As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology appreciate, I have written a great deal about the looming World population growth, and the challenges we will confront in feeding the World’s population over the next 40 years.

Recently, the scientific journal, Nature, published an excellent series of articles about this topic (July 29 issue).  This is noteworthy because Nature is the preeminent scientific journal in the World.  It is telling that the leading life science journal in the World focused much of the July 29 issue on this topic.

In the Editorial in this issue, How to Feed a Hungry World, several important issues are presented that must be overcome if we are to produce and distribute sufficient food to feed the projected population of the World in 2050, about 10 billion people (the current World population is approximately 6.9 billion).

The challenges that lie ahead include:

1.  The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has gone on record as saying that the task of feeding the World’s population in 2050 is “easily possible”.  I find this hard to agree with unless there is large-scale transition of tropical forests and “wildlands”, largely in South America and Africa, to production agriculture.  Doing this comes with a cost that I don’t think many support, not the least of which is the availability of water for animal and crop production, and the destruction of wildlife habitat.  Now what?  The only feasible approach is to increase food production efficiency (for additional information please see my earlier blog Feeding the World and Defending Agricultural Science).

2.  The Editorial champions the idea that that a second Green Revolution is needed. At the core of this recommendation is the urgent need to increase the investment in agricultural science research, which in most countries, including the United States, has been falling since the late 1970s.  There is a pressing need for new crop varieties that produce higher yields per acre, use less water, fertilizer and other inputs.  On the animal “side”, developing and adopting biotechnologies that improve productive efficiency are needed.  The new crop varieties will largely arise from advances made in the application of biotechnology to produce subsequent generations of genetically modified (GM) crops…and these will need to be approved and adopted for use in a timely manner by society.  To date, that has been a daunting challenge.

3.  Science and technology will be important to solve the problem of feeding the World’s population; however, they are not the sole solution.  There are countless contemporary biotechnologies and technologies “on the shelf” that could enhance food productivity and productive efficiency, if implemented, in developing countries, and help reduce the incidence of hunger in the World.  However, this requires money, and raises the question of who is going to pay (see:  The Food System and Feeding the World)?

The Editorial in Nature points out that the FAO has estimated that funding invested in the food system in the developing World must double to about $83 billion a year to meet the  “2050 challenge”.  And, most of this needs to go to improving infrastructure of the food system from production to transportation, as well as storage and processing.

4.  The Editorial also presents the provocative point that countries that pay their farmers subsidies make it difficult for farmers in developing countries to gain a foothold in World markets.  One example that illustrates the magnitude of this problem is that countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development pay subsidies to their farmers that total about $1 billion a day! Solving this will be challenging especially since politicians in many countries are strong advocates for supporting subsidies to farmers (it seems to help them in re-election campaigns).

Back to the “now what” question.  There is a pressing need to launch the second green revolution.  Science will be a core piece of this; however, to position the global village to successfully feed the World’s population by 2050 it will be necessary to develop a strategy that integrates not only scientists and farmers, but also ecologists, economists, food systems experts, social scientists as well as policy makers.  And, over-turning some arcane policy decisions (i.e., farmer subsidies in developed countries) that need to be junked.

This morning, at home over breakfast, I opened the Wall Street Journal.  And, page A15 “popped” open.  What caught my attention was the article EU Extends ‘Frankenfood’ Fight, Nears Ban on Farm-Animal Clones.  The purpose of the story was to convey that the European Union (EU) had moved a big step closer toward a ban on cloning farm animals and a prohibition of imports of cloned livestock and their meat and milk.

The EU decision is silly, and is not based on a shred of scientific evidence.  I have written previously about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conclusion that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats.”  The “key” take-home message is that cloning is safe.

What elevated my blood pressure was the use of the word ‘Frankenfood’.  I continue to be mystified why a reputable journalist elected to use this word.  It slanders the scientific evidence base in support of animal cloning, and clearly sets a biased tone for the story.  This serves no one well, and is just a continuation of inappropriate “word play” that attacks some remarkable scientific accomplishments.  It is, simply, unfair!

I am hoping that when I open the paper in the near future that I see an apology from the journalist.  However, I wouldn’t bet on that happening.

The latest American Farm Bureau Federation Marketbasket Survey of retail food prices was just released.  In this informal survey, for the third quarter of 2010, shoppers reported the average price for a half-gallon of regular whole milk was $2.04, down 2 cents from the prior quarter. The average price for one gallon of regular whole milk was $3.16, up 10 cents. Comparing per-quart prices, the retail price for whole milk sold in gallon containers was about 25 percent lower compared to half-gallon containers, a typical volume discount long employed by retailers.

The average price for a half-gallon of rbST-free milk was $3.36, down 2 cents from the last quarter, about 65 percent higher than the reported retail price for a half-gallon of regular milk ($2.04).  This price differential (really price gouging) continues the historical trend of dramatically marking up the price of rbST-free milk compared to conventionally-produced milk.  The same “old” ploy of charging a lot more for rbST-free milk that is the same from a composition standpoint as conventionally-produced milk.

In this informal survey, the average price for a half-gallon of organic milk was $3.62, down 3 cents compared to the prior quarter–about 80 percent higher than the reported retail price for a half-gallon of regular milk ($2.04).

Compared to a year ago (third quarter of 2009), the retail price for regular milk in gallon containers was up about 10 percent while regular milk in half-gallon containers increased 8 percent. The average retail price for rST-free milk increased about 1 percent in a year’s time. The average retail price for organic milk in half-gallon containers dropped about 4 percent compared to the prior year.

In April, 2008, I had written a blog Food Costs Increase and the “Smoke and Mirrors” of rbST-Free Milk Marketing Rolls On …and On…and On that discussed how many dairy producers using rbST in their herds were getting cheated by being forced to give up the technology, and, yet, the retailers were selling the milk for considerably more.  The “historical” milk price data presented in the figure below (Source:  American Farm Bureau Federation Marketbasket Survey) show this marketing scheme  (i.e., the differential between the price of rbST-free and “regular” milk) continues.  Astonishing, isn’t it?

First published on the Blog American Thinker on September 18,2010

Ever-Green-View My 1326-ET is the new world milk production record-holder. In the course of one year, she made 72,168 pounds of milk. That’s nearly 8,400 gallons in one year, or 23 gallons per day. The average cow produces 6.5 gallons per day. Ever-Green-View My 1326-ET is the culmination of intense genetic selection, terrific cow management, and the use of technologies like rBST. Genetically, she is a product of artificial insemination and embryo transfer. Her sire is Stouder Morty-ET, and he has over 67,000 daughters in more than 15,000 dairy herds around the globe. The “ET” designation indicates that she was transferred as an embryo from her genetically superior mother to an inferior surrogate cow.

Notice anything different between the two salmon in the image above?  The salmon are the same age–the difference is the larger fish is transgenic, and has a much faster growth rate, which is due to the presence the Chinook growth hormone gene (more about this later)!

For 15 years, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) at FDA has been evaluating reams of data about the safety and efficacy of transgenic salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Incorporated, located in Waltham, MA.  You might wonder why so long?  Especially when, in my opinion, it is clear there are no significant questions of human food safety surrounding the food from fish grown with AquAdvantage salmon eggs, nor are there any question of material difference between fish grown from genetically enhanced salmon eggs and conventionally bred and born salmon, or between farm-raised salmon and those sold as “wild-caught” fish.

In my 35+ years as a scientist, I cannot remember a CVM application that has pended as long as that of AquaBounty.  This product has been before the Center for more than 15 years. Nor can I recall a CVM review that has been as comprehensive and rigorous as that given to AquAdvantage salmon eggs.  However, this review has gone much, much longer than needed.  Much of this delay relates to the quagmire arising from politics, activist groups doing their best to misrepresent the science (and scare consumers and politicians – you have heard this “one” before), and the inherent risk adverse nature of the FDA scientific review process.

The Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) is an FDA/Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) advisory panel which has as its sole purpose to review the science underlying and the center’s review of an application under the New Animal Drug approval (NADA) approval process.  Their most recent meeting to review Aquabounty salmon was held on September 19 and 20, 2010.  My sense is that the fish will be approved in the near future, which will be an important milestone for animal biotechnology.

The recent FDA/VMAC review again prompted the usual response from activist groups that oppose the approval of transgenic salmon, and all other food biotechnologies.  My blog will present the facts about transgenic salmon, based on science, to provide a factually-based context for my opinion, and that of many other scientists, that Aquabounty salmon should be approved by FDA.

Background

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering approval of AquAdvantage® Atlantic salmon eggs. These eggs include a gene from the Chinook salmon (my “beloved” growth hormone or somatotropin gene) that provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. This fish would be the first food from a transgenic animal application approved by the FDA.

The FDA must provide premarket approval and examine the environmental impact of any genetically engineered (GE) food animal before it can be made available commercially. Extensive study is required before approval. The FDA will only approve food from GE animals that are safe to eat. The agency’s food safety evaluation looks at the same information recommended by the Codex Alimentarius.

GE animals are regulated under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The elements of this approval process include:

• Product definition;
• Molecular characterization of both the recombinant DNA (rDNA) aspect of the animal and its lineage;
• Comprehensive data on the characteristics of the animal and its health;
• Safety for human consumption;
• Demonstration of effectiveness (label claim); and
• Environmental impact.

Aquaculture Facts
Aquaculture, or fish farming, has increasingly stepped in to fill the gap where capture fishing fails to meet consumer demand. Largely dominated by Asia, the aquaculture industry grew dramatically for decades but recently has begun recently to moderate.

• Capture fishery production stopped growing in the mid 1980s. Even as consumer demand continues to rise, fisheries worldwide are on the verge of collapse, largely due to overfishing. Overall, 80 percent of world fish stocks are already fully exploited or over-exploited.
• Aquaculture currently provides 47 percent of fish consumed worldwide.
• Over the past 50 years, world aquaculture grew dramatically, from 1 million tons in the early 1950s to 51.7 million tons in 2006 – making it a $78.8 billion industry.
• Aquaculture has maintained an annual growth rate of 8.7 percent worldwide (excluding China) since 1970.

Benefits of Land-Based Aquaculture Systems
Consumer Benefits

Is there a need for a faster-growing fish?
By 2020, the global demand for animal protein is projected to be 20 million tons per year. AquAdvantage® eggs will help address the need for healthy protein by producing more fish in less time compared to current salmon farming techniques. AquAdvantage® Salmon can be grown in contained facilities, which offer environmental advantages compared to historical cultivation methods.

Don’t consumers already have enough salmon?
Salmon is a popular seafood choice, not only for taste, but for the well-documented health benefits. This has increased demand for farmed and wild salmon products that the industry and capture fisheries will not be able to meet.

Are farmed salmon a healthy alternative to wild salmon?
Atlantic salmon is a great source of heart healthy Omega-3 fatty acids. AquAdvantage® eggs are designed for growth in land-based salmon hatcheries that will provide high-quality facility management and control. There is a lower likelihood for the introduction and spread of disease, and a corresponding reduction in the need for disease treatment. In addition, contrary to unsubstantiated claims disseminated by opponents of this Atlantic salmon is a great source of heart healthy Omega-3 fatty acids. AquAdvantage® eggs are designed for growth in land-based salmon hatcheries that will provide high-quality facility management and control.

Environmental Benefits

Can fast-growing salmon help reduce pressures on dwindling wild fisheries?
Many of the world’s fisheries are in distress or in danger of collapse. A 2006 study published in Science predicted the loss of all commercially captured species of fish by 2048 if current fishing practices are maintained. Yet overfishing continues as the demand for seafood increases. The vast majority of Atlantic salmon sold in the U.S. is farmed. Many American wild salmon populations are in steep decline, so much so that commercial fishing runs in West Coast have been closed several times. With closures in early 2009, salmon fishermen lost their livelihood for the second season in a row and the price of wild salmon soared as a result of shortened supply. By providing a ready source of faster-growing fish, salmon grown from AquAdvantage® eggs can help reduce pressure on wild fish stocks.

Won’t the demand for salmon food offset any protection of wild fish stocks?
Accelerated growth means shorter production cycles and more efficient use of feed. The feed conversion rate (i.e. feed efficiency) for AquAdvantage® Salmon is approximately 10% better than other farmed salmon. In addition, there are emerging technologies in the salmon feed industry that use more sustainable foodstuffs for salmon feeds thereby reducing the amount of fishmeal and fish oil used.

Does this fish have any impact on carbon emissions?
Because fresh and frozen fish are flown to markets all over the world, seafood has a large carbon footprint. AquAdvantage® Salmon are designed for on-shore facilities that can be built closer to consumers to reduce the need for energy-intensive shipping and transportation.

Isn’t fish farming bad for the environment?
The contained, land-based systems used by customers of AquAdvantage® eggs are endorsed by most environmental groups as a more environmentally friendly and responsible alternative to traditional sea-cage farming of salmon.

Won’t the fish escape and breed with native populations?
Fish grown from AquAdvantage® eggs are all female and sterile, making it impossible for them to breed amongst themselves. In addition, FDA approval requires them to be grown in physically contained systems, further reducing any potential impact on wild populations.

Business Benefits

How do aquaculture producers benefit?
Faster growth and greater efficiency mean a more efficient use of capital, reduced feed costs and less time to market. Better economics makes interest in land-based culture feasible, which leads to better biosecurity, reduced disease risk and the opportunity to grow salmon closer to markets.

How do restaurants benefit?
The majority of seafood consumed in the U.S. is in restaurants. The AquAdvantage® Salmon developed by AquaBounty will help increase supply to satisfy growing demand with a dependable, high quality product.

American Economic Growth
Aquaculture provides opportunities for U.S. jobs. Today the U.S. imports over 97% of the Atlantic salmon sold to consumers. The introduction of land-based salmon farms in the U.S. would spur investment into this industry in the United States.

Let’s be optimistic and say that that the agricultural industries are slowly getting better at informing the general public on how and why their food is produced the way it is. The days of assuming we can raise animals any way we want and keep consumers in the dark are OVER! However, we must do a much better job of educating the public to the realities of food production.

While it may be appealing to many to return to the days of small low-tech farms, the fact is we just can’t feed the world with those techniques. In less than 40 years the world population is expected to increase 33% to an incredible 9.15 billion people. At the same time per capita income in developing countries will increase significantly. By the year 2050 some experts are predicting an overall food demand increase of 70% and a 100% increase in demand for animal products.

One of the more interesting presentations at the recent national animal science meetings in Denver was a presentation by Dr. Jude Capper of Washington State University. She first compared our beef production efficiency in 2007 versus 1977. In that 30-year time span the industry produced 13% more beef products while slaughtering 13% fewer animals; clearly more consumable products for mankind while using fewer resources.

Consider the current buzz words being applied to most industries, i.e., “decreasing our carbon footprint”. Comparing 2007 to 1977, the beef industry can claim the following reductions per pound of beef produced:

• 18% fewer total carbon emissions
• 9% less fossil fuel energy
• 10% less feed energy
• 20% fewer feedstuffs
• 30% less land
• 14% less water

Not a bad record is it? While many think the solution to all our problems lies in turning to an all grass-fed system it’s hard to support that notion with the facts. Dr. Capper pointed out that the average “days to finish” in feedlot cattle is 219; for grass-fed systems, 431. And for producing an equivalent amount of beef it takes about 3.5 times more land base for grass-fed versus feedlot. It’s simply a matter of energy density- “concentrates” have that name for a reason! This should in no way cast dispersion on those devoted to grass-fed beef systems; we just can’t begin to feed the world if the whole industry adopts that method.

Bottom Line-“Confinement” and even “feedlot” are evil words in many circles these days but have we really thought it through? As long as animals are humanely cared for aren’t we using LESS of the world’s open and /or wild spaces by concentrating animals on a smaller land area? Food for thought!

##

This article was originally published in the American Agriculturist magazine.

Increasing agriculture productivity to meet growing global demand for food must be accompanied by an intense, innovative effort to enhance the environmental imprint of farming to be sustainable.

“We face the daunting challenge of nearly doubling agriculture production to meet the demands of the estimated 9 billion people expected by 2050,” said DuPont Executive Vice President James C.Borel. “Success in this endeavor will require new and sustained levels of innovation, such as improvements in drought tolerance, to increase productivity of the global food supply without increasing the stress upon our natural resources or the environment.

“Drought tolerance technologies are part of the next great wave of agricultural innovation that will improve agronomic characteristics of plants so they more efficiently use available resources,” said Borel. “They will further empower farmers with better product choices to meet growing demand while reducing their environmental footprint.”

Many environmental factors can reduce agriculture productivity, but drought is by far the most damaging. In 2009 alone, drought cost farmers $14 billion worldwide. Eighty-five percent of the U.S. corn crop is affected by drought stress at some time during the growing season each year, and just four days of severe drought stress during the peak of summer can cut yields in half.

For those readers who have been following the news about eggs and salmonella, here is a very informative Op-Ed article written by Dr. Patterson that was published online in the New York Times on August 25.

##

The American food system, and in particular egg producers in Pennsylvania and other states, have made great strides in reducing the risk posed by salmonella enteritidis, to the point where eggs have not been a significant food-safety risk in recent years.

That wasn’t always so. Following a rise in salmonella enteritidis in humans starting around 1970, egg safety became a major concern. In 1990, the U.S. Department of Agriculture traced salmonella enteritidis back to egg farms in the Northeast.

Hens most likely become infected from contaminated environments or from rodents bringing the organism to the birds. While salmonella enteritidis does not typically affect bird health, when a hen has a systemic infection of salmonella, the ovaries, and thus the egg yolks, become contaminated. Contaminated eggs can cause serious illness to people if eggs are not thoroughly cooked.

In response to the increased risk of salmonella, Pennsylvania egg producers, federal and state agriculture departments, Penn State and the University of Pennsylvania in 1992 initiated research to find solutions for salmonella egg contamination. Findings resulted in the establishment of the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program, which was the first pre-harvest program in the country based on “hazard analysis of critical control points” to reduce salmonella egg contamination.

In the 18 years since the program began, the percentage of contaminated poultry houses has dropped to 8 percent from 38 percent. In 1992, 26 percent of samples from Pennsylvania hen houses tested positive. Today, that’s down to 1 percent. The risk of exposure from a single egg always was statistically small — just 2.6 per 10,000 eggs from infected flocks tested positive for salmonella in 1992. Today, thanks to the assurance program, that incidence is down more than 50 percent, to 1.2 eggs per 10,000. When Salmonella is found in eggs or poultry houses, eggs are discarded or pasteurized.

The program has been so successful that the Food and Drug Administration in July initiated a national program modeled after it. Had the program been in place earlier, the current outbreak may never have occurred. Now that it is, we can expect to see fewer salmonella outbreaks in American eggs.

Giorgio Fidenato has made a habit of carrying a raw ear of yellow corn and taking a hearty bite whenever a camera is in sight.

It’s a provocation. The Italian farmer’s corn is genetically modified, grown surreptitiously in fields in the northeast not far from the Austrian and Slovene borders.

“Our biggest goal is to show consumers that it is safe to eat,” said the 49-year-old advocate of what’s known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

More activist than farmer, Fidenato’s cultivation of nearly 5 hectares, or 12 acres, of genetically modified corn is a rogue act aimed at forcing the legalization of genetically engineered crops in Italy. He waxes on about their benefits: They require fewer chemicals and produce higher yields and greater profits.

Fidenato faces formidable opposition in Italy. His opponents are angry, organized and, in some cases, equally prepared to take the law into their own hands. Unlike Americans, the vast majority of Europeans are staunchly against the marketing of genetically modified foods.

Arrayed against Fidenato are agriculture officials, who put a moratorium on genetically modified seeds in March, the country’s main farm lobby, consumer groups, environmentalists and anti-globalization protesters.

“Violating the law to get the debate going is a very dangerous precedent,” said Roberto Burdese, president of Slow Food Italy, one of 20 organizations that have banded together to keep genetically modified food out of the country.

The European Commission announced in July a proposal that would allow the 27 member states to have the final word on whether to allow cultivation of genetically altered food within their own borders. That would likely lead to more bans because countries would no longer be required to back up their rulings with new scientific data.

The announcement was bad news for Fidenato, though by then his corn was knee-high.

The genetically modified corn, produced by St. Louis-based Monsanto, was the only genetically modified seed authorized for commercial cultivation in Europe until March, when a potato seed sold by the German company BASF was approved. Besides the moratorium in Italy, the seed has been banned in at least six countries, including France, Germany and Austria.

Tired of legal battles, Fidenato planted the corn on April 25, Italy’s national Liberation day. He posted a video on YouTube showing him planting six seeds, but he didn’t disclose that he had in fact planted two fields. That only came out when anonymous letters containing pieces of the plants reached prosecutors in July, raising opponents’ suspicions that there could still be others. He won’t say where he got the seeds.

Word spread about the crop, and on Aug. 9 about 70 anti-GMO activists wearing chemical protection suits trampled nearly an acre of corn to the ground.

“The pity is they should have waited 10 days, and it would have been ready to make polenta,” Fidenato said, referring to the corn meal that is a dietary mainstay in northern Italy.

The leader of the corn bandits, astrophysicist Luca Tornatore, argued there is enough uncertainty surrounding the health and environmental risks posed by GMOs to make them undesirable.

Tornatore said his group grew frustrated that prosecutors, who have sequestered the fields, had not destroyed the crops despite a 2001 Italian law that forbids their cultivation.

The protesters also would like to destroy the 4 1/2 hectares Fidenato has planted in another town, but “we don’t know where it is,” Tornatore acknowledged.

Fidenato responded that genetically modified corn has been legal in Italy since it was added to the European Union’s catalog of authorized crops 12 years ago. And he pointed to a decision by an administrative court in Rome, which ruled that the agriculture ministry cannot decline to authorize the seeds out of caution.

The ruling resulted from a three-year court battle waged by Silvano Dalla Libera, a neighboring farmer in the northeastern region of Friuli, where Fidenato’s fields are located.

The former agriculture minister, Luca Zaia, along with the health and environment ministers, responded to the administrative decision by putting a moratorium on GMOs in March. There was a risk nearby fields could be contaminated, they said.

“To stop me, one poor farmer, three ministries mobilized,” Dalla Libera said with a hint of pride.

Fidenato began farming when he was 12 and now has about 70 acres. He became persuaded of the merits of genetically altered crops during a trip to the United States in the 1990s and helped found Futuragra, a group of farmers fighting for GMOs.

By planting the corn, he risks up to three years in jail and a fine of euro50,000.

Fidenato said he’s not bothered by the threat of prosecution. Futuragra has been in touch with farmers in Spain, which has the highest concentration of genetically modified corn in Europe, and France, where it has been banned, to press the battle.

“If they don’t understand it is an EU right, that we don’t need authorization, then I have farmers in the entire Po River valley, from Piedmont to Veneto, who will plant GMO corn,” Fidenato said.

_____

Original release can be found at:  http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HLUEBO0.htm

News media has a tendency to portray certain aspects of agricultural production either positively or negatively. Doug Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University co-authored a paper on “Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media – linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture,” just published in the British Food Journal.

Powell examined how organic food production is portrayed in the media. The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell’s students at the time. The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.

The authors concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative. Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn’t, rather than what it is, noted the authors.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has repeatedly stated that the organic standard is a verification of production methods and not a food safety claim, says Powell. “Food safety was the least important in the media discussion of organic agriculture,” he says.”  The paper reported that 50% of food safety-themed statements in news articles were positive with respect to organic.

People have many choices on the type of foods they want to purchase based on many diverse production systems. USDA has measures in place to ensure that food produced from these various systems is safe to eat. There are challenges and benefits with any production system, and the media should be presenting a balanced view about this topic to readers.