National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy - Revision history

Lynn Hill: added category

2009-09-09T13:11:28Z

added category

John Ashmore at 14:42, 4 September 2009

2009-09-04T14:42:38Z

Claire Robinson at 15:02, 26 March 2009

2009-03-26T15:02:22Z

Claire Robinson at 18:18, 25 November 2008

2008-11-25T18:18:49Z

Claire Robinson at 18:17, 25 November 2008

2008-11-25T18:17:05Z

Claire Robinson at 18:16, 25 November 2008

2008-11-25T18:16:05Z

Claire Robinson at 18:13, 25 November 2008

2008-11-25T18:13:46Z

Mary Spowart at 21:10, 19 August 2007

2007-08-19T21:10:16Z

David at 09:53, 18 November 2006

2006-11-18T09:53:27Z

David at 09:52, 18 November 2006

2006-11-18T09:52:17Z

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 9 September 2009
Line 46:		Line 46:
	<references/>		<references/>
	[[Category:Food Industry lobby groups]][[Category:Food lobbyists and PR consultants]][[Category:GM]][[Category:GM Lobby Groups]]		[[Category:Food Industry lobby groups]][[Category:Food lobbyists and PR consultants]][[Category:GM]][[Category:GM Lobby Groups]]
		+	[[Category:Think Tanks]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 4 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{Template:Foodspin badge}}
		+
	The [http://www.ncfap.org/ National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy] (NCFAP) describes itself as 'a private non-profit non-advocacy research organization'. However, an [http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/%20journal/v419/n6905/full/419327a_r.html article] in the science journal Nature describes NCFAP as 'a pro-GM industry group' and, looking at the invariably industry-supporting claims emerging out of NCFAP stiudies, it may seem difficult to be certain where reseach ends and advocacy begins.		The [http://www.ncfap.org/ National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy] (NCFAP) describes itself as 'a private non-profit non-advocacy research organization'. However, an [http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/%20journal/v419/n6905/full/419327a_r.html article] in the science journal Nature describes NCFAP as 'a pro-GM industry group' and, looking at the invariably industry-supporting claims emerging out of NCFAP stiudies, it may seem difficult to be certain where reseach ends and advocacy begins.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 NCFAP conducts studies in four areas: biotechnology, pesticides, international trade and development, and farm and food policy.
-NCFAP's Program Director and Senior Research Associate is Leonard Gianessi. Curiously, Gianessi's only academic [http://www.ncfap.org/staff.htm qualification] appears to be a Bachelor of Arts degree in Public Affairs from George Washington University.
+NCFAP's Program Director and Senior Research Associate is [[Leonard Gianessi]]. Curiously, Gianessi's only academic [http://www.ncfap.org/staff.htm qualification] appears to be a Bachelor of Arts degree in Public Affairs from George Washington University.
 Prior to joining NCFAP in October 1993, Mr Gianessi spent seventeen years as a researcher at Resources For the Future (RFF), a Washington-based 'conservation' research organisation with funding from major US corporations. Sponsors include [[Sourcewatch:Dupont|Dupont]] and [[Sourcewatch:Union Carbide|Union Carbide]] as well as a number of oil companies. RFF's Director of Risk, Resource, and Environmental Management is [[Michael R. Taylor]], Monsanto's former vice-president for public policy who was at the centre of a major controversy over conflicts of interest in relation to Monsanto's genetically engineered cattle drug rBGH ([http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html Revolving doors: Monsanto and the regulators]). Resources For the Future turned their attention to agriculture in 1984 with funding from the Kellogg Foundation.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Gianessi has shown a talent for producing eye-catching figures, arguing for instance that herbicide-free agriculture would require 'up to 7 million workers to hand remove weeds' while still causing the loss of '300 billion pounds of food and fiber'. Organic agriculture on anything but the smallest scale is a non-starter. Herbicides, Gianessi says, are absolutely essential for maintenance of high yields and, 'If we truly wanted to maintain current yields and do away with herbicides, 70 million additional hoe-toting farmhands would be patrolling fields. That would mean one of every four U.S. citizens chopping weeds for a month every year. There just isn't a future for a vast expansion of organic agriculture,' says Gianessi. ([http://westernfarmpress.com/ar/farming_ncfap_study_touts/ NCFAP study touts herbicide benefits])
-NCFAP began to focus on GM crops in 2000. Its main biotechnology research programme was launched in the spring of 2001 with financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Biotechnology Industry Organisation, Monsanto, the biotech-industry funded Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and [[Croplife International|CropLife America]]. It is also said to receive money from the US Department of Agriculture.
+NCFAP began to focus on GM crops in 2000. Its main biotechnology research programme was launched in the spring of 2001 with financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Biotechnology Industry Organisation, Monsanto, the biotech-industry funded Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and [[CropLife International|CropLife America]]. It is also said to receive money from the US Department of Agriculture.
 According to NCFAP, 'researchers began an ambitious project to estimate the realized and potential impacts of 40 separate case studies of biotech crops.' NCFAP's findings were as usual eye-catching. According to the report, during the 2001 crop year, eight  GM crops in production had increased crop yields by 1.8 billion kg (4 billion lb), saved growers US$1.2 billion by cutting production costs, and reduced pesticide use by 21 mil. kg (46 mil. lb).
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 The report drew enthusiastic press coverage. One article, [http://www.ipmnet.org/IPMnet_NEWS/news103.html National Study Finds Biotech Does It All], told its readers the report showed GM crops meant farmers could 'sharply increase crop production', 'significantly reduce' pesticide use and 'generate truckloads of additional cash' - 'It's a win-win-win combination that reads like a proponent's wildest hope, but is, in reality, the prediction of an expert group based on extensive results from 40 studies of 27 biotech crops all across the U.S.A.' The article described NCFAP's summary report as 'eye-popping', its predictions for the future as 'visionary' and the predicted pesticide reductions (70 mil. lb plus) as 'whopping'. (emphasis added)
-Gianessi followed up his 'eye-popping' report with a U.S. speaking tour. The Associated Press reported, 'Leonard Gianessi... has been barnstorming across the country promoting the benefits of geneticallymodified crops.' ([http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Leonard-Gianessi-Opposition-Sacramento23oct02.htm Biotech-advocate Leonard Gianessi meets with Opposition in Sacramento])
+Gianessi followed up his 'eye-popping' report with a U.S. speaking tour. The Associated Press reported, 'Leonard Gianessi... has been barnstorming across the country promoting the benefits of genetically modified crops.' ([http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Leonard-Gianessi-Opposition-Sacramento23oct02.htm Biotech-advocate Leonard Gianessi meets with Opposition in Sacramento])
 Gianessi's findings, however, have been notably at odds with those of the independent agronomist Dr Charles Benbrook, who in a series of studies has shown significant yield losses with GM soya - the main GM crop grown in the U.S.. Benbrook's own calculations suggest farmers are barely breaking even financially, although they are attracted by the ease of the weed management. (Fields of gold? - Biotech's cash benefits may not be what they seem, New Scientist, June 22 2002)
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 NCFAP's eye-popping statistics have not only been brought into question by Benbrook. In the same month that the NCFAP report was published, the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its own [http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/usdagmeconomics.htm extensive analysis] of the economic performance of GM crops in America. This revealed a completely different picture. The USDA report went so far as to conclude, 'Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative.' (more on the USDA report)
-There has been no shortage of funding for NCFAP's biotechnology studies. In 2002 [http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/ NCFAP's funders] once again included the [[Biotechnology Industry Organization]], the [[Council for Biotechnology Information]], [[CropLife America]], the [[Grocery Manufacturers of America]] and [[Monsanto]], as well as [[Aventis]], [[Bayer]], [[DuPont]], and [[Syngenta]].
+There has been no shortage of funding for NCFAP's biotechnology studies. In 2002 [http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/ NCFAP's funders] once again included the [[Biotechnology Industry Organization]], the [[Council for Biotechnology Information]], [[CropLife International|CropLife America]], the [[Grocery Manufacturers of America]] and [[Monsanto]], as well as [[Aventis]], [[Bayer]], [[DuPont]], and [[Syngenta]].
 And Gianessi and his team have also been funded to look beyond the U.S.. NCFAP received funds from Monsanto, Syngenta, [[EuropaBio]] and the [[Biotechnology Industry Organisation]] to estimate the potential impacts of GM crops on European agriculture. According to the UK-based biotech-industry lobby group [[ABC]], 'NCFAP's proven methodology and strong ties to European researchers made it an ideal organization to conduct the first comprehensive study of how biotechnology could impact European agriculture.'
@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 Despite the fact that only Spain has any commercial GM crop acreage, and there appears to be no market for GM foods amongst European consumers, NCFAP's [http://www.ncfap.org/reports/Europe/ExecutiveSummaryDecember.pdf study] reported that the 'widespread adoption of plant biotechnology in maize, oilseed rape, wheat, rice, tomatoes, potatoes, sugarbeets and stone fruit in Europe would result in significant yield increases, savings for growers and pesticide use reductions. All together, the nine biotech crops would increase yields by 8.5 billion kilograms per year, increase grower net income by 1.6 billionEuro per year and reduce pesticide use by 14.4 million kilograms per year, compared with existing practices that would be replaced.' The 'same methodology that NCFAP researchers used in its U.S. work' is apparently  employed in the European study. ([http://www.abcinformation.org/news_display.php?news_id=82 Plant Biotechnology: Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in European Agriculture])
-In April 2004 NCFAP sponsored Greg Conko of the right wing lobby group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to go on a lobbying trip around farmers in those States in Australia which were making decisions in relation to large-scale GM trials being sought by Monsanto and Bayer. The itinerary for the NCFAP-sponsored tour was organised by the U.S. Embassy. (AUSTRALIA: U.S. FACING TOUGH BATTLE FOR GE
+In April 2004 NCFAP sponsored Greg Conko of the right wing lobby group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to go on a lobbying trip around farmers in those States in Australia which were making decisions in relation to large-scale GM trials being sought by Monsanto and Bayer. The itinerary for the NCFAP-sponsored tour was organised by the U.S. Embassy. (AUSTRALIA: U.S. FACING TOUGH BATTLE FOR GE CROPS, IPS-Inter Press Service, April 1, 2004)
 ==Notes==
 <references/>
 [[Category:Food Industry lobby groups]][[Category:Food lobbyists and PR consultants]][[Category:GM]][[Category:GM Lobby Groups]]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 NCFAP was spun out of RFF as an independent organization in 1992 and Gianessi moved with it. Gianessi's focus was particularly on pesticide use though not exclusively so. In 1999 he was cited as 'a water quality scientist and the developer of the water quality modeling method used to measure feedlot and confinement livestock waste' when he took the Environmental Protection Agency to task for what he called 'a bad case of shoddy data' in their concern over the impact of livestock waste. ([http://www.heartland.org/archives/environment/aug99/pigs.htm The problem with pigs], August 1999)
-Mostly though, Gianessi has been involved in defending pesticides - speaking on [Thttp://www.continuingeducation.ncsu.edu/postseminar.html he Value of Pesticides] in US Crop Production, expressing concern about the [http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/newsletter/html/199802d.html loss of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides on minor crops], and [http://westernfarmpress.com/ar/farming_ncfap_study_touts/ touting the benefits of herbicide use].[[ CropLife America]] (CLA), a trade organization representing agro-chemical manufacturers, is among those that have commissioned studies which have inspired often evangelical farm press coverage: 'thank God for the chemicals that beat back the ever threatening, yield-sapping tide of weeds. Because of such chemicals there's food available to feed the world... according to the data compiled in the [NCFAP] report, there's no going back to the good, old, pre-chemical days.'
+Mostly though, Gianessi has been involved in defending pesticides - speaking on [Thttp://www.continuingeducation.ncsu.edu/postseminar.html he Value of Pesticides] in US Crop Production, expressing concern about the [http://www.pesticidesafety.uiuc.edu/newsletter/html/199802d.html loss of organophosphate and carbamate insecticides on minor crops], and [http://westernfarmpress.com/ar/farming_ncfap_study_touts/ touting the benefits of herbicide use]. [[CropLife International|CropLife America]] (CLA), a trade organization representing agro-chemical manufacturers, is among those that have commissioned studies which have inspired often evangelical farm press coverage: 'thank God for the chemicals that beat back the ever threatening, yield-sapping tide of weeds. Because of such chemicals there's food available to feed the world... according to the data compiled in the [NCFAP] report, there's no going back to the good, old, pre-chemical days.'
 Gianessi has shown a talent for producing eye-catching figures, arguing for instance that herbicide-free agriculture would require 'up to 7 million workers to hand remove weeds' while still causing the loss of '300 billion pounds of food and fiber'. Organic agriculture on anything but the smallest scale is a non-starter. Herbicides, Gianessi says, are absolutely essential for maintenance of high yields and, 'If we truly wanted to maintain current yields and do away with herbicides, 70 million additional hoe-toting farmhands would be patrolling fields. That would mean one of every four U.S. citizens chopping weeds for a month every year. There just isn't a future for a vast expansion of organic agriculture,' says Gianessi. ([http://westernfarmpress.com/ar/farming_ncfap_study_touts/ NCFAP study touts herbicide benefits])

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:10, 19 August 2007
Line 43:		Line 43:
	In April 2004 NCFAP sponsored Greg Conko of the right wing lobby group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to go on a lobbying trip around farmers in those States in Australia which were making decisions in relation to large-scale GM trials being sought by Monsanto and Bayer. The itinerary for the NCFAP-sponsored tour was organised by the U.S. Embassy. (AUSTRALIA: U.S. FACING TOUGH BATTLE FOR GE		In April 2004 NCFAP sponsored Greg Conko of the right wing lobby group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to go on a lobbying trip around farmers in those States in Australia which were making decisions in relation to large-scale GM trials being sought by Monsanto and Bayer. The itinerary for the NCFAP-sponsored tour was organised by the U.S. Embassy. (AUSTRALIA: U.S. FACING TOUGH BATTLE FOR GE
	CROPS, IPS-Inter Press Service, April 1, 2004)		CROPS, IPS-Inter Press Service, April 1, 2004)
		+
		+	[[Category:Food Industry lobby groups]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Food lobbyists and PR consultants]]