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.
Dear Mr Grouchy Valentine,
I recommend you get going on that second cup of coffee.
Here is a link with some nice reading material for you on the digestive and endocrine system. Next time you have a lemon sized adenocarcinoma excised from your descending colon, or a banding opeeration to stop the catastrophic varices bleed from chemo-induced hepatitis, after six units of blood transfusion, at the end of six months of chemo for stage 3 colon cancer, it will become a priority for you too, to know digestive health, and the functioning of the endocrine system. Hope this helps you with better info.
Maybe you are a digestive endocrine specialist and have even better info to share. I am no genius, yet have learned enough to try to keep myself alive a while longer.
http://www.timwiebe.net/GVCBiology/Biology_30S_files/Chapter%2035.pdf
Much appreciated,
With regards,
Flying Eagle
I agree. It seems like many decades that I’ve been reading articles by panic-mongers about the food we eat killing us. I keep waiting for news stories about people dropping dead or getting horrible diseases from eating gm food and other types of altered food. Maybe some of them have a point, but as usual over-exaggeration of the dangers seems to be the mo of most of the foodie panic-mongers.
If it looks like that to you then you need your eyes checked. I claimed to dislike them, so I therefore avoid purchasing thier products with my hard-earned money. If the company fails due to lack of consumers who dislike thier practices then that is part of capitalism. If the company thrives because consumers prefer thier products then that is also capitalism. These concepts are quite conservative the last I checked. I don’t think Big Gov should make them or prevent them from doing what they do. While I dislike GM I see no reason for Big Gov to require food labeling. I think that the market should also settle that issue.
However, regarding your R&D comment, Monsanto does receive tax dollars from Big Gov. They are moochers. Technically I should be able to make demands of them seeing as how they are using my money.
In a nut shell our digestive system break food down into carbohydrates and proteins while extracting required trace elements.
In my opinion as long as it doesn’t contain poisons, have pesticides sprayed on or other chemicals or human/animal waste on it - it’s good to go.
But I somewhat agree with you as I’ll buy organic when I can - I just don’t go out of my way looking for it.
I worry more about the “handled” fruit and veggies I get in a store. If it’s to be eaten raw I wash it first.
I agree. I try to eat foods grown within 50 miles of my house. I only buy wild caught fish, not farmed.
That threw me off as well. I understand the science behind GM crops and that should be enough. Though I do think I should commit a bit of personal research on the topic.
.
I love these GMO threads - it’s the one topic where Democratic Underground and Free Republic posts sound essentially the same. I wonder why FR has held up against the scam of Climate Change, but not GMO food scares.
Please go on. Enlighten us with everything you know about food.
I don’t want them to be a charity. I want them to stop taking control over what I can put in my mouth.
Cross polinatuon with GMO seeds renders heirloom seeds useless for the next planting.
I do not want a few companies having total control over all of my food.
Exactly. The reason there are so many GMO defenders is because a lot of people simply don't care about their health or bodies. I see the visual evidence every day. People just want their McDonalds and potato chips and Hostess cupcakes at cheap prices. And if they end up riding around WalMart in a motorized cart weighing 300 lbs and with one foot to get them, who cares, right?
Americans are getting grosser and fatter and GMOs are a big part of the reason. The human body hates this poison, but people don't care. It is sad.
You can believe what you want. I’m not here to change your mind. You can buy as many GMO seeds as you want. I want a choice and Monsanto is a monopoly that controls what I eat. That should be scary in it’s own right.
So that’s it. You’re an employee of Monsanto.
Why try so hard to take away our freedom to protect what humans need to sustain life.
Thus forum is to exchange ideas not to beat us over the head with the business side of the bat.
because we can think and research facts, not blindly follow ideology and junk science.
Apparently not, because the GMO scare is based on junk science, with evil corporate conspiracies (e.g. Monsanto), much like the oil industry is the target of much of the climate change rhetoric.
Climate change, big Agra, big pharma, big government...it’s all about top down control.
You’re right, Monsanto is more of a Mafia type organization with the best political and legal protection money can buy.
Second, I still don't see what the problem is in labeling what we buy so we can know what we're buying.
Third, this sentence reads like the old cigarette commercials from the 1950's:
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.
That sure bears a remarkable resemblance to this:
"In a coast-to-coast test of hundreds of people who smoked only Camels for thirty days, noted throat specialists reported not one single case of throat irritation due to smoking Camels!"
The author of the article pointed out the emotional, irrational basis of anti GM hysteria.
This thread shows how right he is. This isn’t limited to the liberal tinfoil hat crowd. It’s here.
Would you rather eat grain from crops that are not GM but sprayed with pesticides or GM crops that do not require spraying?
How about GMO crops that are resistant to herbicides and sprayed with weed killer?
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.