This article originally appeared at Forbes and has been republished here with permission of the author.
The New York Times has conducted a decades-long vendetta against the most sophisticated, precise and predictable techniques of genetic engineering applied to agriculture. Bias and inaccuracy have pervaded its op-eds, columns and even its reporting of “news.”
Given the relentless misrepresentations of the Times’ columnists, reporters and editors on this subject for more than thirty years (begun by then-national environment correspondent Keith Schneider during the 1980’s), it’s difficult to know which of their failures represent hitting bottom, but a recent article by “investigative reporter” Danny Hakim and the witless defense of it by his editor and by the Times’ “public editor” certainly have a claim to the title.
The thesis of Hakim’s article, “Doubt About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops,” was that “an extensive examination” by paper shows that the although we no longer need to worry about the safety of genetically engineered crops (which the Times’ commentaries, editorials and news stories questioned for decades, bucking the scientific community’s consensus), there is now “a more basic problem—genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.”
In reality, the more basic problem appears to be a biased reporter seeking “facts” to get to a predetermined conclusion. As economist Graham Brookes wrote about Hakim’s article, he makes “spurious comparisons that will mislead readers,” by not understanding that “there are numerous factors that affect yield such as weather, soil quality, husbandry practices, use of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and seeds, knowledge and skills of farmers, price of inputs, effectiveness of existing technology to control pests, diseases and weeds, etc.”
In other words, by comparing yields in Western Europe to those of Canada or the United States, Hakim was, in effect, comparing apples and oranges.
More fundamentally, however, Hakim begged the question about the goal of molecular genetic engineering: The purpose of the genetic modification of most of those crop plants—namely, the ones modified for increased resistance to herbicides–was not, in fact, higher yields; it was greater efficiency and lowering the cost of farming inputs.
As explained in an earlier Forbes.com article of mine, there have been two major purposes of genetic engineering with modern molecular techniques (although more are emerging): insect resistance (IR), which has most often been accomplished by the insertion of one or more genes from a commonly found bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or “Bt.” Chemical pesticide treatments to control several major agricultural pests were cut drastically.
The advantages of this significant reduction in the use of chemical pesticides are obvious. In purely economic terms, Bt-cotton, as an example, produces benefits to farmers both by reducing the need to apply chemical insecticides and by increasing the yield of cotton. Bt-cotton provides the highest per acre monetary benefits to farmers of all the Bt-containing crops, which include corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa and papaya. But these benefits pale beside the environmental advantages.
According to environmental regulators, aquatic wildlife is threatened by three of the chemicals that must be used in much greater amounts on conventional, non-Bt-cotton–endosulfan, methyl parathion and profenos. The adoption of Bt-cotton and the resulting lessened need for chemical pesticides also reduces occupational exposures to the toxic chemicals by the workers who mix, load and apply the pesticides, and who perform other activities that require their presence in the field. (Homo sapiens are also part of ecology.) Moreover, the less pesticides that are applied, the less runoff into waterways, a significant problem in many of the nation’s agricultural regions.
Thus, even if yield were only maintained but not increased, the genetically engineered crops would still confer significant benefits.
One of the most dramatic yield-increase sagas has occurred over the last quarter century in Hawaii. Beginning in the 1970’s, papaya ringspot virus began to infect papaya trees in Hawaii (the source of the state’s second most important agricultural export, second only to pineapple) and was decimating the $64 million a year industry. By 1991, scientists developed virus-resistant papaya varieties using molecular genetic engineering techniques, and today more than 80% of the state’s papayas are those varieties.
Since Hakim is so preoccupied with yield, he might wish to have a look at the dramatic photograph of the unmodified, virus-susceptible papaya trees and the genetically engineered virus-resistant ones side by side may be found here. The ones on the left have a yield of approximately zero, while the ones on the right have normal yields. Unlike those in his article, this is a valid comparison.
An authoritative article that Hakim and his researchers should have read is, “GM Crops: Global Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts 1996-2014,” by British economists Peter Barfoot and Graham Brookes, which concluded:
The insect-resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage. The average yield gains over the 1996-2014 period across all users of this technology has been +13.1% for insect resistant corn and +17.3% for insect resistant cotton relative to conventional production systems. 2014 was also the second year IR soybeans were grown commercially in South America, where farmers have seen an average of +9.4% yield improvements;
The herbicide-tolerant (HT) technology used has also contributed to increased production; improving weed control and providing higher yields in some countries and helping farmers in Argentina grow ‘second crop’ soybeans after wheat in the same growing season.
If Hakim really wanted to learn about the subject (but why delve into it too deeply when you can cherry-pick facts out of context to get to your predetermined conclusion?), he might have sought out an authoritative source like the 2010 National Research Council report on genetic engineering applied to agriculture, the précis of which states clearly that “corn, cotton and soybean that have been engineered to resist insect pests and herbicides are now planted on almost half [now more than 90%] of all U.S. cropland” and concludes that “they offer substantial net environmental and economic benefits compared to conventional crops.” (Interestingly, the benefits are even greater compared to organic agriculture, another passion of the Times’ New Agey food and agriculture writers.)
Another of the many subtleties missed by Hakim is that the benefits from genetically engineered crops are not limited to those who farm and consume them. According to a 2010 study, fields of insect-resistant genetically engineered corn exert an “area-wide suppression effect” on insects, benefiting neighboring fields containing conventional corn varieties. The researchers calculated that, from 1996 to 2010, cultivating genetically engineered varieties increased farmers’ profits in three U.S. states by roughly $3.2 billion–$2.4 billion of which accrued to farmers whose nearby fields had not been planted with genetically engineered varieties. The farmers planting the conventional varieties benefit disproportionately because they reap the benefits of less insect predation but do not have to buy the more expensive genetically engineered seeds.
Hakim’s assertion that genetically engineered crops have not reduced the amounts of pesticides applied is narrowly true, but misleading. First of all, he lumps insecticides—the use of which has been markedly reduced, as discussed above—with herbicides, which kill weeds. (It’s true that regulators consider both kinds of chemicals to be pesticides, but few readers will realize that; most people think of rat poison and cans of Raid when they hear the word “pesticide.”)
Herbicide use has increased, but the amount (weight) of herbicide active ingredient applied is a poor measure of environmental (or health) impact. Using that as an indicator is analogous to equating the amount of a medicine ingested with potential harmful effects without considering its toxicity. So, although the total volume of herbicides used with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops in the United States may have increased relative to usage levels 10 years ago, because the herbicides used with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant plants are less harmful to the environment than the ones they have replaced, the increase in amount used is inconsequential. What matters for the safety of consumers and the environment is the net effect of the change.
The peer reviewed literature contains many more appropriate and valid approaches to assessing health and environmental impacts than the amount of herbicide applied to crops, and the consensus holds that the cultivation of genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops has resulted in significant net environmental benefits.
Inexplicably, Hakim’s article even manages to include two photographs of dead plants. One shows a farmer, who plants seeds that “brim with genetically modified traits,” walking on a brown field, while the other is of genetically engineered soybean plants “at the end of their life cycle at Bayer’s research center in Durham, N.C.” The meta-message seems pretty clear: These dead plants are not healthy. (Duh.)
Another puzzling photograph depicts “stink bugs raised by Bayer for experimental purposes at its research center…” Again, the implication seems to be that this entire genetic engineering thing is unsavory and doesn’t, uh, smell right.
Share this article
Were all the editors on vacation when Hakim’s article went through the vetting process? Was there any vetting process? Or has the Times simply decided to jettison fairness and nonpartisanship on this subject, as the paper did flagrantly (and admittedly–vide infra) during the presidential campaign, clearly favoring Hillary Clinton and denigrating Donald Trump at every opportunity and in every way?
Not surprisingly, Hakim’s article elicited an avalanche of condemnation from scientists, agricultural researchers and farmers. Many of those critical comments, including my own, were sent to Liz Spayd, the Times’ “public editor,” a kind of independent ombudsman, who took note of them in the paper. This was one, from North Dakota farmer and State Senator Terry Wanzek:
I don’t tell reporters at the New York Times how to write their articles. Maybe they should consider not telling me how to run my farm. The folks at the New York Times may have their doubts, but I have a message from the real world of agriculture: G.M. [genetically modified] crops are delivering benefits. I’ve been growing G.M. corn and soybeans for 20 years—which is more than half of my adult life as a farmer—and I’m still in awe of this technology. The New York Times seems to think that we choose them because we’re stupid. It claims that we’re missing a “basic problem,” and that we’re wrong to believe G.M. crops increase yield or reduce pesticide use.
Further comments from Sen. Wanzek may be found here.
The public editor referred the complaints to the business editor, Hakim’s boss, who responded:
On The Times carrying out such studies:
We often do analysis of data—in fact we have an entire computer-assisted reporting team that does nothing but this kind of analysis. Moreover, The Upshot, every day, analyzes data. We are a news organization, not an academic journal. Typically when we do this kind of deep analysis, however, we either run it by experts in the field or do a reality check of our findings by comparing it with published research. In the case of the G.M.O. story, for example, we state very clearly that the yields data comes from the U.N. and that the National Academy of Sciences also analyzed yields and published very similar findings.
On the complaint that The Times views farmers as less intelligent:
I don’t understand this complaint. By my reading, the story contains no such tone. In fact, the story even notes that one of the main farmers quoted in the piece has a master’s degree. We are not suggesting anyone in this world is worthy of ridicule; to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
The public editor agreed:
Over all [sic], I found the piece to be a thorough, educational read on a complex subject. But I thought readers had some interesting feedback. First, it’s true that big news organizations like The Times often produce their own studies and independent analysis. In this case, given how many questions that were raised about the methodology, it’s clear that the piece would have benefited from more explanation of how the data was [sic] assembled and used.
On the issue of the story’s tone toward farmers, I didn’t see anything that struck me as intentionally talking down to farmers. But then, I’m not a farmer, and I would have enjoyed hearing more from those who are.
Thorough? Educational? What part of inaccurate, cooked, biased and misleading does Ms. Spayd not understand?
The business editor and public editor really don’t get it. For a start, their crack “computer-assisted reporting team” got the wrong answers.
Moreover, the clear implication of Hakim’s article is that farmers have been bamboozled by false claims that genetically engineered seeds would enhance their crop yields, so they are paying premiums for seeds that confer no advantage. (Note to the business and public editors: That would be stupid.)
As reflected by Sen. Wanzek’s comments above, farmers disagree with that assessment and have voted with their checkbooks, buying genetically engineered seeds at rates not seen with any other major innovation in the history of agriculture. Plants crafted with molecular techniques of genetic engineering have been grown worldwide on more than 5 billion acres by more than 18 million farmers in 30 countries. As they began to plant genetically engineered crops, many, perhaps most, farmers did not shift all at once but compared conventional and genetically engineered plants side-by-side. In view of that–and particularly given the area-wide suppression effect mentioned above–the high repeat index and farmers’ collective decision to expand their cultivation of genetically engineered crops are especially meaningful.
After the reporting debacle of the presidential election, the Times’ publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., and its executive editor, Dean Baquet, publicly made this promise:
As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.
I hope Danny Hakim got the memo.
Henry I. Miller, a physician, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy & Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Follow him on Twitter @henryimiller.
