GENETIC ENGINEERING INDUSTRY FRONT GROUP EXPOSED
The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP). NCFAP describes itself as a “private,
non-profit, non-advocacy research organization.”1 With funding from nearly every major agri-chemical
and genetic engineering corporation2, NCFAP is neither “independent” or “non-advocacy.” It is a
propaganda center for Monsanto and other pesticide and genetic engineering corporations.
In June 2002, NCFAP released one of its most audacious papers, which claimed to be a review of forty
“case studies” of biotechnology’s current and potential benefits.3 Thirty-two of the “case studies” looked
at genetically engineered (GE) varieties that are not commercialized, including several varieties that are in
early development and others that have been dropped by industry. One observer noted that the paper
“explicitly ignored actual experience” in favor of simulations that imagined benefits from current or
futuristic GE crops.4
On Tuesday December 6, 2005 NCFAP released an update of this study, dropping 29 of the “case studies”
of crops that have never been commercialized. However, in addition to repeating many of the unfounded
claims about biotech crop benefits from their earlier version, the new paper is replete with misinformation
and factual errors. For example:

In their GE squash “case study,” the group claims that the biotech variety is planted on 10% of all
US squash acres, although they also acknowledge in a footnote that in their earlier report they
misstated GE squash acreage at 19%, when it was actually 3%!5 NCFAP’s also fails to mention
that naturally bred virus resistant squash have been introduced, instead making the preposterous
assumption that farmers would experience “complete conventional crop failure (if not planted with
biotechnology-derived varieties) and lose their entire squash production.”

NCFAP claim that GE soybeans increased farmers’ adoption of no-till farming by 64%, but by
their own figures, no-till acreage increased just 33% (from 27% before GE varieties to 36%
after)6. More troubling, NCFAP ignores USDA’s finding that no-till acreage was increasing more
rapidly before the advent of GE varieties. The agency’s study found that GE soy did not increase
adoption of no-till, but more farmers who already used no-till tended to adopt GE varieties.7

In the new paper, NCFAP repeats their earlier claim that GE soybeans have reduced farmers’
herbicide applications8. However, a study commissioned by the nonprofit Union of Concerned
Scientists in 2004 found that claims of reduced pesticide use from GE crops are unfounded. In the
first nine years of commercialization, data on all GE crops combined show an overall increase of
122 million pounds of pesticides applied due to GE varieties, including 117 million pounds more
herbicides applied because of the planting of GE soybeans.9
In its previous reports on GE crops, NCFAP’s history of unsubstantiated claims and wrong-headed
predictions (some of which are repeated in this new version) about biotech crops include:

In 2001, an NCFAP paper boasted of the benefits to farmers from GE corn and soy.10 But actual
scientists who don’t take money from Monsanto have reached very different conclusions. Looking at
six years of planting, a former National Academy of Sciences Agricultural Board Executive Director
found that Bt corn has cost U.S. farmers $92 million, since the increased costs associated with the GE
seed have not been offset by yield gains or insecticide reductions.11 Other studies agree: Purdue
researchers found that the cost of Bt seed exceeds the value of the seed to farmers by more than
$11/acre.12 Studies of biotech soybeans also show no profits to farmers. An Iowa state economist
looking at two planting seasons found in both years, GE soybean farmers had no higher returns than
non-GE growers.13 Economic researchers at USDA also say that biotech crops do not benefit farmers:
“Perhaps the biggest issue raised by [our] results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops
when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative…. the adoption of herbicidetolerant soybeans and Bt corn has been rapid, even though we could not find positive financial
impacts in either the field-level nor the whole-farm analysis….Our results show that, on the
margin, the adoption of Bt corn had a negative impact on the farm financial performance of
specialized corn farms in 1998.14

NCFAP has stated that yields of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans are the same as conventional
soy yields.15 But an analysis of USDA data found that the GE soybeans yield less than natural soy,16
and a more recent study found that GE soy is at least partly responsible for the stagnant yields in US
soybeans since 1995.17 USDA data also found that natural soybeans planted in Brazil outperformed
GE varieties grown in the US18, and a 2004 study found that natural soy in Brazil outperformed
Monsanto’s GE varieties in Argentina by 13%.19 When confronted with evidence of the GE yield drag
in May 2001, Gianessi responded that the problem was not yield drag but a “yield lag” that would be
eliminated as biotech companies introduced the GE trait into higher yielding cultivars.20 But NCFAP
must have known that a University of Nebraska study a year earlier found that “Roundup Ready
soybeans' lower yields stem from the gene insertion process used to create the glyphosate-resistant
seed. This scenario is called yield drag.”21

NCFAP claims that the introduction of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GE soybeans caused the drop in
the price of Roundup, resulting in savings to farmers of $400 million.22 In fact, industry experts
attribute the drop in Roundup prices to the expiration of Monsanto’s patent on the chemical.
According to a 2001 Chemical Business News report, Monsanto “has been preparing for the loss of
[patent] protection by cutting [Roundup] prices over a number of years….”23

NCFAP’s herbicide tolerant soybean “case study” notes that “One of the reasons for rapid adoption of
Roundup Ready soybeans is the excellent control it provides of common waterhemp.” But scientists
have already found that several weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate since the advent of
Roundup Ready crops, and more cases of resistance are emerging.24 Waterhemp resistance to
glyphosate was documented in 2005 and is now suspected in several states.25 Monsanto and others are
now recommending that farmers use other toxic chemicals in combination with Roundup on GE
crops, including known carcinogens like Alachlor and Diuron.26

In 1999, facing the imminent failure of GE potatoes, Gianessi predicted that Monsanto’s new gene
altered version would soon win over farmers.27 Two years later, facing increasing farmer and food
industry rejection, Monsanto shuttered its GE potato program.28
1
NCFAP 2002 Annual report, online at http://www.ncfap.org/reports/Annual%20Report.pdf
Funders in 2002 included Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Bayer, and Aventis; in addition, these same companies are members
of the American Chemical Society (Division of Agrochemicals), Biotechnology Industry Organization, Council for
Biotechnology Information, and CropLife America, which are all also listed as NCFAP funders, see
http://www.ncfap.org/reports/Annual%20Report.pdf
3
Gianessi, et. al., “Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in US Agriculture, An
Analysis of 40 Case Studies,” NCFAP June 2002, online at http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pubs.php#Biotechnology
4
Stephen Bocking, “Genetic Illusions,” Alternatives Journal, Fall 2002, Volume 28, Number 4.
5
NCFAP 2005. p. 16. The new report is online at http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2004biotechimpacts.pdf.
6
NCFAP 2005 report, p. 53
7
Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, “Adoption of Bioengineered Crops,” USDA Agricultural Economic
Report No. (AER810) 67, pp 29, May 2002.
8
NCFAP 2005. p. 53.
2
Charles M. Benbrook, “Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years,” BioTech
InfoNet Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004, p.35. Online at
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/genetically-engineered-crops-pesticide-use.html
10
Gianessi and Carpenter, “Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefit Estimates,” NCFAP, January 2001.
9
Charles Benbrook, “When Does It Pay To Plant Bt Corn? Farm-Level Economic Impacts of Bt Corn, 1996-2001,” November, 2001, at
http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/When_Does_It_Pay_To_Plant_Bt_Corn.pdf
12 Jeffrey Hyde, et al, “The Economics of Bt corn: Adoption Implications”, Purdue University Agricultural Communication Online, ID219:1-15, 1999, at http://www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/ID/ID-219.pdf
13 Michael Duffy, “Who Benefits from Biotechnology?,” Iowa State University, Presentation at the American Seed Trade Association
meeting, December 5-7, 2001, Chicago, IL, at http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubinfo/papersspeeches/biotech.html
11
Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, “Adoption of Bioengineered Crops,” USDA Agricultural Economic
Report No. (AER810) 67, pp 24-25, May 2002.
15
Gianessi and Carpenter, “Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans,” NCFAP, April 2000.
16
Charles Benbrook, Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from
University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998,” Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999.
17
Ron Eliason, “Stagnating National Bean Yields,” 2004 Midwest Soybean Conference, cited by Dan Sullivan, “Is Monsanto’s
patented Roundup Ready gene responsible for a flattening of U.S. soybean yields,” NewFarm.org, September 28, 2004, online
at http://www.newfarm.org/features/0904/soybeans/index.shtml.
18
Mario Osava, “Government Boosts Soy Crop Without Transgenics,” Inter Press Service, October 8, 2001.
19
Fundacep, ANO XI, no 14, Aug. 2004. “Roundup Ready soybeans from Argentina versus domestic conventional soybeans.”
20
Gianessi quoted in Karen L. Werner, “Biotech Soybeans Lead to More Use Of Herbicides, Not Less, Report Claims,”
Bureau of National Affairs, Volume 24 - Number 10, May 9, 2001, Page 37.
21
Elmore et al, “Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines,” Agron J 2001 93: 408-412, quote
from the University of Nebraska press release online at http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml.
22
Gianessi, June 2002; see also Chris Anders, 2002.
23
“US Patent Expiry of Roundup Creates Uncertainty of Glyphosate,” Chemical Business News, January 3, 2001, online at
http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2001/1-2001/ag-01-05-01-01.txt.
24
See, for example, Nandula, et. al., “Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds: Current Status and Future Outlook,” Outlooks on Pest
Management, DOI: 10.1564, August 2005, online at http://www.researchinformation.co.uk/pest/prlinks/12-Nandula.pdf; Reid
J. Smeda and Brent Sellers, “Glyphosate Resistance and Waterhemp: What is the Connection?,” Integrated Pest & Crop
Management Newsletter, University of Missouri-Columbia, Vol. 13, No. 4, April 11, 2003, online at
http://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/archives/v13n4/ipmltr1.htm;
25
Nandula, August 2005; see also http://www.farmassist.com/resistance/html/index.asp?nav=risk.
26
See “Monsanto and University of Missouri Investigate Case of Difficult To Control Waterhemp In Missouri,” press release,
Sept. 23, 2005 at http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/layout/press_releases/09-23-05.asp; Boyd Kidwell,”Ground
Zero for the War on Resistant Weeds,” June 26, 2005, online on Monsanto website at
http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/layout/weed_management/wm_oi_ground_zero.asp; Adrea Johnson, “Research
Shows Value of Pre-Emergent Herbicide in Glyphosate Systems,” July 7, 2005, Farm & ranch guide, online On Monsanto
website at http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/05/10-03-05.asp; Monsanto and University of Missouri
Investigate Case of Difficult To Control Waterhemp In Missouri, Sept. 23, 2005 at
http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/layout/press_releases/09-23-05.asp; Investigation Confirms Case Of GlyphosateResistant Palmer Pigweed In Georgia, Monsanto press release, September 13, 2005; Ohio State University Extension and
Purdue University Extension News, FIGHTING WEEDS IN BIOTECH CROPS TAKES SKILL, February 18, 2000 online at
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/aganswers/story.asp?storyID=2167.
14
27
28
Steve Usdin, “GM crops cut US farm costs, boost yield,” Chemical News & Intelligence, July 13, 1999.
United Press International, “Monsanto Abandons Potato Research,” Mar 21, 2001.