Racing Toward a Roundup-Ready Food Future

So last night I devoted some free time to two of my great loves -- open government data and food policy -- and checked out the data on the rate of U.S. adoption of genetically-modified food crops in the United States that was released by U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this month. Now, you can talk about the changing nature of the U.S. food supply until you're blue in the face. Or you can point to the numbers. And in this case, the USDA's new data on the U.S. adoption of genetically-modified food crops is so off the charts that there was little choice but to make a chart:

Wowza. The blue line represents soybeans. The red line is corn. What we're looking at is the growth in the percentage of all the acres of U.S. farmland used to raise the respective crops that is now used to grow what's known as Herbicide Tolerant, or HT, varieties. HT crops are designed in a lab to be resistant to chemical herbicide; the best-known HT brand are Monsanto's Roundup-Ready products. Sprayed on a non-modified plant, Roundup kills. But HT are engineered to be able to tolerate the herbicide, allowing for weed control through blanket-spraying of farm acres. For years, food advocates and food producers have been arguing over the merits and risks of HT crops. Monsanto, for example, has engaged in a long battle with food advocates over whether or not it should develop strains of genetically-engineered wheat.

But what's clear from the new USDA numbers is how quickly the U.S. food supply is changing, whether we eaters like it or not. The simple fact is that for many of us, the food we eat today is simply different than what we ate as kids. When I was a sophomore in college* back in 1996, for example, just 3% of farmland used to grow corn was given over to HT varieties of the crop. Today, 68% of U.S. farmland used to grow corn grows corn that is genetically engineered to be HT. The leap has been even greater for soybeans -- from 7% in 1996 to a whopping 91% in 2009.

We might, as American eaters, still be having a healthy debate about whether we want to eat genetically-engineered corn, soybeans, and other foods. But the USDA data shows that our farmland is much farther along in making up its mind.

* I really am a math whiz. This originally read "high school," but I ran the numbers again. I was in college back then. Been fixed.

Follow Nancy Scola on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nancyscola

Comments

[elizahleigh]

Nooooooooo­oooooooooo­oooo!!! Please tell me that I'm just having a bad dream!! I just spent the morning debating with a defendant of Monsanto on www.greenwala.com (an online green social network) -- he argued that the agri-giant is doing good things for the world that are rarely publicized. I said that the reason Monsanto continues to enjoy the limelight is due to all of the bad things that they're doing. I understand the phenomenal challenge of providing an adequate supply of food to a constantly burgeoning population, but inserting our food with automatic insect killing qualities is not the answer, and how can they justify that this food is perfectly safe for us to consume? More and more, I feel as though we are unwitting laboratory animals and our health is the least of Monsanto's concern -- just watch a few minutes of this documentary and you'll know what I mean: http://www.greenwala.com/community/videos/all/357-The-World-According-to-Monsanto-Part-1-of-10

[naturallady]

From the National Association of Wheat Growers and U.S. Wheat Associates following Tuesday's announcement from Monsanto:

"The U.S. wheat industry welcomes the announcement today by Monsanto that it will restart its investment in research on development of biotechnology traits in wheat.

"The research challenges facing wheat are well known, as is the importance of this crop to world food supplies. This announcement comes at a time when basic research into agronomic improvements to wheat is critically needed.

"Over the past months and years, we have repeatedly voiced our support for biotechnology and outlined appropriate conditions for commercialization. We have also pressed trait providers to examine this issue carefully.

"The industry is pleased that Monsanto and other private technology providers, as well as publicly-funded institutions such as the Kansas Innovation Center for Advanced Plant Design and CSIRO in Australia, have recently announced new wheat research investments, and we urge other organizations to follow suit."

[Aaron Turpen]

Organic doesn't necessarily mean non-HT or even non-GMO. It only means it wasn't sprayed with anything so many days/weeks before harvest.

For those who want to help do something about the hastening move we have towards worldwide GMO/HT foods replacing and even killing off heritage plant strains, go to http://bytestyle.tv/content/take-replace-roundup-challenge and take the Roundup Challenge!

--Aaron
http://www.aaronsenvironmental.com

[birdie2]

That is why I only eat organics.