A new report entitled 'Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-
Derived Crops Planted in 2005' by the US National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy begins with the key findings that:
"American growers continued to choose biotechnology-derived crops in 2005, the tenth year of their commercial planting, because they realized significant benefits from planting these crops. This report evaluated the reasons behind the adoption of biotechnology-derived crops on 123 million acres in the United States in their tenth year of commercial planting (2005) and analyzed the producer and crop production impacts that resulted from this widespread adoption.
American growers planted eight biotechnology-derived crops (alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soybean, squash, and sweet corn) in 2005. Planted acreage was mainly concentrated in 13 different applications (herbicide-resistant alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, and soybean; virus-resistant squash and papaya; three applications of insect-resistant corn, two applications of insect-resistant cotton, and insect-resistant sweet corn). Though
the number of planted traits remained the same at three in 2005, similar to 2004, expanded acreage of 4 percent has led to overall increase in crop yield and farm income and further reduction in pesticide use."
To read the executive summary (12 pages) click here: http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2005biotechExecSummary.pdf
To read the full report (110 pages) click here: http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2005biotechimpacts-finalversion.pdf
'A showcase project to develop a genetically modified crop for Africa has failed. Embarrassingly for GM business, in Uganda conventional breeding has produced a high-yielding resistant variety more quickly and more cheaply.' - New Scientist, February 28, 2004.
So a project failed, and an unregulated project, not impeded by the barriers GM has to face succeded. (I doubt it succeeded quicky though).
That success is great, but the real embarrasment is the hundred or so non-corporate (ie public funded) GM projects for the developing world that are slowed down by the regulations and ant-GM hype when may a few of them could do wonders for the poor.
What I cannot understand is why so many commentators are so obstructive and cynical about trying to assist the poor in the developing world.
'Such a collaboration in Kenya has resulted in a GM sweet potato that is resistant to a devastating virus..." - Rog
Would the reason Rog's link doesn't have any date apart from 2004 be because it was premature publicity for Monsanto's rubbish sweet potatoe product published earlier in 2004 than the New Scientist report?.......that would be very naughty...
For the record Kenya received aid worth US$1B in 1990–96,
"..It is unwise to deny the developing world the opportunity to use biotechnology," says Frank Kiriswa, a former agricultural scientist and First Secretary Economic/Political Section at the U.S. Embassy of the Republic of Kenya. "The opportunity for us to try this technology should be available."
Kiriswa is equally adamant that any efforts to develop the technology for the developing world require close interactions between the government, non-governmental organizations, scientists and farmers. Such a collaboration in Kenya has resulted in a GM sweet potato that is resistant to a devastating virus..."
"..Halling says that the green lobby has "built up this GMO issue to the point that it is illogical. [The famine in Africa] is the first issue that has the ability to destroy their credibility. In this case they overdid it. I want to know if they are going to accept responsibility for the people that will die as a result of the refusal of GM aid," said Halling."
http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/display.php3?StoryID=77
so maybe the proponents of smartbreeding are on to something real
'A showcase project to develop a genetically modified crop for Africa has failed. Three years of field trials have shown that GM sweet potatoes modified to resist a virus were no less vulnerable than ordinary varieties, and sometimes their yield was lower, according to the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute. The GM project has cost Monsanto, the World Bank and the US government an estimated $6 million over the last decade. It had been held up worldwide as an example of how GM crops will help revolutionise farming in Africa. Embarrassingly for GM business, in Uganda conventional breeding has produced a high-yielding resistant variety more quickly and more cheaply.' - New Scientist, February 28, 2004.
Amazing what you can come across while hunting to find out if there is an organic salmon dye for Jen's new thread isn't it?
Wow!... Google on Maccas brings up McDonalds website top of the list..
Google on Mickey D's and it comes second.... its not just the cricket.. Doh!
'what are you on about, why should only the wealthy have access to Coke and Maccas?' - Rog
Because its crap nutrition?.......
I won't be going to Indonesia rog even if I had a pocket full of money.
Bribing officials is the only way you can do business in Indonesia.
Gavin, what are you on about, why should only the wealthy have access to Coke and Maccas?