corn.'' Abelson, P.H. (1990) Science 249 (August 24): 837. -improved diversity of crops planted
Enterprise and Biodiversity: Do Market Forces Yield Diversity of Life? David Schap and Andrew T. Young Cato Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 1999)
-improved diversity of crops planted
A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates. Michelle Marvier, Chanel McCreedy, James Regetz, Peter Kareiva Science 8 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5830, pp. 1475 – 1477
-reduced impact on biodiversity
''Diversity of United States Hybrid Maize Germplasm as Revealed by Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms.'' Smith, J.S.C.; Smith, O.S.; Wright, S.; Wall, S.J.; and Walton, M. (1992) Crop Science 32: 598–604
-improved diversity of crops planted
Comparison of Fumonisin Concentrations in Kernels of Transgenic Bt Maize Hybrids and Nontransgenic Hybrids. Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.
-Improved safety and reduced carcinogens in biotech crops
Pellegrino, E., Bedini, S., Nuti, M. et al. Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data. Sci Rep 8, 3113 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2
Increase in biotech corn yields vs conventional (~5-25%) and reduction in mycotoxins ~30%)
Indirect Reduction of Ear Molds and Associated Mycotoxins in Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Under Controlled and Open Field Conditions: Utility and Limitations. Dowd, J. Economic Entomology. 93 1669-1679 2000.
-Improved safety and reduced carcinogens in biotech crops
"Why Spurning Biotech Food Has Become a Liability.'' Miller, Henry I, Conko, Gregory, & Drew L. Kershe. Nature Biotechnology Volume 24 Number 9 September 2006.
-Health and environmental benefits of biotechnology
Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2000
-environmental benefits and reduced pesticide use of biotech crops
-environmentalbenefits of biotech: reduced pollution, improved safety, reduced carbon footprint
Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science 31 May 2002: Vol. 296. no. 5573, pp. 1694 – 1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
-20% lower yields in non-biotech organic foods
'Association of farm management practices with risk of Escherichia coli contamination in pre- harvest produce grown in Minnesota and Wisconsin.' International Journal of Food Microbiology Volume 120, Issue 3, 15 December 2007, Pages 296-302
-comparison of E.Coli risks and modern vs. organic food production methods, odds of contamination are 13x greater for organic production
The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production. By Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, Centre for Global Food Issues.
-Grain feeding combined with growth promotants also results in a nearly 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) per pound of beef compared to grass feeding (excluding nitrous oxides), with growth promotants accounting for fully 25 percent of the emissions reductions- see also: Organic, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef: Profitability and constraints to Production in the Midwestern U.S. Nicolas Acevedo John D. Lawrence Margaret Smith August, 2006. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture)
Lessons from the Danish Ban on Feed Grade Antibiotics. Dermot J. Hayes and Helen H. Jenson. Choices 3Q. 2003. American Agricultural Economics Association.
-Ban on feed grade sub- therapeutic antibiotics lead to increased reliance on therapeutic antibiotics important to human health.
Does Local Production Improve Environmental and Health Outcomes. Steven Sexton. Agricultural and Resource Economics Update, Vol 13 No 2 Nov/Dec 2009. University of California.
-local production offers no benefits to sustainability
UPDATES:
Communal Benefits of Transgenic Corn. Bruce E. Tabashnik Science 8 October 2010:Vol. 330. no. 6001, pp. 189 - 190DOI: 10.1126/science.1196864
"Bt corn planted near non-Bt corn can provide the unmodified plants with indirect protection from pests"
Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers. Science 8 October 2010:Vol. 330. no. 6001, pp. 222 - 225 DOI: 10.1126/science.1190242W. D. Hutchison,1,* E. C. Burkness,1 P. D. Mitchell,2 R. D. Moon,1 T. W. Leslie,3 S. J. Fleischer,4 M. Abrahamson,5 K. L. Hamilton,6 K. L. Steffey,7, M. E. Gray,7 R. L. Hellmich,8 L. V. Kaster,9 T. E. Hunt,10 R. J. Wright,11 K. Pecinovsky,12 T. L. Rabaey,13 B. R. Flood,14 E. S. Raun15,
"Cumulative benefits over 14 years are an estimated $3.2 billion for maize growers in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, with more than $2.4 billion of this total accruing to non-Bt maize growers."
Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification Jennifer A. Burneya,Steven J. Davisc, and David B. Lobella.PNAS June 29, 2010 vol. 107 no. 26 12052-12057
-'industrial agriculture' aka family farms utilizing modern production technology have a mitigating effect on climate change
Clearing the Air: Livestock's Contribution to Climate ChangeMaurice E. Pitesky*, Kimberly R. Stackhouse† and Frank M. MitloehnerAdvances in Agronomy Volume 103, 2009, Pages 1-40
-transportation accounts for at least 26% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions compared to roughly 5.8% for all of agriculture & less than 3% associated with livestock production vs. 18% wrongly attributed to livestock by the FAO report 'Livestock's Long Shadow' Conclusion: intensified 'modern' livestock production is consistent with a long term sustainable production strategy
Large Agriculture Improves Rural Iowa Communities
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/newsletter/sapp.html
-"favorable effect of large-scale agriculture on quality of life in the 99 Iowa communities we studied"
Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream FoodSupply Chains
Robert P. King, Michael S. Hand, Gigi DiGiacomo,Kate Clancy, Miguel I. Gómez, Shermain D. Hardesty,Larry Lev, and Edward W. McLaughlin
Economic Research Report Number 99 June 2010
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR99/ERR99.pdf
-Study finds that fuel use per cwt for local food production was 2.18 gallons vs. .69 and 1.92 for intermediate and traditional supply chains for beef
The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production Judith L. Capper,* Euridice Castañeda-Gutiérrez,*† Roger A. Cady,‡ and Dale E. Bauman* Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 July 15; 105(28): 9668–9673
-rBST supplemented cattle lead to an 8% reduction in cattle requirements vs a 25 % increase in organic cattle numbers to produce equivalent amounts of milk. For every 1 million cows, the reduction in GWP from rBST supplemented cows is equivalent to removing 400K cars from the roadways or planting 300 million trees
-Improved safety and reduced carcinogens in biotech crops
"Why Spurning Biotech Food Has Become a Liability.'' Miller, Henry I, Conko, Gregory, & Drew L. Kershe. Nature Biotechnology Volume 24 Number 9 September 2006.
-Health and environmental benefits of biotechnology
Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2000
-environmental benefits and reduced pesticide use of biotech crops
Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot
GM Crops & Food Vol. 8 , Iss. 2,2017
Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490
-environmentalbenefits of biotech: reduced pollution, improved safety, reduced carbon footprint
Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science 31 May 2002: Vol. 296. no. 5573, pp. 1694 – 1697 DOI: 10.1126/science.1071148
-20% lower yields in non-biotech organic foods
'Association of farm management practices with risk of Escherichia coli contamination in pre- harvest produce grown in Minnesota and Wisconsin.' International Journal of Food Microbiology Volume 120, Issue 3, 15 December 2007, Pages 296-302
-comparison of E.Coli risks and modern vs. organic food production methods, odds of contamination are 13x greater for organic production
The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production. By Alex Avery and Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, Centre for Global Food Issues.
-Grain feeding combined with growth promotants also results in a nearly 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) per pound of beef compared to grass feeding (excluding nitrous oxides), with growth promotants accounting for fully 25 percent of the emissions reductions- see also: Organic, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef: Profitability and constraints to Production in the Midwestern U.S. Nicolas Acevedo John D. Lawrence Margaret Smith August, 2006. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture)
Lessons from the Danish Ban on Feed Grade Antibiotics. Dermot J. Hayes and Helen H. Jenson. Choices 3Q. 2003. American Agricultural Economics Association.
-Ban on feed grade sub- therapeutic antibiotics lead to increased reliance on therapeutic antibiotics important to human health.
Does Local Production Improve Environmental and Health Outcomes. Steven Sexton. Agricultural and Resource Economics Update, Vol 13 No 2 Nov/Dec 2009. University of California.
-local production offers no benefits to sustainability
UPDATES:
Communal Benefits of Transgenic Corn. Bruce E. Tabashnik Science 8 October 2010:Vol. 330. no. 6001, pp. 189 - 190DOI: 10.1126/science.1196864
"Bt corn planted near non-Bt corn can provide the unmodified plants with indirect protection from pests"
Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers. Science 8 October 2010:Vol. 330. no. 6001, pp. 222 - 225 DOI: 10.1126/science.1190242W. D. Hutchison,1,* E. C. Burkness,1 P. D. Mitchell,2 R. D. Moon,1 T. W. Leslie,3 S. J. Fleischer,4 M. Abrahamson,5 K. L. Hamilton,6 K. L. Steffey,7, M. E. Gray,7 R. L. Hellmich,8 L. V. Kaster,9 T. E. Hunt,10 R. J. Wright,11 K. Pecinovsky,12 T. L. Rabaey,13 B. R. Flood,14 E. S. Raun15,
"Cumulative benefits over 14 years are an estimated $3.2 billion for maize growers in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, with more than $2.4 billion of this total accruing to non-Bt maize growers."
Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification Jennifer A. Burneya,Steven J. Davisc, and David B. Lobella.PNAS June 29, 2010 vol. 107 no. 26 12052-12057
-'industrial agriculture' aka family farms utilizing modern production technology have a mitigating effect on climate change
Clearing the Air: Livestock's Contribution to Climate ChangeMaurice E. Pitesky*, Kimberly R. Stackhouse† and Frank M. MitloehnerAdvances in Agronomy Volume 103, 2009, Pages 1-40
-transportation accounts for at least 26% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions compared to roughly 5.8% for all of agriculture & less than 3% associated with livestock production vs. 18% wrongly attributed to livestock by the FAO report 'Livestock's Long Shadow' Conclusion: intensified 'modern' livestock production is consistent with a long term sustainable production strategy
Large Agriculture Improves Rural Iowa Communities
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/newsletter/sapp.html
-"favorable effect of large-scale agriculture on quality of life in the 99 Iowa communities we studied"
Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream FoodSupply Chains
Robert P. King, Michael S. Hand, Gigi DiGiacomo,Kate Clancy, Miguel I. Gómez, Shermain D. Hardesty,Larry Lev, and Edward W. McLaughlin
Economic Research Report Number 99 June 2010
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR99/ERR99.pdf
-Study finds that fuel use per cwt for local food production was 2.18 gallons vs. .69 and 1.92 for intermediate and traditional supply chains for beef
The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production Judith L. Capper,* Euridice Castañeda-Gutiérrez,*† Roger A. Cady,‡ and Dale E. Bauman* Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 July 15; 105(28): 9668–9673
-rBST supplemented cattle lead to an 8% reduction in cattle requirements vs a 25 % increase in organic cattle numbers to produce equivalent amounts of milk. For every 1 million cows, the reduction in GWP from rBST supplemented cows is equivalent to removing 400K cars from the roadways or planting 300 million trees
Smyth SJ. The human health benefits from GM crops. Plant Biotechnol J. 2020;18(4):887-888. doi:10.1111/pbi.13261
- Human health benefits, reduced applications, reduced pesticide poisonings in developing countries
Impacts of Biotechnology on Gender Equity:
Social and Economic Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops (National Academies of Science, 2016).
Below are some highlights from this research:
The adoption of biotechnology in developing countries has had some mitigating effects:
References:
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 May 17. 6, Social and Economic Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424536/
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions, GM Crops & Food, 8:2, 117-147, DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490
Below are some highlights from this research:
- Women comprise a significant proportion of agricultural related labor in developing countries (~43%)
- Women in developing countries face significant challenges related to access to education, information, credit, inputs, assets, extension services, and land
The adoption of biotechnology in developing countries has had some mitigating effects:
- In India biotechnology adoption (Bt cotton) resulted in increased work hours and income for women (Subramanian and Qaim, 2010)
- Reduced exposure and freeing women from spraying toxic chemicals and related labor (Bennett et al., 2003; Zambrano et al., 2013; Zambrano et al., 2012; Smale et al., 2012)
- Increased importance of women in decision making within households (Yorobe and Smale, 2012; Zambrano et al., 2013; Rickson et al., 2006
References:
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 May 17. 6, Social and Economic Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424536/
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions, GM Crops & Food, 8:2, 117-147, DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490
Bennett R, Buthelezi TJ, Ismael Y, Morse S. Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture. 2003;32:123–128.
Kouser, S., Qaim, M., Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis,Ecol. Econ. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.008
Comparison of Fumonisin Concentrations in Kernels of Transgenic Bt Maize Hybrids and Nontransgenic Hybrids. Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.
Kouser, S., Qaim, M., Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis,Ecol. Econ. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.008
Comparison of Fumonisin Concentrations in Kernels of Transgenic Bt Maize Hybrids and Nontransgenic Hybrids. Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.
Rickson ST, Rickson RE, Burch D. Women and sustainable agriculture. In: Bock BB, Shortall S, editors. Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2006. pp. 119–135.
Smale M, Zambrano P, Paz-Ybarnegaray R, Fernández-Montaño W. A case of resistance: Herbicide-tolerant soybeans in Bolivia. AgBioForum. 2012;15:191–205.
Subramanian A, Qaim M. The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. Journal of Development Studies. 2010;46:295–311
Subramanian A, Qaim M. The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. Journal of Development Studies. 2010;46:295–311
Yorobe JM Jr, Smale M. Impacts of Bt maize on smallholder income in the Phillipines. AgBioForum. 2012;15:152–162
Zambrano P, Smale M, Maldonado JH, Mendoza SL. Unweaving the threads: The experiences of female farmers with biotech cotton in Colombia. AgBioForum. 2012;15:125–137.
Zambrano P, Lobnibe I, Cabanilla DB, Maldonado JH, Falck-Zepeda J. Hiding in the plain sight: Women and GM crop adoption. Paper presented at the 17th ICABR Conference: Innovation and Policy for the Bioeconomy, June 18–21. Ravello, Italy: 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment