|
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
May 27, 2025 Op-ed by Pete Ricketts is a Republican senator from Nebraska and a former governor of the state as it appeared in Agri-Pulse
For farmers in Nebraska and across the country there was intentional, scientific stewardship in this process. They made sure the right crop was planted to account for a previous flood, fire, or potential pest. These farmers analyzed different cropping systems and technology to produce the best results while preserving the natural resources essential to their operation. Farmers and ranchers were America's original conservationists, well before it was trendy. Ancient farmers created the first forms of irrigation - a technique we have perfected in Nebraska. American farmers now incorporate principles of hydrology, geology, and physics to deliver what's needed, where it's needed, when it's needed. They do this using commonsense by following sound science and risk-based analysis. Farmers and ranchers know they must use sound science and risk-based analysis to ensure their crops receive an adequate amount of water at the right times. During the Dust Bowl, farmers followed the science by adopting terraced agronomic production. These practices helped with soil retention and erosion prevention. Since the 1980s, ranchers have used Expected Progeny Differences, genetic offspring predictions based on years of data. This has helped breed cattle that tolerate drought while yielding high-quality beef. As the beef state, we know a thing or two about this in Nebraska. With innovation often comes opposition. Radical activists will use bad, biased science to resist change that is not aligned with their agenda. Agriculture is not insulated from this concept. We must not allow finger-on-the-scale "science" to destabilize our production systems. Bad science has frequently been used to attack our producers abroad. The EU, for example, won't accept corn from the United States for the fact that it is biotech corn. They have no issue, however, accepting our soybeans which are also - you guessed it, biotech soybeans. In 2022, Joe Biden sat idly in the Oval Office when the Mexican government issued a decree to phase out genetically modified corn. They claimed it was science but truly, it was just protectionism. An international trade court found Mexico to be in violation of agreed-upon trade terms with their baseless, de facto American corn import ban. I applaud the Trump administration's diligence in combatting arbitrary decisions abroad that are not backed by sound science and risk-based analysis. Shoddy "scientists" across the world work directly with radical environmentalists to push an anti-agriculture agenda through any means necessary. These "research" groups are not above deceiving you by cherry-picking studies or manipulating the data they find most applicable - regardless of the data's validity. Ag groups say MAHA report goes too far on pesticides The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) claims that one of the safest, most tested chemistries in the world, glyphosate, could cause cancer. These fear-mongering headlines don't include that the IARC omitted and edited data to reach this conclusion. That's not following the science. These same "scientists" also listed eating beef, drinking a hot cup of coffee, and being a hairdresser as cancer causers. Their bad science escaped their lab and can be found cited publicly, just as it was intended. The judicial system has been bogged down with unfounded lawsuits and consumers unknowingly spreading claims that aren't backed by science. Lawsuits and false claims are the fruit of radical environmentalists weaponization of bad science against crop protection tools critical to farmers and ranchers. We don't have to rely on bad science though. The Environmental Protection Agency has conducted more studies with higher standards on the products our producers rely on every day. These studies are the basis for labeling guidelines and prove the safety of these products so long as those guidelines are followed. Principles of sound science and risk-based analysis ensure only the safest, most reliable crop protection tools make it into farmers' sheds, into fields, and are used for the cultivation of the commodities that feed, fuel, and clothe the world. To read the entire op-ed click here. Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
