Genetically Modified Foods Proponent Makes Her Green Case

There have been a few mentions lately on our feed readers of genetically modified foods making a bit of a PR push.

The New York Times sat down with Nina V. Fedoroff, science adviser to the Secretary of State, to ask her about the public impression of genetically modified foods:

Q. YOU BELIEVE THAT ENVIRONMENTALISTS SHOULD BE EMBRACING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS. WHAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT?

A. If we put more land under cultivation to feed the world's growing population, we're going to pull down the remaining forests.

And if that happens, it will contribute tremendously to desertification. The more we can grow on already cultivated land, the better. Europe, North America, Australia, Japan -- we've been extremely successful in applying science to agriculture and we can afford to say, "Let's go natural." But there's collateral damage.

When I went to Rwanda, you saw farmers with holdings of less than an acre.

If their population doubles again, we're looking at more strife. Arguably, Darfur isn't about politics, it's about water. Many of the conflicts in the poorest countries are about too many people chasing too few resources. Do we have time to transition something that looks like Rwanda to a more efficient agriculture and to do it wisely enough to absorb the people?

Also, the Discovery News Sustainable blog hit the topic of environmentalism vs. genetically modified foods pretty recently:

For years, opponents have argued that genetically engineered plants wreak havoc with human health and nature, and accuse plant biotech companies, such as Monsanto, of putting profits before people. On the other hand, agricultural biotech proponents argue that engineered crops enable farmers to grow at a time of global food shortages, insidious pests, weeds and extreme weather.

But fiddling around with plants dates back to the 19th century, long before the debate of modified foods boiled up. Back then, scientists figured out how to hybridize plants in the same species, a process that takes many years, but eventually encourages plants to come out with the best traits.

Where do you stand? Genetically modified food too creepy? Does it put too many farmers out of business? What about food shortages?

Comments

[LarBear]

Since we're discussing the OK ness of genetically modifying Nature, and Mankind is simply a part of Nature..... How soon do we modify Humans to eat current waste products...... Modify us to feed chemical waste products to... No more garbage... Garbage becomes human food...

[LarBear]

Well, perhaps first we should figure out if we are bio chemically fueled beings, or if we are instead bio electrically energized beings... We can go like 3 weeks, or more, without food... (I've done a fast on distilled water alone of 12 days and another of 14 days) Hunger disappears within about the third day... But we can go without water for only about 7 days...

Dang... Maybe we have a lot to learn... Like our Nature is Miraculous, our un-naturalness is creating the problems...

[deepintheheartoftejas]

I kinda wish there was labeling of foods that are made with genetically modified ingredients--so I could seek them out especially and buy them, do my part to support scientific research.

[sandiegoconservative]

What's up with the piece of corn that looks like a horror film character? That's one angry ear of corn!

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

Silly. That's an ann coulter costume!

[sandiegoconservative]

LOL! Ann Coulter, angry corn fiend! I love it!

[madkins]

I am not against the technology per se. My issues arise from the fact that the companies that create these organisms cannot with any certainty insure that the organism will not mutate with progressive generations. This is one of the reasons that the will not allow farmers to retain vialble seeds. I addition because gmo is patented it is illegal for farmers to share seeds of varieties which have proven particularly hardy to a given pest. So, with so many factors to be addressed it really makes little sense to allow these products to be put on our dinner tables.

Here is another scarry fact: Some of the genes that have been spliced into certain plants have shown up in completely unrelated plant species. This has led to fears that some weeds will develop the same tolerances to herbacide.

You should take some time to read up on this issue.

[tompoe]

In the United states, yards that become edible, i.e., planted with food, container gardening, community gardens, would go a long way to avoiding having to take away forests, and provide food for some 3 million hungry American children.

In India (and other countries as well), genetically modified food is directly responsible for thousands of deaths by suicide of farmers that can no longer grow crops.

If the world treated food the same as they treat medicine, we would require genetically modified food manufacturers to prove there is no risk. For example, when a Canadian scientist attempted to publish his findings that GM food appears to cause severe physiological changes to the digestive system, the industry spent huge amounts of money to destroy his career. What we would expect is an industry spending money to study these effects, not spending money to perpetuate laws that say it's good, until it's proven bad.

Finally, the GM food industry needs to explain why their food is not responsible for the endangerment of our Monarch butterflies.

[madkins]

If you look at what companies like Monsanto are doing it becomes pretty obvious why we need to be concerned.
1. Companies like Monsanto hold patents on these organisms which means you have to buy them from them and you can't save the seeds from what you produce.
2. Most of the changes made to these plants is to allow them to tolerate the application of more herbacides and pesticides which are toxic to other plants and animals down the food chain. Additionally, there is the possibility that the over use of pesticides and herbacides will produces animals and plants resistant to them. These pesticides and herbicides are produced by companies like Monsanto.
3. There is no way for these companies to ensure that successive off spring from gmo won't produce or contain harmful byproducts.

So, GMO may or may not produce more food, but it will put more toxic substances into the environment, will cost more to the farmer, will further reduce biodiversity, and will not really solve the main issue that all of the world is facing. All it does is make big chemical companies a lot more money.

[TimmySlagle]

???

GE foods require LESS pesticide and herbicide going into the environment.

Your argument is just as irrational as the fear over modified foods.

[GRobSecular]

That was an excellent critique of madkins statement, timmy -sarcasm-

Actually, madkins brings up some good points. Companies like monsanto, that engage extensively in genetic engeneering, are also world-leaders in pesticide production. Most have heard of the product roundup, which is absolutely HORRIBLE for the environment,. Monsanto actually produces GMO that are "roundup ready", as they say.

And for those of you who don't know, high fructose corn syrup is always made of genetically modified corn. Think twice next time you drink that can of coke- its toxic.

[jvarga]

So are you against current methods of genetic modification or just what monsanto is up to? Seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you are against a technique because of one companies implementation. The same argument could be made for any technological innovation, from the automobile to the internet.

[leduck]

growth is the root of all evil
rising population is a serious problem
even resource depletion is merely a symptom of growth
peak oil, a symptom of growth
water scarcity and starvation are also symptoms....

as a population grows, more and more people are forced to farm marginal land. sometimes this marginal land may experience a drought, leading to famine. Lack of food and water always lead to ugly fights. The right to eat in many third world countries trumps freedoms. When people are hungry, freedom doesn't matter.

Using genetically modified foods to end world hunger, is like trying to use a bandaid to try to patch a severed leg. in the long run, it will only make a marginal difference at most.

I'm all ready surounded by supermarkets that sell mostly processed junk the leads to degenerative deseases..., that's not enough? now i have to deal with frankenfoods?

[jvarga]

Keep in mind that the crops we grow now bear little to no resemblance to what they actually looked like in nature prior to domestication, so we've been genetically modifying them since the dawn of civilization.

[leduck]

that's true
but how much modification are willing to do?
we didn't evolve on the stuff we eat now
and it's far worse then what anyone else in the world eats

[Whatevah]

Genetically modified food is a great idea for the same reason that compact florescent bulbs are great ideas. We also need to reduce population, protect habitat, and do a lot of other things.

In general, genetically modified crops are more environmentally sound than regular crops. It's part of the answer, not part of the problem.

[TimmySlagle]

"We also need to reduce population"

You first!

[JScott]

Oh please it's time for some outta the box thinking, quit trying to accomodate even more humans on the planet and instead DO MORE to reduce population growth. We have to get over this corporate mindset that we must have more humans consuming even more goods. BTW the pic looks like it's from the D-movie Plan 9 from Outer Space,

[TimmySlagle]

"We have to get over this corporate mindset that we must have more humans"

That isn't a corporate mindset, it's a humanist mindset.

I LIKE humans, what's your problem?

[Semaj51]

The answer may be as simple as:

If your stomach is full, you have the advange to worry about genetically-modified food.

If your stomachis empty, you have no option other than to seek means of producing more food.