Three well-known anti-GMO organizations criticized the New York Times for publishing a generally excellent report on crop biotechnology. For example, "Nature News" called this article "pure propaganda disguised as news." Unsurprisingly, "Nature News" was wrong.

For many years, The New York Times has criticized crop biotechnology on the grounds that it is a corporate strategy planned by Monsanto to take over the food supply. The argument is that genetically modified organisms are designed to attract farmers to use Monsanto’s patented seeds and pesticides, while failing to increase crop yields. In an unforgettable example, the New York Times reporter Eric Lipton accused famous scientists of helping Big Ag portray its products in a more positive light.

However, the situation may be changing. The paper recently published an excellent paper "Learning to Love GMOs" written by Jennifer Kahn, a professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. Kahn conducted a balanced analysis of the controversy over genetically modified crops over the years, appropriately summed up the science, and considered reasonable questions raised by consumers about these misunderstood plants.

Because of the execution of this outstanding public service, Kahn was lashed out by anti-gene think tanks. "Nature News", "U.S. Right to Know" and "General Motors Watch" all criticized the New York Times for publishing this article. These criticisms are clones of each other, based on long-rebutted assertions. Nonetheless, they deserve a response when a major newspaper abandons its previous commitment to bad biotech coverage. We will start with the rebuttal of Nature News. Their quotes are in italics, followed by my reply.

Kahn ignored the fact that a review of 20 years of data on India’s Bt [insect-resistant] cotton found that genetically modified cotton did not increase production. Although it might reduce the need for pesticides at first, the insects eventually become resistant, and farmers now spend more on pesticides than before the introduction of Bt.

The review was written by Indian entomologist KR Kranthi and Washington University anthropologist Glenn Davis Stone. Kang ignored that their conclusion was correct because they were wrong. Insect resistance hinders the effectiveness of Bt crops; no experts deny that this is a problem in India. Nevertheless, after the introduction of Bt crops in the early 2000s, the country's cotton production increased dramatically. Note the time period when the yield starts to climb.

Agricultural economist Matin Quaim summarized the problems analyzed by Kranthi and Stone in a letter published by Nature Plants:

The results showed that after controlling for all other factors, the use of Bt increased cotton yields by 24%, farmers' profits by 50%, farmers' living standards by 18%, and there was no sign that income was weakening between 2002 and 2008 The same data also shows that by using Bt, the amount of chemical pesticides has been reduced by more than 40%, and the most toxic active ingredient sprayed to control the American cotton bollworm has been reduced the most.

There is also a disaster of genetically engineered golden rice that has long been hailed as a solution to vitamin A deficiency. According to experts, this kind of rice is far from being produced and may even be shelved.

The launch of Golden Rice (GR) was delayed for decades because of harassment by organizations such as Greenpeace, disturbed regulators refused to approve the vitamin-fortified rice. The retention has nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of the crop itself. As I wrote recently, despite the continued excitement of the anti-gene movement, the Philippines finally gave GR the green light.

[U.S.] The right to know also pointed out that the sources of news that journalism professors rely on are no longer credible. She quoted author Mark Lynas, who was condemned by scientists and food policy experts for his inaccurate claims about pesticides and genetically modified organisms.

Nature News and their allies dislike Linus because he has the integrity to consider the evidence and give up his opposition to crop biotechnology. He is a convert of some kind, and therefore a very effective scientific advocate. His work is widely respected, and he is now a communications strategist for the Cornell University Science Alliance. The "scientists and food policy experts" who scolded Linus are just a small group of scholars who are either unfamiliar with the relevant evidence or simply ignore it.

Since the introduction of genetically modified organisms, the use of cancer-related glyphosate and other toxic herbicides has increased by 15 times. What about? Does she care if genetically modified crops have also led to the emergence of super bacteria and super weeds, which require more toxic poisons such as 2,4-D to kill?

The use of glyphosate has indeed increased in recent decades, but the incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a group of cancers allegedly caused by exposure to herbicides) has remained flat, and the number of deaths has actually fallen.

As mentioned earlier, resistant weeds and insects are real but controllable threats. Genetic engineering can be used to reverse the resistance of various pests, and farmers can minimize the problem by using various chemicals. This is another reason why efforts to ban pesticides are so dangerous: They make farmers less dependent on plant protection products, which magnifies the problem we all want to solve.

Corporate media often mess up their scientific reports, and if they do, they should be called up. However, in this case, the "New York Times" has done an admirable job and should be praised. The paper recently described "Crazy Joe" Mercola, who also spread nonsense about the coronavirus, so this may be the beginning of a positive trend. We will keep praying.

Cameron English is the author, editor and co-host of the "Science Facts and Fallacies" podcast. Before joining ACSH, he was the executive editor of the genetic literacy project.

Copyright © 1978-2021 American Council of Science and Health

Email: info@acsh.org Phone​​: 212.362.7044

The United States Council for Science and Health is a research and educational organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Donations are completely tax-deductible. ACSH has no endowments. We mainly raise funds from individuals and foundations every year.