Summer 2010
Letters
Please email your questions or comments to catalyst@ucsusa.org. Your submission implies permission to publish your letter and name in Catalyst. We reserve the right to edit letters for length.
The Risks of Herbicides
Your Spring 2010 article “Biotech Fails to Stop Weeds” [p. 5] mixed facts poorly. Yes, genetically engineered crops use more herbicides [than traditionally bred crops], but herbicides are not pesticides. Pesticides include agents that target nervous systems—insects’ and ours. Herbicides are far less toxic, and their use enables much of no-till or low-till agriculture, which also helps sequester carbon.
Vince Gutschick
Las Cruces, NM
The author responds:
The term pesticide refers to both insecticides and herbicides. And while it may be true that herbicides as a group are less toxic than insecticides, herbicides like Agent Orange (the Vietnam war defoliant) and paraquat are so toxic they are banned in many countries, while others like dicamba and 2,4-D (a relative of Agent Orange) are linked with serious health problems including birth defects and reproductive disorders.
Years ago, the biotechnology industry boasted that genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops would lead to the replacement of more toxic herbicides with glyphosate. But now that the overuse of glyphosate has caused the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, the industry is engineering crops to resist dicamba, 2,4-D, and other more toxic herbicides so these dangerous chemicals can be used to kill the resistant weeds.
Jane Rissler, deputy director and senior scientist
Food and Environment Program
Food Crops as Fuel?
I take strong objection to the Spring 2010 article “A Victory for Vehicle Fuels” [p. 4]. Using our cropland to supply our social proclivity to travel is shortsighted. There are certain African countries where the people are starving but there is enough cropland for such nations to feed themselves. The reason they can’t is because the rich landowners are growing crops for export instead of for the people. Similarly, if we decide to use up our cropland for vehicle fuel, our food costs will rise.
James Charnock
Aldan, PA
| In this issue of Catalyst:
> The Weight of the Evidence |
The author responds:
We agree that the competition between food and fuel production is an important issue. While it is not perfect, UCS sees the new federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as an important step forward in reducing the climate impact of biofuels. By accounting for heat-trapping emissions that result from changes in land use, the RFS provides a scientific underpinning for shifting away from food-based biofuels (such as ethanol made from corn starch) and toward new low-carbon fuels made from non-food crops (e.g., grasses), agricultural waste (e.g., corn cobs), and even municipal waste.
Making this transition to advanced biofuels successful is the subject of our new report The Billion Gallon Challenge: Getting Biofuels Back on Track. To learn more about biofuels, and to read the report, visit the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org/smartbioenergy.
Jeremy Martin, senior scientist
Clean Vehicles Program
Get Catalyst hot off the press by joining UCS. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students. When you become a member of UCS, you join more than 75,000 individuals committed to finding solutions to some of the most challenging environmental and global security issues of our time.
Back issues of Catalyst are available in PDF form on the UCS website.
