What's so disturbing about the level of bias revealed here is that this same research company, PG Economics, promote themselves as "independent and objective consultants" and are frequently quoted as experts on the economics of GM crop cultivation.

PG Economics were, for instance, commissioned to provide a report on the impact of GM crops on UK farm profitability by the UK Prime Minister's Strategy Unit to assist its analysis of the impact of GM crops on the UK for its reporte report "Field work: weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops".
http://agrifor.ac.uk/browse/cabi/51fa0266cf12af4379ffa8dbe06e614d.html

PG Economics' report was even made publicly available by the Strategy Unit in tandem with its own report.
----

Biotech, organic coexistence research paper skews facts to support dubious conclusion
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=2657

Pro-biotechnology researchers misrepresent findings of organic farmers' survey to support dubious premise that GM and organic crops successfully coexist in the United States.

By Ken Roseboro

(Sunday, Jul 18, 2004 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- A new research paper claiming genetically modified and organic crops now coexist successfully in North America "without causing any economic or marketing problems to non-GM or organic growers" is based on a misrepresentation of facts from a 2002 survey of organic farmers that actually documents how GM crops are negatively impacting US organic farms.

Dubious claims

A recently released paper, titled "Coexistence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops Be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops?" and published by UK-based PG Economics Ltd., claims coexistence between GM and organic has been successful without causing problems to non-GM or organic growers. The paper also states that claims by "anti-GM groups" that GM and non-GM crops cannot coexist in North America are "greatly exaggerated" and that coexistence measures have "been delivering effective coexistence for nearly nine years."

Flipped survey findings upside down

However, a closer look reveals that the paper's conclusions are heavily based on a 2002 survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation that shows the complete opposite: that GM crops are starting to cause economic and operational hardships to organic farmers.

The paper's authors, Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, distorted some facts from the OFRF survey and ignored others to arrive at their dubious conclusion that GM and organic coexist successfully.

The OFRF survey was the first to look at the emerging problems associated with genetically modified organisms on organic farms. The survey found that 8% of organic farmers incurred direct costs or damages related to the presence of GMOs. In their paper, Brookes and Barfoot flip the findings upside down, stating that "92 percent of all organic farmers had not incurred any direct, additional costs due to GM crops being grown nearby."

There are other examples of findings turned upside down. The OFRF survey found that 27% of respondents have had a GMO test either requested or required by an organic certifier or a buyer. Brookes and Barfoot state "73 percent of organic growers said they had never been required to test for the presence of biotech material in their crops."

The survey states that 48% of the survey respondents indicated that they have taken some measures to protect their organic farms from GMO contamination. Brookes and Barfoot change that to "52 percent of farmers said they didn't consider it necessary to change the way they farm to protect their crops from biotech material."

While some facts from the OFRF survey were misrepresented, others were ignored. Brookes and Barfoot ignored the fact that 46% of the survey respondents rated the risk of exposure and possible contamination of their organic farm products by GMOs as moderate or greater, with 30% characterizing their farm's risk as high or very high.

Commenting on PG Economics' findings, Erica Walz, OFRF survey coordinator, says, "They saw what they wanted to see and used what they wanted to use."

70 to 80% reported impacts

The main problem with PG Economics' findings is that they did not take into account that the OFRF survey was nationwide and included organic farmers in areas where GM corn and soybeans are not grown. In fact, the survey had 1,034 respondents, but only 100 to 150 produced corn or soybeans and were at-risk from GM crops.

Farmers who live in Midwestern states, where the majority of GM corn and soybeans are grown, reported significant impacts. "When you look at farmers in Corn Belt states, it’s a totally different picture," says Walz.

In these states, 70 to 80% of respondents reported negative impacts from GMOs, says Walz. In addition, up to 88% of organic farmers in Midwestern states said they took some measure to protect their farms from GMO contamination.

"Tip of the iceberg"

Finally, Brookes and Barfoot ignored the comments of OFRF executive director Bob Scowcroft who said in a statement released with the survey, "In 1998, GMO (genetically modified organism) contamination was not yet a national issue. These new survey results based on the 2001 crop year document that significant impacts have begun to occur within a very short time frame. If this trend continues, what we’re seeing now will prove to be just the tip of the iceberg."

Perhaps Brookes and Barfoot should survey organic farmers in the Midwest and ask them how successfully their farms coexist with GM crops. It is likely they would gain a very different perspective than the one they promote in their paper.

Ken Roseboro is editor of The Non-GMO Source newsletter: http://www.non-gmosource.com

He can be reached at [email protected].

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive