|
Corn Growers Say Farmers Are Best Judges of Biotech Corn Effectiveness
December
13, 2001
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Gary
Bradley, NCGA Strategic Marketing Communications Manager, 636-733-9004, ext.
139
Mimi
Ricketts, Director of Marketing Communications, 636/733-9004, ext.112
ST. LOUIS (December
13, 2001) --The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA)
rejects the conclusion of an analysis released today by Benbrook Consulting
Services claiming that corn developed with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
has
hurt rather than helped U.S. farm income.
Economics rule in
corn production and U.S. growers wouldn't use a technology
that doesn't give a positive return on investment, noted Leon Corzine,
Assumption, Ill., farmer and chairman of the NCGA Biotech Working Group.
"U.S. corn
producers are very attuned to costs and revenues and the bottom
line. About 18 percent of corn farmers in the U.S. chose to plant Bt
corn
this past year. It is ridiculous and downright insulting to assume that
we
would make that decision without having clearly weighed the costs and
benefits," said Corzine.
NCGA has long stated
that biotech hybrids are one tool that corn producers
have at their disposal, Corzine continued. "Individual farmers
decide
whether it makes sense in their operations," he explained. "It
is not
appropriate nor effective in all corn production situations."
NCGA's Know Before
You Grow program available at NCGA's website,
www.ncga.com, helps farmers decide whether to use biotech hybrids, he
pointed out. And, NCGA supports the Insect Resistance Management (IRM)
program to ensure that Bt hybrids will retain their effectiveness in
protecting corn from insects.
Corzine said much
more credible studies of Bt corn show that it is very
effective in areas of high corn borer population. Studies have shown
that Bt
hybrids offer yield enhancement, a reduction in mycotoxin levels and
a
reduction in the use of pesticides.
One recent example
of such research comes from a group of 22 scientists from
USDA and Midwestern land grant universities who made the following statement
in response to similar criticisms of Bt corn: "The scientific community
has
examined the risks and benefits of Bt plants more than any other novel
agricultural technology developed over the past two decades, as demonstrated
by the vast body of literature, scientific discussions, and numerous
public
meetings facilitated by the EPA, the USDA, and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration on this subject. We find the evidence to date supports
the
appropriate use of Bt corn as one component in the economically and
ecologically sound management of lepidopteran corn pests."
The report by Benbrook
is part of a series published by the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the Genetically Engineered Food
Alert on issues related to biotechnology.
Rick Tolman, NCGA executive vice president and CEO, noted, "The
IATP report
immediately lacks credibility because they use as their farmer organization
spokesperson a representative of the American Corn Growers Association
(ACGA). ACGA has much stronger ties to and support from the environmental
extremists than they do from actual corn producers in the U.S. They
are not
credible representatives for U.S. corn growers."
Concluded Corzine,
"The bottom line is that if Bt corn were not economic and
effective for those farmers who choose to buy it, it would not and will
not
survive in the marketplace. Farmers know what works for them and what
will
return net income to their operations. So far, Bt corn has proven its
value
in appropriate situations. As long as that continues, farmers will continue
to use this tool."
For more information
about NCGA and biotechnology, visit www.ncga.com.
|