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.
FWIW, about a month ago, my family switch to eating only organic, non-GMO food. I am eating far less but feel just as satisfied with a bit more energy. My mood has improved as well. I am also losing a few lbs. already. My wife's fibromyalgia and anemia symptoms have nearly disappeared after abstaining from gluten and GMO foods.
Vets tell you not to feed your dog cheap food because it's mostly filler. When you feed your dog better food, they eat less and are healthier. The same holds true for humans.
I don't want GMO's banned. I just want them labeled so people know what they're buying.
Your can't wash the pesticides off the GMO crops, it grows inside it.
Drivel..... Peddling the lie is Obamaesque
Americans are getting fatter, but food and sloth are the problem.
Can you please post your credentials (including any Doctorate level degrees, medical licenses, practitioner information) showing your expertise of genetically modified food and the endocrine system?
Thanks in advance.
/johnny
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
But what kind of food is the problem? Organic? NO. It is the GMO’s making people fat, sick and slothful.
Basing your opinions on who thinks what is a sure sign of someone who doesn't use critical thinking and relies on knee-jerk reactions instead.
People bitch about chemical pesticides but then bitch louder when genetically modified plants are designed to resist pests and do not need so many chemicals. Their irrational fear is that the words “genetically modified” means plants that will alter their own personal DNA somehow.
“My desire is to eat only natural, healthy, preferably organically raised food”
Which is what GMO plants are designed to do: Resists pests so that chemical are not needed yet, you reject those plants as not being “organic”. Well, I’ve never seen an inorganic plant.
You have eaten genetically modified foods your entire life. Cross-breeding is genetic modification. Everything from corn to bananas have been cross-bred to give us the larger, more colorful, and better tasting plants. Even what you can “organic” plants are based on this cross-breeding.
/johnny
Spot on. Provide the information to the consumers and let THEM decide what they will/will not purchase as a result.
That is FREE MARKET CAPITALISM at its very best.
Personally, I do my best to stay away from genetically modified fruits, vegetables, or foods that contain genetically modified components. I still think the science is "out" on whether or not GMO foods are ok. (Witness how long it's taken for Hydrogenated Trans-Fats to be exposed for the dangerous, heart clogging substance that it is!)
As an example, I've been eating Honey Nut Cheerio's for breakfast for years. Learned recently that General Mills has started including GMO components into it, so I've stopped purchasing Honey Nut Cheerio's and have found a non-GMO component alternative instead that I enjoy just as much.
As you said: provide the information and let the consumers decide what they want. That's how our market-based system is supposed to work, and that's when it works best.
“That is FREE MARKET CAPITALISM at its very best.”
Demanding government labeling is not free market. It is totalitarianism.
“It’s irrational food fetishism.”
And the same level of stupidity by arrogant people that think they understand this subject as the globull warming and ozone hole idiots.
There is a marked difference between cross-breeding plants naturally as has been done for centuries, versus adding genetically modified components that include pesticide genetics in them.
You're either being ignorant in your statement that we've been eating GMO foods our entire lives or incredibly dishonest and misleading saying inserting GMO pesticide components INTO plants to develop resistance to bugs, etc.. is the same thing as splicing two plants together.
It is not. Inserting GMO material into plant seeds is not the same as taking two different seeds and splicing them together allowing nature to control the process.
Anyone who's ever spliced plants together knows the difference. (I was raised on a farm and I know the difference.)
ROFL!! OH MY SIDES!!! Demanding that food growers appropriately label their products so that consumers can make educated choices on what they purchase is totalitarianism?
Friend, you've got that completely backwards.........
By using the full force of government, which includes the potential of armed men enforcing laws or causing financial destitution.
Force, for when you can't convince someone to do what you want with argument.
/johnny
At the point of a government gun.
Force, because sometimes negotiation doesn't get you what you want.
/johnny
Is that right? Let me ask you this: Have you ever purchased an automobile and not known what the engine installed in it was, the safety features of the vehicle, it's basic MPG rating, etc?
So tell me: how is demanding the same type of information on the food we eat different from a car, or any other product you'd buy on a daily basis? <> It's not.
The same way I want to know all about the car I'm buying, I want to know what's in the food I'm eating. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.
Informed Consumers are at the heart of free market capitalism. I don't understand how some Freepers are against informed consumers.
Do you have any pictures of any Government employee or agent putting a gun on a food grower demanding they label their food product?
Can you post them here?
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.