BIOTECH CROP IMPACT STUDY – In the flurry of activity at Convention, we didn’t give enough attention on IAmBiotech to this year’s report on GM crops from UK-based PG Economics. So, we’re bringing it back to your attention now, incase you didn’t get a chance to read it. The report, which you can download HERE, showed how biotech is helping farmers around the world grow crops more sustainably and with greater economic benefits.

“Since 1996, biotech crop adoption has contributed to reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, decreased pesticide spraying and significantly boosted farmers’ incomes,” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, co-author of the report…

“The technology has also made important contributions to increasing the yields of many farmers, reducing production risks, improving productivity and raising global production of key crops.  The combination of economic and environmental benefit delivery is therefore making a valuable contribution to improving the sustainability of global agriculture, with these benefits and improvements being greatest in developing countries.”…[MORE]

In a post on BIOtechNOW, Michael Phillips put the report in context:

The report countered a recent Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report that attempted to make the case that biotech crops have not significantly increased yields since their introduction 1996. However, the UCS report suffers from a very flawed, superficial and inconsistent analysis.

The UCS report is very selective in the data it chose to use and does not account for variation in yield, country and region. The UCS report does – in fact – state that Bt corn has increased yields in the United States, but states just the opposite in its executive summary. In addition, the report did not take into consideration the significant decrease in costs of production from biotech crops that are just as important to farmers as yield. And, the report did not include canola and cotton that have had significant yield increases over the past decade.

In contrast, the PG Economics report is global in its analyses, uses the same rigorous methodology that has been peer reviewed in previous reports, and the results have been published in peer-reviewed journals. The conclusions reached in the report are very solid and will stand up to a rigorous review. They show very conclusively that agricultural biotechnology contributes to both environmental and economic sustainability. Without a doubt, agricultural productivity and environmental protection can be and – in fact – are very compatible.

NEW MEDIA AT USDA – Chuck at AgWired had a great podcast the other day, featuring an interview with the Department of Agriculture’s Acting Director of New Media, Amanda Eamich. If her job title surprises you, perhaps you haven’t run into the USDA on Twitter or YouTube yet…

PHARMACISTS JUMP INTO HEALTHCARE REFORM DEBATE – On Tuesday, the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) announced a nine-week grassroots lobbying campaign to influence healthcare reform legislation. In an article in The Hill, Jim Snyder writes:

Their bottom line is that pharmacists should take on a larger role in determining the drugs patients receive. That would save the healthcare system money, the association contends, by avoiding the costs of treating adverse drug effects.

The NCPA also wants Congress to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which the association says have put in place a “Byzantine, secretive drug payment system” to produce enormous profits. Pharmacists and PBMs, which run the drug benefits for private health insurance plans and private Medicare plans, are bitter political rivals.

I certainly agree that pharmacists have a unique perspective to bring to this debate – but I’m very wary of any policies that would take medical decisions out of the hands of patients and their doctors. The concern centers around the difference between small molecule drugs and biologics. Small molecule generic drugs can be designated as therapeutically equivalent and can be safely dispensed interchangeably with innovator products without physician knowledge. But as follow-on biologics move forward, that will be a much different story, and physicians and patients should make the call about the right course of treatment.