ROBERT SIEGEL, Host:
NPR's Richard Harris reports.
RICHARD HARRIS: Over the past 14 years, three of this nation's biggest cash crops have quietly become genetically engineered crops. These days, 80 percent of the corn, cotton and soybeans are the products of biotech. Other studies have looked at public perceptions of this technology and the health and social issues that it raises. But the National Academy of Sciences noted that nobody had tried to take a broad look at how this technology affects farmers.
DAVID ERVIN: We think the farmer's perspective is crucial in this respect because they're the ones using the technology, have the most to potentially gain, and perhaps some risks involved.
HARRIS: David Ervin, from Portland State University in Oregon, chaired the National Research Council's exploration of the subject, and from the viewpoint of the farmers, the results are largely quite positive.
ERVIN: What we found is that the farmers who have adopted these genetically engineered crops have received both environmental and economic benefits.
HARRIS: Though genetically engineered seeds often cost more, the farmers more than make up for that because they use less labor and fewer chemicals to produce their crops. And the report finds the farm environment benefits because farmers can reduce the use of pesticides on pest-resistant genetically engineered crops. They can also reduce soil erosion caused by tilling, by instead using herbicides to control weeds.
ERVIN: One of the herbicides that's very popular in the genetically engineered crops, glyphosate, is less toxic than many of the herbicides that it replaces.
HARRIS: Glyphosate, known by the brand name Roundup, is if anything, getting too popular, the report finds. And that gets us to a potential downside of the technology: herbicide resistance.
ERVIN: That's a serious concern. In fact, one of the strong messages in our report and findings is that we have to take very seriously the high level of resistance of weeds to glyphosate. And there's an increasing number of weeds and an increasing extent of area where we see this.
HARRIS: Ervin would also like to see biotech used for broader social benefits, such as crops that need less fertilizer.
ERVIN: If we can get plants to be more efficient in how they use their fertilizer and have less fertilizer runoff, it not only benefits the farmer by reducing their fertilizer application bill, but it also benefits the downstream user of waters who will have less polluted runoff.
HARRIS: But Margaret Mellon, at an advocacy group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, still isn't overly enthusiastic about biotech crops.
MARGARET MELLON: I look at the technology in light of what it promised, and we all, including myself, really expected from it 20 years ago when it first came on the scene.
HARRIS: Hopes were high that it would all together transform agriculture with higher yielding crops and fields that required a lot less spray and less fertilizer.
MELLON: In light of what we expected the technology to do, its performance is really very disappointing.
HARRIS: Richard Harris, NPR News.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.