The most profound innovation to come to many crops in the last generation -- and one of the most widespread -- is genetic engineering. The cultivation of corn and soy today is so scientifically and technologically advanced it would be unrecognizable to a farmer just 40 years ago.
Eighty percent of the 86 million acres of corn planted in the United States today -- as well as 92 percent of the soy, and a good deal of the squash, tomatoes, potatoes, canola and a host of other crops -- comes from genetically engineered, or "GE," seed. Yet despite these crops' ubiquity, 60 percent of Americans don't even know they're eating GE foods.
Even before GE crops were introduced in 1996, debate raged among scientists, farmers, environmentalists and public health officials and academics regarding their safety, with pro and con sides finding little common ground.
"There's now overwhelming evidence that GE foods are unsafe and should never have been introduced," says Jeffrey M. Smith, author of self-published books purporting to show just that.
"Foods derived from biotechnology have been eaten by billions of people without a single documented health problem," counters Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, Executive Vice President for Food and Agriculture of BIO, the lobbying arm of the biotech industry.
It's difficult to find a scientist knowledgeable on the topic who doesn't have financial ties to the biotechnology industry, and it's equally challenging to find an opponent of GE who seems capable of recognizing its potential and doesn't object to the technology per se.
So what's the deal? First, some background:
GE seed contains a gene from a different organism in its DNA, giving the plant it produces desirable traits. Although the biotechnology industry has long promised nutrient-rich and drought- and frost-resistant crops to alleviate hunger and malnutrition among the world's poor (any day now, we're told), the overwhelming majority of GE seed today is modified to tolerate certain pesticides and herbicides -- which in many cases are made by the same companies selling the patented seeds. For instance, St. Louis-based agrochemical giant Monsanto makes Roundup Ready® soy, which is resistant to a pesticide Monsanto sells, enabling farmers to virtually drown their crop in the synthetic chemical. The result is that Roundup® is the most popular agricultural pesticide in the Unites States.
Claims by manufacturers that this makes farming more economical and better for the environment by reducing both the amount of work that goes into the crop, and how much farmers have to spray, are supported by august bodies of science, though some studies place doubt on those findings.
Smith's anti-GMO claim is contradicted by the National Academy of Sciences in the Unites States as well as the UK's leading academy of medical science, the Royal Society of Medicine.
Lauritsen's claim, however, is unsupportable because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Proving safety would require a massive, longitudinal epidemiological study with a control group that has never been exposed to GE foods, which may be well-nigh impossible given that the GE toothpaste is out of the tube: GE seeds migrate into fields of non-GE varieties, so they are virtually impossible to avoid.
Which makes the possible hazards to human health and the environment from GE foods disturbing to some. Alteration of the DNA of GE foods carries the potential to turn them toxic or cause allergic reactions, and their use may actually have led to an increase of spraying of harmful chemicals into the environment.
European nations have even banned GE foods in response to public outcry.
Who is responsible for ensuring that agricultural products are safe for human consumption and the environment?
Should the government commission independent scientific analysis to ensure safety of GE crops to human health and the environment? Should companies be trusted to make their products safe, suffering civil damages if they're later proven otherwise? Or should consumers be left to fend for themselves?
GE crops in the United States are approved for use by either the Agriculture Department, the EPA, or the FDA, each with its own process.
Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, says the government needs "to improve the regulatory system, which is a rubber stamp designed to enhance public confidence without ensuring safety."
BIO's Lauritsen, meanwhile, "supports the current U.S. regulatory framework," saying "biotech crops go through extensive testing and review."
But Gregory Jaffe, a lawyer who is director of biotechnology projects at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says "that's misleading. The FDA has a voluntary consultation process, which I think is inadequate." (We've seen what self-regulation has done to financial markets and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.) The USDA, Jaffe says, does "a fairly good job of ensuring it doesn't have an impact on agricultural interests, but the process to [minimize] environmental impact is inadequate." Jaffe rates the EPA tops at ensuring against food safety risk of the crops it oversees, which includes all that corn.
Bottom line (keeping in mind that I am neither doctor nor scientist):
For the small percentage of the population that's extremely food-sensitive or has severe allergies, it's probably best to avoid GE foods when possible. That means buying organic anything containing corn, soy, or canola (check your labels -- you'll be surprised to find how many food products this includes).
If you care about family farms, personal liberties, or the environment, you should also buy organic -- organic certification means no GE -- wherever practical. Monsanto has used some rough tactics on small farmers that don't toe its company line, and the organic farmers threatened by GE varieties blowing into their fields, or being carried there by birds, tend not to be part of Big Ag. They also support crop diversity and petrochemical-free farming by planting varieties farmers have been using for centuries (and not patented by giant corporations), and by keeping chemical formulations and harmful nitrogen-based fertilizers out of the groundwater and agricultural runoff.
No matter who you are, you should support legitimate scientific review of new biotech crops coming to market; all three regulating agencies have periods of public comment before they OK a new GE crop, and Congress has the authority to change the way GMOs are OK'd by the government.
Finally, if you want to keep your head from spinning, make this the last article you read about genetically engineered foods for awhile.
Follow Paul Tullis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ptullis
For those who think we have a food shortage, take a look at the mountains of food wastage. We need to be wiser, braver and more sensible about food consumption and the environment that sustains us.
http://www.votingbloc.org/Food_Bloc.php
However in terms of economics I'm absolutely against it because of GMO patents. Whatever advantage there was in a GMO crop is out after a few generations when nature finds a way around it. But the patents are damaging to farmers that are forced to buy seed year after year instead of saving seed. GMO patents should be illegal and only publically supported GMO crops should even be considered.
1. Those of us with GM concerns will continue to eat organic foods, betting that GM is in fact toxic. In particular, we will take great care not to provide children access to GM crap until they are past their reproductive years.
2. Those without GM concerns will continue to eat that crap throughout their lives.
3. If some of the GM rat/hamster studies are indeed correct, the GMers will no longer be able to reproduce after about three generations, due to sterility and infertility issues. Therefore, their genetic line will cease to exist, and the organics will win by default - they will be the only ones left standing. Or not - we'll see. This could be a great solution to starvation, since it will certainly reduce the population to sustainable levels.
Be patient. It really does not matter what anyone opines today. Nature, not humans, holds all the cards. Place your bets with care. The existence of your great-grandchildren may depend upon it. One example of a non-GM eating plan designed by nature, not the food industry, can be found in “The Wellness Project.”
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
A research organization
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/docs/145.pdf
Of course, it is a personal choice, actually a crap-shoot, as to whether one considers these studies of sufficient concern to present or future health.
http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/gmo.html
Also, it's very ironic that you organic fans eat food laced with pesticides more hazardous than Roundup. I find that hilarious. Copper Sulfate (a fungicide used on organic farms) is in fact more hazardous than the herbicide roundup. Roundup breaks down quickly as any 10 year old farm kid can tell you.
And what about Copper Sulfate? Do you think that copper breaks down fast? hahahahaha.
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/resourceguide/mfs/06copper.php
Reproductive effects: Copper sulfate has been shown to cause reproductive effects in test animals
Effects on aquatic organisms: Copper sulfate is highly toxic to fish. Even at recommended rates of application, this material may be poisonous to trout and other fish, especially in soft or acid waters
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/resourceguide/mfs/06copper.php
Nice stuff, huh?? ;-)
My concern with GMOs in food is not with Roundup, it is with the food itself. See my other post for a link to animal studies.
Copper sulfate, mixed with lime, has been used as a fungicide since the 19th century, so it certainly passes the multi-generational test. Excess use kills the plant itself, so its application is self-limiting .
It would appear that you are placing your bets on GM foods. I wish you the best of health.
how many scientists are funded to study the downstreams of gmo in ecology, in human body and brain
one study found a high correlation between incidences of allergy etc and increase in gmo in supermarkets
http://biointegrity.org/
http://istpp.org/bio/fagan.html
http://www.archive.org/details/JohnFaganSpeachAt2ndMediterraneanConferenceOnOrganicAgriculture
http://www.purefood.org/
http://www.purefood.org/Organic/farmersfight081701.cfm
http://www.panna.org/
http://www.bangmfood.org/
Among a few other places, Mr. Tullis is way off there. Those that know the true history of GE crops probably know where I'm going with this.
Meet Norman Borlaug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug). AKA, the father of genetically modified food. The number of medals, honors, prizes, etc., that he has been given is mind blowing. Besides the Nobel Prize, in 1977 he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom and in 2006 Congress passed and Bush signed into law the Congressional Tribute to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug Act of 2006. The act bestowed upon Borlaug the Congressional Gold Medal. Those two metals are the highest awards that can be given to a civilian. In a nutshell, he won the medals for saving more lives than anybody, ever.
Labs that work on GE crops (or GMOs, or whatever label you choose to use) should have marquees on them that say "Billions and Billions Saved." Well, at least one billion and counting.
Fanned.
Yes..let's use corn that gives 30 bu/acre even as recent as 1900 instead of modern ag methods at 170 bu/acre. That will sure feed the world. Come on.. The author obviously has never done a day of farmwork..ever.
Oh pleaz.....what the heck is "petrochemical free farming"? Organic farmers are very heavy users of tractors and fuel. Many GM soybean farmers do not plow, disc, drag nor cultivate anymore. For no-till GM soybeans it's spray-plant-spray-harvest. For non GM soybeans it's plow-disc-drag-plant-drag again-cultivate-cultivate-cultivate-hand weed if needed-and then harvest. Can any antiGMer do the math on tractor fuel use here?
Articles such as this are laughable to farmers. Most farmers support GM use very strongly. Even the Amish now use GM
please please view this interview of Amish:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7742471.stm
That's how backwards HPost is about GM.
And Jeff Smith is your guide? he is a guy with no science background and thinks he can levitate with yogic flying. Please go ahead and keep referencing him.
http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-individuals/jeffrey-smith/
The amount of corn we produce has little to do with feeding the world. Most corn is fed to livestock; we could afford a lower bushel-per-acre output if we weren't directly and indirectly subsidizing the consumption of meat, a leading cause of the #1 killer in the US (which is a tremendous drain on health care resources). A lot of it also goes to ethanol production. Very, very little corn produced in the US is eaten by humans.
And it should have been clear that the reference to petrochemicals is in the context of soil and groundwater pollution, not greenhouse gas emissions. In any case, judging by the farming operations I've witnessed living in Illinois, Indiana and upstate New York, I'd be very surprised if organic farmers are using more fuel than Big Ag, with their enormous harvesters and what-not. But it's an interesting point, and worth looking in to.
Your statement that "little corn produced in the US is eaten by humans" is ridiculous. Maybe not 100%, but "very little" is out of the park ridiculous.
The SCIENCE of GE may, or may not, be dangerous and destructive and may, or may not, be helpful and benign. The BUSINESS of GE IS destructive and dangerous and IS NOT helpful or benign.
Support small farmers who grow food, not agri-businesses that produce commodities using slave labour.