Posted on 11/09/2013 1:48:05 AM PST by iowamark
Farmers can now produce more crops in an environmentally sustainable way at a lower cost thanks to the efforts of hundreds of scientists over the past half-century. Seeds are developed in a laboratory and then field tested to enhance nutritional value or resistance to drought, disease and herbicides. Genetically modified crops are now planted on nearly a quarter of the world's farm land by some 17.3 million farmers. More than 90% of those farmers are smallholders who harvest a few acres in developing countries.
Society, the economy and the environment have benefited enormously from GM crops. India has flipped from cotton importer to exporter because of insect-resistant cotton. Herbicide-tolerant GM crops have stimulated no-tillage farming, reducing soil erosion and greenhouse gas emissions. Insect-resistant GM crops have cut insecticide sprayings by more than 25%—and as much as sevenfold in some parts of India. In developing countries, GM crops have helped ensure food security and bolster incomes for farmers, allowing parents to focus more resources on other priorities, such as educating their children.
Such remarkable achievements are only the beginning. Dozens of better GM crops are in the pipeline from companies, universities and public agencies around the world. Crops in development include virus-resistant cassava, a starchy root otherwise known as tapioca; nutritionally enriched rice that can help prevent blindness and early death among children; nitrogen-efficient crops that reduce fertilizer runoff; and many more.
These crops will continue to reduce hunger by bringing more bountiful and nutritious harvests. They will also help the environment by mitigating the impact of agriculture by conserving our precious, finite supply of fresh water; freeing up land for other uses, like carbon-absorbing forests; preserving topsoil; and reducing the use of insecticides and herbicides, thereby enhancing biodiversity.
These advancements are particularly timely given the environmental and demographic state of the 21st century. Between now and 2050, global population will rise by about one-third, to 9.6 billion from 7.2 billion, reducing arable land per capita. Almost all of that population growth will occur in the developing world, where about 870 million people are already suffering from hunger and malnutrition, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. And 100% of it will happen during a period of greater climate volatility, which may place dramatic new stresses on agriculture.
The question of how to nourish two billion more people in a changing climate will prove one of the greatest challenges in human history. To meet it, we should embrace an agricultural approach that combines the best features of traditional farming with the latest technology.
Biotechnology offers an unparalleled safety record and demonstrated commercial success. Remarkably, however, biotechnology might not reach its full potential. In part, that's because outspoken opponents of GM crops in the U.S. have spearheaded a "labeling" movement that would distinguish modified food from other food on grocery store shelves. Never mind that 60%-70% of processed food on the market contains genetically modified ingredients. In much of Europe, farmers are barred from growing genetically modified crops. Even in Africa, anti-biotechnology sentiment has blocked its application. In Zambia, for example, the government refused donations of GM corn in 2002, even as its people starved.
Opponents of GM crops have been extremely effective at spreading misinformation. GM crops don't, as one discredited study claimed recently, cause cancer or other diseases. GM cotton isn't responsible for suicides among Indian farmers—a 2008 study by an alliance of 64 governments and nongovernmental organizations debunked that myth completely. And GM crops don't harm bees or monarch butterflies.
In fact, people have consumed billions of meals containing GM foods in the 17 years since they were first commercialized, and not one problem has been documented. This comes as no surprise. Every respected scientific organization that has studied GM crops—the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, among others—has found GM crops both safe for humans and positive for the environment.
As a plant scientist, neither I nor my fellow 2013 World Food Prize laureates, Dr. Mary-Dell Chilton and Dr. Robert T. Fraley, anticipated the resistance to genetic modification and biotechnology. After all, nearly everything humans have eaten though the millennia has been genetically altered by human intervention. Mankind has been breeding crops—and thereby genetically altering them—since the dawn of agriculture. Today's techniques for modifying plants are simply new, high-precision methods for doing the same.
Resistance to biotechnology seems all the more unbelievable considering that much of it comes from the same thoughtful people who tend to dismiss climate-change skeptics as "anti-science." It seems to me that much of the resistance to GM foods isn't based on science, but may be ideological and political, based on fears of "corporate profiteering" and "Western colonialism."
To note one irony: The extreme opposition to genetic modification has led to hyper-regulation of GM crops, which has raised the cost of bringing them to market. Now only multinational companies and large research entities can afford to comply with the rules. Smaller enterprises in developing countries are ultimately hurt much more than large conglomerates.
Anyone who cares about alleviating hunger and protecting the environment should work quickly to remove the bias against GM crops. A good first step is for educated, scientifically literate people to avoid being taken in by the myths about genetically modified food. These innovations have too much potential to empower individuals and feed the world to be thwarted by falsehoods and fear-mongering.
Article reprinted with the permission of Dr. Marc Van Montagu
If you’re a liberal you have to find a way to generate panic so you can use that panic to get money and/or political power. Global warming was already staked out. Peak oil is about over. Overpopulation is not sufficiently panic inducing. The war on women doesn’t have any moneymaking potential. So, it’s on to made up stuff. Genetically modified plants are a perfect vehicle.
I encountered an anti-GMO troll at a recent meeting who started off his line of argumentative questioning with, "Lifespans are declining and we are seeing all kinds of new diseases and the U.S. is doing worse health-wise than the other developed countries, and many scientists think it is because of GMOs." That's the level of the rhetoric.
This fellow, however, had picked the wrong meeting for this kind of thing, because everyone in the room knew that every one of his premises was flatly false. If we had had stocks and a fool's cap, he'd probably still be chained up for display. But this kind of thing gets traction in the current media environment.
I am very conservative, and do not consider myself in any category to be a liberal. I am too conservative to consider myself as a supporter of the GOP.
I do not eat GM foods if I can possibly avoid them. It has nothing to do with being a science skeptic, climate or otherwise. My desire is to eat only natural, healthy, preferably organically raised food, and including natural raised or wild-caught meats. The Genetic Modification of food makes it more difficult for the endocrine system to handle the food, and in many foods, the genetic mutation is designed to enable the food to survive harsh pesticides which pollute the product. I do not want the pesticide residue in my body. I am a six year colon cancer survivor, and pure natural organic unprocessed food with minimal chemicals and synthetics, and preservatives, can help me live in a healthy way. Also, my wife had a form of breast cancer that thrives in an estrogen positive state, which hormone is also influenced by diet. Processed Soy, which is pervasive and incorporated extensively into the American processed foods, is also generally derived from GM soy, and is a source of food that hyper elevates typical estrogen levels in the body.
These GM apologists do not tell the whole story. Our bodies are designed to have natural nutrition from the earth. It is simply not safe to mess with the genetics of the food supply and act like there will be no health consequences for people who eat genetically modified food.
An argument seeking societal approval for GMO foods based on climate change is highly suspect.
Have to agree with you FlyingEagle, not a fan of GM foods.
I’ve seen just as many on the right displaying fanatical opposition to GM foods, often as some kind of NWO one-world-government plot to subjugate the food supply and thereby force dependence on government in cahoots with Monsanto and other supra-national corporations. Big banking and Agenda 21 usually get tied into it somewhere too.
In this single formulation you inadvertently reveal that you do not understand either food or the endocrine system. So why should anything else you say be given any credence?
GMO is the total takeover and control of what we eat. GMO seeds cannot be reused forcing repurchase year after year. In case of nuclear war or total destruction there would be no organic seeds to plant.
Cancer rates are exploding all over the world. What might be causing this? How about they look into GMO foods.
I am a full time. capitalist but have a hard time letting a few businesses taking control of my food supply.
I too think that when man tinkers with nature nothing good will become of it and when a few businesses control the food, they control the world.
No seeds can be re-used. What you are talking about is the reservation of a portion of the seed crop to use for the next year. Not a bad idea for the farmer, but not so good for the people who developed the insect resistant, mold resistant, drought resistant varieties etc. Naturally they are looking for more than a one time sale. How can you blame them? This kind of research is not done on the cheap. Now, any farmer who wants to forgo the advantages to be gained from other men's labor can use his own heirloom seeds. No problem there, but Monsanto and others are not charities, and to expect them to behave as charities is unrealistic to say the least.
I’m with you here! The difference with us as conservatives is that we don’t push our choices onto others and we don’t demand government actions that require others to do what we do. I prefer to grow and preserve as much of our food as possible, so another reason I dislike certain companies that make GM foods is that I can’t save seeds like I do with my heirlooms.
Spot on!
Source? I didn't think so.
Why not? Because there is no worldwide explosion of cancer. What there is a worldwide explosion of longevity. This increase in longevity is exposing the fact that cancer will eventually get every one of us if we don't die from something else first - as has been the case of most of mankind's existence on Earth.
If the wind carries GM pollen into my garden and contaminates my heirlooms, can I sue Monsanto like they can sue me?
I am in total agreement with you FlyingEagle.
These scientists have no clue about the Pandora’s Box they are opening.
I only eat natural foods that G+d has given us, not overly-processed crap that comes from factories or these frankenfood experiments.
I avoid genetically modified food as much as possible. I don’t consume anything with artificial sweetener either. I avoid medication and supplements. It’s a matter of choice. I’m not a fan of big government or big Agra or big pharma. This is not a liberal’s view. With healthcare access about to be rationed, my health is my wealth.
Is it possible that you don't see your own hypocrisy here?
You say that you are a conservative and you don't push your choices onto others. Great - I applaud you for that.
But then you say you "dislike certain companies that make GM foods." Why is that?
It's because they have this weird desire to earn back their research and development costs by charging for their products. Isn't that you wanting to push your choice, i.e. that Monsanto should operate as a charity instead of a profit making business?
That's what it looks like to me.
I’m with you. I’m not going to jump on that ‘they are all liberals so there must be nothing to it. It’s like Fracking in that its relatively safe and rather benign, but needs constant and continual oversight because you know somebody is going to abuse our collective ignorance in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
I am not totally on the side of the GM seed barons. They should not be able to sue or harass anyone for the inadvertent proliferation of their genes.
GM seed producers ought to find satisfaction in court only for the intentional theft of their IP, either by a farmer gathering and storing patented seeds or by industrial espionage. Inadvertent spreading of genetic material ought not be actionable by the GM seed producer.
But it ought to be actionable by the person whose seed stock has been contaminated with unwanted genes. It ought to be the GM seed producers and the farmers using their seeds to control their proliferation. I would think strict liability ought to govern in such cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.