Portland State Magazine Fall 2010

SOME 80 PERCENTofcorn, soybeans, andcottoncrops grown in the United Scates are genetically engineered to resist bugs, herbicides, or both. Companies responsible for developing the planes cheerlead "lower coses" and "greater yields." But do their claims hold up to rigorous science? And what unintended impacts do GE (genetically engineered) crops have? Concerned about the unknowns, the National Research Council (NRC) tapped David Ervin, professor of environmen– tal studies, to investigate. Ervin, who grew up on a small farm in Ohio, has a consider– able track record in environmental economics. He is studying the BP oil spill's impact on natural systems and finances. He's also published extensively and taught at agricultural schools, including Oregon State University. When the NRC, part of the National Academy of Sciences, proposed a $2 million study of how GE crops are affecting the economic and environmental sustainability of farms, the council named Ervin as chair of a 10-member committee. It should be noted that the committee's task was to examine GE crops on the farm not in the supermarket, and concerns regarding the long-term consumption of GE foods is a whole other issue. By early 2010, the Committee on the Impact of Biotechnol– ogy on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability had some answers. Sort of An1ong the committee's findings: There is a possible link between GE crops and cleaner water, happier farmers, and the emergence of "superweeds," depending on which research is used. SUPERWEEDS? GE seeds can be modified to resist the herbicide glyphosace, the generic name for Roundup. As these crops grow, farmers can spray entire fields with the herbicide and only the weeds will die. Perfect, except for what one researcher calls a "Darwinian evolution in fast-forward." In a little more than a decade, 10 species ofweeds in 22 states have become resistant to Roundup. Ervin fears chat if these superweeds are not addressed soon, the economic and environmental benefits of herbicide-resistant crops could vanish. Cleaner water? When farmers use glyphosate to control weeds, they are using one of the least harmful of available herbicides. And they're tilling their fields less. Tilling reduces weeds, but it also increases runoff of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides into ponds, rivers and screams. If you're not tilling because you're using Roundup, odds are the water quality is better. Odds are, but no one really knows. 1he committee's report said the U.S. Geological Society, which is casked with the job of monitoring water, doesn't have the resources to screen and analyze on the scale needed to determine whether the report's hypoth– esis is correcc. ARE FARMERS HAPPY OR NOT? The committee found chat farmers growing GE Professor David Ervin led a national committee looking at the economics and sustainability of farming geneti– cally engineered crops. crops are spending less on controlling weeds and pests, which should translate into more money in the farmer's pocket. However, the report noted a need to look at whether GE crops cause problems for farmers who don't plant GE seeds. For instance, in what's called "gene Bow," GE pollen can drift into an organic farmer's field, pollinate the plants, and eradicate the organic-ness of the crop and the farm. Other concerns are the price and availability of GE seeds. Because of development costs, GE seeds cost far more than traditional seeds. But farmers who can't afford or don't want GE seed may find fewer options. Smaller seed companies– locked out of the GE seed market by the corporations that hold the patents-increasingly are shutting their doors, while companies such as Monsanto, ADM, and others experience increased profits. One big unknown, the report notes, is the social impact of GE crops. What impact will GE crops have on farming communities when some farmers plant them and others don't? What effect will the less-labor intensive GE crops have on farm workers? Will farming communities as a whole suffer or benefit? Perhaps recognizing that its work raises almost as many questions as it answers, the committee recommends more research on all these topics. And to help shape the future, the committee recommends collaboration between corporations, farmers, and the public to determine what sores of GE crops should be developed. For instance, farmers may be interested in plants chat use less water, an especially useful trait as climate change affects the world's food producing regions. Consumers might prefer plants that have higher nutritional qualities. Communities might want input into where GE crops are planted. "It's a trade-off," says Ervin. "GE plants can make farming safer, more profitable, and lower food coses. Bue there's also risk. Taking advantage of the good solutions and not the oth– ers-chat's the big challenge." ■ Melissa Steineger, a Portl1111dfreelance writer, wrote the article "1970: Memories ofConfrontation" in the spring 2010 Porcland Scace Magazine. FALL 2010 PORTLAND STATE MAGAZINE 15