Agricultural Biotechnology: Scourge or Savior?

With the battles over genetically engineered (GE) crops quieting down, at least temporarily, it's a good time to take stock of a technology that has been portrayed as either the scourge or savior of the world's food supply.

Genetic engineering has been used almost exclusively to make corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets resistant to herbicides or to make them produce their own insecticide. Both advances offer real benefits to farmers by increasing yields or farm income. (Yes, organic farming would be better, but it won't replace conventional farming any time soon.)

Don't bother looking for consumer benefits, though. The current biotech crops have not made any foods more nutritious, tastier, or cheaper. The nutritionally improved crops closest to market: a novel soybean with omega-3 fats, which may help prevent heart attacks, and a soybean whose oil could replace oils that contain trans fats. But both are still a few years away.

On the other hand, the engineered crops currently being grown are safe and cause less
environmental damage than their conventional cousins. Some GE crops allow farmers to use fewer chemical pesticides. Others support no-till farming, which protects topsoil and reduces agricultural runoff into rivers and streams.

Meanwhile, in developing nations with millions of poor subsistence farmers, GE crops are proving highly popular. Farmers in India and China who are growing cotton engineered to produce the Bt pesticide benefit because they can use fewer chemical pesticides and enjoy sharply increased yields. That translates into fewer pesticide poisonings and higher income. In India, cotton production doubled between 2002 and 2007. (Critics charge that failed harvests of Bt cotton in India have led to farmer suicides, but independent researchers have found no link.)

Consumer benefits probably will come sooner overseas than in the United States.
India soon could market two dietary mainstays from genetically engineered crops: water-conserving mustard and insect-resistant eggplant. And China is becoming a powerhouse with its own biotech crops, which won't bear the Monsanto or DuPont logo.

The Gates Foundation is funding projects to boost nutrients in sorghum and cassava, two staple African crops. And, with the Rockefeller Foundation's help, Golden Rice may soon move from the lab to fields in Southeast Asia. That long-awaited variety produces betacarotene, which can prevent vitamin A deficiency and blindness.

What about future genetically engineered crops (and animals)? Congress should require
the Food and Drug Administration to formally approve new GE foods to ensure that they
are safe for humans. With stronger, but not stifling, regulations, consumers should be able to continue to trust the safety of GE foods.

 

Comments

[Lesscancer]

The Green Page here on the Huffington Post
Could be the place to educate the public for reducing risk to the environment and human health-
This piece certainly dashes that hope-

Bill Couzens, Founder Less Cancer

[lff]

Are you speaking religiously or scientifically? Environment risks to human health are not "revealed truths" they are far from settled scientific issues. Statistics certainly do not seem to support the view that mankind's exploitation of the environment since the industrial revolution has caused a serious decline in human health. Quite to the contrary. The last century saw the greatest increase in longevity and standard of public health in the history of mankind. In specific cases cancer has been linked to exposure to certain specific chemicals and products (both natural and synthetic, mesothelioma and asbestos, tobacco products) but general environmental factors would not seem to play a role given the decrease in cancer rates (age adjusted). Nutritional issues play a much larger role. Diets rich in fresh fruits and vegetables - conventional or organic - are the healtiest overall.

lff

[OnestaOrganics]

I couldn't believe M. Jacobson's GE-embracing view when I first read his article in his Nutrition Action newsletter. I am quite disappointed in his view, I must say, I'd have expected a more critical perspective from him.

You don't improve nutritional benefits of food if you insert foreign genes of unknown effects on the consumer and of known negative effects on the environment. Isn't the more logical and more appropriate approach to better health and nutrition to preserve biodiversity and to try to detoxify all systems (air, water, soil, bodies, food systems, ...)? This way, food and its consumers wouldn't keep run out of nutrients, and a variety of food sources which can better adapt to environmental changes than presumably any 'nutritionally improved' GE super rice variety or whatever other GE-food.

If we continue to poison everything and use technologies we don't (or rather, don't want to and aren't allowed to*) understand, we can insert 1000s of genes into everything and we'll still get unhealthier. And why would we not go a step further and genetically engineer humans so they make nutrients they are deficient in, wouldn't that solve a lot of health problems too? I wonder if M. Jacobs is eating his daily GE foods?

* The previous DiscoveryMagazine ran an article that explained why we don't hear research-based facts about the effect of GE-foods on health. Apparently, the agrictech companies keep tight control on what is and what isn't publishable about their products.

[lff]

Gosh! I would really like to see posters state that they have a conflict of interest whenever they post something favorable to their bottom line (marketing more than commentary) here. It is a real pain to keep checking the bios (hopefully, full disclosure of business interests in bios is the norm.)

Your business interests leads me to pretty much disregard your comments. Thanks for the honesty in your bio though.

lff

[noneIn2008]

Are you pitching for contributions again? I only hear from you when you have a crisis that can benefit from our "contributions".

[JasonMNan]

I have to agree with drkazmd65. My only concern has always been insering BT in plants. Although this might give them an initial ecological leg up invading fields (in particular canola) it wouldn´t take long for pests to develop resistance to it, rendering BT toxins less effective (although it is likely that BT has a variety of toxins it is a rather dumb idea to give them a leg up. Frost/drought resistance, improved nutritional qualities or inbuilt viral resistance are obvious improvements.

[BannedNBoston]

"""Genetically engineered Papaya (for a virus resistance) is one of the better stories."""
I dont beive it I dont want to eat them either.

[drkazmd65]

Then, don't eat em,..... all that many more for me.

Seems a simple enough choice.

[BannedNBoston]

Soy oil contains estrogen.
Soy is the #2 food allergy after cows milk.
Soy uses too much fertlizers and pesticides.
The estrogen causes fish to deformed downstream from soy feilds.

Hemp Seed Oil: Superior Omega-3 and Omega-6 supplement Skin care and Hemp seed oil; omega-3 and omega-6 oils are helpful in improving skin health, including inflammatory conditions ...
www.intensivenutrition.com/hempoil.htm

[drkazmd65]

Excellent point BannedN,... if they would only allow widespread production of industrial hemp we wouldn't need to re-engineer soybean to make Omega-3 oils. Not to mention the industrial fiber & biodiesel uses for that crop, and the fact that it can be grown on relatively marginal land.

My wife has to be really careful about soy products due to her food allergies / sensitivities. She has substituted Hemp milk & hemp seeds into her diet during the last year and her food sensitivity issues have decreased dramatically.

[JScott]

Fine, add to that (what was strangely missing) DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMERS!!!!!!!!!!!

[Paula Crossfield - Huffpost Blogger]

The battles over GM food is not quieting down. Many scientists have warned about them for years, and I would argue people are more aware than ever and want to know what is in our food supply. Unfortunately with our government bought by these corporations, who often practice intimidation of scientists, we don't have any formal knowledge on the health affects of GMOs.

GE crops in developing nations are "highly popular" because of advertising campaigns. Flashy and new technologies seem too good to pass up, and no one is advertising intercropping, seed-saving, or soil building.

The main issue, which you don't discuss here at all, is contamination. These laboratory-created "crops" have the potential to cross-pollinate with non-modified crops, meaning future crops will contain genetic material of the lab crop -- which is held by a patent. It is then possible for a handful of corporations to own our food supply via contamination. This is reprehensible.

I can't believe this piece is at the top of the green page.

[lbrty 2112]

Paula while intercropping and seed-saving are not 'advertised', plenty of people are doing it. I'm partial to my Golden Bantam, Pumpkins and Garlic.

I do agree that unintended cross pollintation with non-modified crops needs to be addressed definitively. To protect genetic identity as well as farmers.

[lbrty 2112]

I'm no fan of monsato. In fact, I think the way they've gone after farmers because of crop contamination (see Percy Schmeiser) is perfectly disgusting.

That being said, you cannot find many (if any) vegetables or fruits, being farmed today, that have not been genetically modified. Virtually everything we eat has been a genetic cross. That is how improvement in the species happens. Even the heirloom, open pollenated, varieties of corn have been crossed to their current genetic state.

[Paula Crossfield - Huffpost Blogger]

There is a difference between breeding and shooting a seed with gene gun or using a virus to insert a gene that would never have existed in nature, like a flounder gene in a tomato or a brazil nut gene in a soybean. Breeding is a natural process; genetic engineering is not.

read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

[drkazmd65]

With all due respect,... the differences you cite are merely matters of scale and speed.

Horizontal gene transfer happens fairly regularly among bacteria (antibiotic resistance plasmids as one common example), evolutionarily often among fungi (rare interspecies crosses, and retroviral insertions), and with regularity among plants - both natural 'rare' hybridizations, and through the actions of viruses.

Doing a transformation with a gene gun, or by jiggering around with the natural ability of Agrobacterium spp. to insert genes is only qualitatively different from what nature does on it's own given enough time.

Read something other than the limited amount you can find on Wikipedia.

[RMankovitz]

To learn what the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has to say about GM foods, see:

http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

Here is their conclusion:

"Because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

Here is what the Institute for Responsible Technology has to say about GM foods:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/index.cfm

Here is a link to a Non-GMO Shopping Guide:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/144.pdf

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com

[seakat]

Was I asleep when the battles against GE crops quieted? no, don't think so.

I want to know exactly what I'm eating - something about truth in labelling... and until they start telling us what's GMO and what they have added to modify it, I will continue to eat organic as much as I can.

And weren't the farmer suicides in India blamed on GE crops that failed? That's popular?

[birdie2]

The battles against GE crops are not quieting down, they are just beginning. GE crops have not increased yield or reduced pesticides and or fertilizers (why do think it's called Roundup Ready) I think GE crops and animals should be labeled then you would find out how little consumers trust these foods.

[drkazmd65]

On this front I agree with you completely birdie2.

GE crops released to date really only improve things for the Ag companies that release them. By genetically engineering a crop to be resistant to a herbicide,... and then also making sure your company has a financial interest in production of that herbicide - the companies creat a closed market. They get you coming & going.

By making it 'easy' for the factory-scale farmers to plant a GE seed, chemically 'nuke' a field with a herbicide, and grow a uniform stand of crop - they also make it easy for the factory farmers to aviod using other best farming practices.

The Genetically nutritionally improved Sorghum & Cassava in the pipeline, the 'golden' Rice, and perhaps some of the Soybeans coming down the pipeline with Omega-3 oils actually solve (or attempt to solve) nutritional problems rather than production problems. These might be a better case for general use IF we can avoid patent limitations as to how these can be utilized outside of factory farms.

I think the long-term benefits are high for GE - as long as the GE crop has a well thought out purpose.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/feb06/aaas.gonsalves.papaya.sd.html
Genetically engineered Papaya (for a virus resistance) is one of the better stories.