average cost of $14.94 per acre. Seed for Bt corn averaged $39.62 per acre, compared to $29.96 per acre for non-Bt corn. Bt fields had slightly higher weed control costs, averaging $2.82 per acre. Fertilizer costs were $5.02 per acre higher than non-Bt corn. When comparing gross revenue, total costs, and the return to land and labor between Bt and non-Bt corn, corn was valued at the 1998 average price of $1.90 per bushel. The total difference in return to land and labor was only $3.97 per acre. ― [251] ―On whether RR soybean systems reduce pesticide use and increase grower profits, our analysis shows that: (1) RR soybean systems are largely dependent on herbicides and hence are not likely to reduce herbicide use or reliance. Claims otherwise are based on incomplete information or analytically flawed comparisons that do not tell the whole story. (2) Farmers growing RR soybeans used 2 to 5 times more herbicide measured in pounds applied per acre, compared to the other popular weed management systems used on most soybean fields not planted to RR varieties in 1998. RR herbicide use exceeds the level on many farms using multitactic Integrated Weed Management systems by a factor of 10 or more. (3) There is clear evidence that Roundup use by farmers planting RR soybeans has risen markedly in 1999 because of the emergence of a degree of tolerance to Roundup in several key weed species, shifts in weeds toward those less sensitive to Roundup, price cuts and aggressive marketing. (4) Roundup use on soybeans may well double from 1998 levels within the next few years. But if current trends continue in the way RR technology is used, the efficacy and market share of Roundup may then fall just as quickly. (5) The RR soybean yield drag and technology fee impose a sizable indirect tax on the income of soybean producers, ranging from a few percent where RR varieties work best to over 12 percent of gross income per acre.‖ [252]
Industry Connections On January 17, 2001 Reuters reported that the FDA had issued a proposal, backed by the biotech industry, which would require food companies to provide scientific evidence that a genetically altered or bioengineered food is safe, and to notify the FDA at least 4 months in advance of its intent to market this food. This proof of safety would be then published on the Internet for public view. As part of the proposed guidelines the FDA announced that it would not require mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically modified foods, but rather rely on the scientific verification provided by food producers. The agency also issued guidelines for companies that voluntarily label food as being made with or without genetically altered ingredients. Terms such as ``GM'' (genetically modified), ''GMO'' (genetically modified organism) and ``modified'' would not be acceptable. The guidelines would allow the use of terms such as ``bioengineered'' or ``derived through biotechnology'' on labels if the manufacturer wishes.
137 of 240