Hopi Corn
Iowa Corn
The current "GM food agin' "is the same as the old stand by "Flouride agin'"
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.
Force, for when you can't convince someone to do what you want with argument.
Right. The last time I purchased a car I had an armed Government Agent with me just in case the Dealer didn't give me the deal I wanted on the car.
Your argument is really lacking .........
I'm opposed to sending government men with guns to enforce something that congress wasn't given the power to enforce in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Tell the food sellers you won't buy if they don't disclose the information you want them to. But to send men with guns to enforce your desire does smack of totalitarianism.
/johnny
That's how governments work. Disobey and men with guns intervene.
/johnny
Where are these armed men you speak of? Why are you against Consumers making fully informed choices about what they will/will not purchase?
Would you buy a new car without a window sticker telling you what's inside, the safety features, etc?? Of course not. Yet, you advocate forcing consumers (borrowing from you there...) purchasing food that's not labeled for what it is.
Stunning logic you have there.
That's how government works.
I'm not against consumers making fully informed choices. I'm against using the force of government to enforce laws that congress wasn't given the authority to make.
It's pretty simple.
/johnny
The current "GM food agin' "is the same as the old stand by "Flouride agin'"
False. I do not advocate forcing consumers to do anything. The consumer has the option of not buying if he isn't satisfied with any aspect of the product, including how it is labeled.
You want to make it a crime to fail to label in the manner you chose.
/johnny
“ROFL!! OH MY SIDES!!! “
Liberals usually think they are right and the rest of us are insane or laughable.
Who is to say what is labeled on the product? You? How much information must be labeled. So, yes, government control over product labeling is totalitarianism. You liberals think government intervention is always the answer.
If you don’t like the product’s labeling then don’t buy it. THAT is free market.
Saved me some writing because I also believe GMO should be labeled. I think Monsanto and other companies are fighting a losing battle because labeling will eventually be approved by voters.
You seriously think you are knowledgeable and smart enough to know what GMO foods are when you don't even know that the government uses force against food producers?
“labeling will eventually be approved by voters.”
By idiots.
We’ve been labeling food for years because idiots thought that would lead to better foods and informed choices, but it hasn’t. We said it would lead to more and more labeling and government intervention and it has. Costs have increased on food because of all this nanny-state crap. The basic labeling ash been to appease morons that think they know what they are reading, so they give those morons “Proteins”, “Sugar”, etc on the label and the morons run around thinking they know what’s in the product. They haven’t a clue about the hundreds of other considerations about food.
I never said anything about using government to enforce such a thing.
There are other ways to do it, such as industry associations setting and ensuring that standards are met.
Besides, force is not always bad. We weren’t able to argue to Hitler that he should not exterminate millions of people and invade other countries.
/johnny
Do you not know the difference between natural hybridization through breeding and inserting genetic material from organisms that don’t even belong to the same kingdom?
If that was not your intent, I misunderstood.
/johnny
I find it astounding that people who have never felt the pangs of hunger should decide that making less food available is acceptable.
The Green Revolution, Golden rice, GM foods, anything that feeds more people is a evil plot but only in the minds of those with full bellies.
“Besides, force is not always bad. “
There is a difference between war and peace. This is peace we are talking about. Waging war on everyone is not the country I want.
Your can’t wash the pesticides off the GMO crops, it grows inside it.
Panty twisting Chicken Littles abound....even on FR.
BTW, those of you that are food label Nazis and think the government food labeling is reasonable have just sunk the entire restaurant industry with ObamaCare.
Under ObamaCare food that isn’t labeled, including food sold in restaurants, cannot be sold, so come January 1st most restaurants will close. It is a big disbelief right now in the industry. People cannot believe they will have to close their businesses. They are stunned, but word is getting out about this.
The sun causes more genetic modification through mutation every day than a planet full of scary scientists. Try controlling that.
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.