Mandrake, fear of GM food IS rational.
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.
bm
Actually, the process is the same. The method in the lab accomplishes the desired modifications better than trial and error.
Mandrake, fear of GM food IS rational.
Bump that!
I've made no decision on the safety of GMO foods. I ask this question respectfully. Can someone point me to peer reviewed science that supports the belief that GMOs are harmful to humans. I am going to have to look for myself but a pointer would be a help.
Don't know about the human factors science around GMOs but I would think that ideas like the local foods movement, propagated worldwide, would be a sure way to starve to death much of the world's population.
/johnny
“You’re right, Monsanto is more of a Mafia type organization with the best political and legal protection money can buy.”
Very, very true. I’ve got nothing against GMO’s in concept. They have the potential to help feed, clothe, and otherwise keep healthy billions of people worldwide, and knee-jerk opposition to them will do nothing but continue the cycle of famine and death in the undeveloped world (see the controversy over golden rice for a prime example.)
The problem with Big Ag is that they talk out of both sides of their mouth. Nothing irks me more than when supporters of the government-industrial complex (which does exist, even if the term itself has a dreadfully Occupy Wall Street ring to it) talk about “making money on their investments” and “protecting their innovation” and other pseudo-free market pablum like that, while spending embarrassing amounts of money on what I call “offensive lobbying”.
They lobby hard for sugar tariffs that artificially prop up high fructose corn syrup.
They lobby for public-fleecing policies such as Renewable Fuel Standards, that keep laughably uneconomic products like ethanol and soy biodiesel fuel a reality.
They actively support tax policies that keep farmland (most of which is corporately owned) artificially low, shifting local tax burdens to other industries.
And of course, as was previously mentioned, they crucify innocent farmers when their product contaminates everyone else. All, by the way, with the protection of our government - state, local, and federal.
So, yes, big Ag companies like this deserve every bit of derision and contempt they get. I hesitate to paint the farmers as martyrs here, however - they are not required to participate in this shell game. They could plant heirloom or conventional seeds (as all of them did fifteen years ago) and avoid most of the problems altogether, yet they’re too tempted by the money to do so. When you know the dice are hot but you choose to throw them anyway, don’t come bitching to me when you crap out.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/08/the-dirty-little-secret-hidden-in-much-of-your-health-food.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/06/dr-huber-gmo-foods.aspx
I can’t think of a person on earth that hasn’t benefitted from his work. Astounding.
Radical reduction of the earth’s population has always been the goal of the “deep ecologists”.
You're missing the entire point. Irrespective of my ability to be smart enough to know what GMO foods are ... you're attempting to argue a position that Consumers don't need to know/don't want to know/have no right to know what is in the food that they are eating.
You further argue that its totalitarianism to LABEL food as GMO or not GMO. You then go on to claim that the government will force via gun labeling food as such should legislation pass.
I don't know what alternate universe you grew up in however you have that completely backwards. Your arguing from a perspective of keeping consumers IGNORANT of what they're eating or buying.
That's taking away consumer choice (gee, just like OBAMACARE is doing) and THAT my friend is Totalitarianism. You sir, are arguing from the wrong side. My argument - which has stood the test of time - is that informed customers making their own choices are at the very HEART of our Capitalistic society.
You sir, are on the wrong side of this argument.
Thank you for your clarification. You and I are in agreement on this point.
Not going to happen.
Yes I am aware of cases where farmers were selling raw milk to the public. You and I can argue whether or not that's against the law or not, or whether that's a case of an out of control bureacracy.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I was making regarding an informed public and requiring LABELS on whether or not food was genetically modified - or not.
That is the crux of the discussion between us, I won't be sidetracked.
Stentor, a google search on GMO Food Research will net you a ton of results, some arguing their safety, others not.
Personally, I think the science is still out on the subject and the best thing that could happen (IMO) is to simply label those foods which are GMO and which are not. Let the consumers decide whether or not they want to purchase GMO foods.
Gee, a market based approach. Who'd have thunk it?!
And what would happen if a food was found to contain a particle, however small, of GM origin but not listed on the label?
/johnny
Right. And if you make a law about how fast one may drive down the expressway, you are using the force of government.
You're also using the force of government at the behest of a large, multi-national corporation to PREVENT others from knowing what's in the food they eat.
Who's the totalitarian now?
Not taking the bait. It's completely off the point I'm making, but I suspect you know that.
It’s quite to the point. The labeling campaign has but little to do with informing and more with litigation for profit. And I suspect you know that too.
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.