|
 Responding to the scientific debate, Alison Van Eenennaamat
states that while some doubt that GE crops have benefitted farmers
or the environment, there are measurable benefits such as a 100
billion dollar increase in “crop production” . . . a decrease in use
of pesticides, a reduction in emissions of CO2, a decrease in land
use of 123 million hectares from 1996-2012, and a reduction in
poverty for over “16.5 million small farmers and their families.”
Additionally, a recent report from the National Research Council of
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences defends biotechnology,
concluding, “U.S. farmers growing biotech crops . . . are realizing
substantial economic and environmental benefits —lower production
costs, fewer pest problems, reduced pesticide use, and better yields
— compared with conventional crops."
Agricultural studies in numerous countries conclude that genetically
engineered seeds increase crop yields, according to Barrows, Sexton,
and Zilberman. They also note that agricultural biotechnology can
potentially increase per hectare yields, thus boosting supply and
preserving lands, “The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology.”
 These seeds also go through testing and research before being
approved. The National Corn Growers Association stated in their
recent update: GM
seeds take an average of 13 years to bring to market because of
extensive research as well as regulatory approvals conducted by the
USDA, EPA and FDA, and dozens of other regulatory agencies around
the world. Scientific authorities such as the U.S. National
Academies of Science, the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization, the World Health Organization, the American Medical
Association and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science have looked at hundreds of scientific studies and have
concluded that foods with biotech-derived ingredients do not pose
any more risks to people than any other foods GMO
doubters often have concerns about the effect on the environment and
safety of food. As M. Buiatti , P. Christou, and G. Pastore note,
“Despite the potential benefits of the application of genetic
engineering in agriculture in order to improve the quality and the
reliability of the food supply, since the beginning, public and
scientific concerns have been raised in many parts of the world
about environmental and food safety of GM crops.”
Some still argue that there are many unknowns concerning
“potentially adverse impacts on the environment and human health”
and feel that more research and utilization are needed. Buiati notes
that concerns have been raised over “the capability of a GMO to
escape . . .and therefore potentially to transfer engineered genes
into wild populations” Christou counters this argument, stating,
“Gene flow does occur between GM crops and related weeds and wild
species, but the consequences of this process are exaggerated.” He
also notes GM crops are currently submitted for risk assessment on a
case-by-case basis using science-based risk assessment procedures,
and acknowledging, “we cannot expect zero risk.”
Others focus concern on the possibility of a transfer of allergens
into the new foods, . . [and] the mixing of GM crops with those
derived from conventional seeds, that could have an indirect effect
on food safety and food security. However, as Goodman et al. (2008)
noted, “Regulators have sought to prevent the intentional or
accidental transfer of genes encoding major allergens into food
crops in which they were previously absent” (cited in Buiati et al.)
[to top of second column] |
Barrows, Sexton, and Zilberman argue that in spite of environmental
risks posed by agricultural biotechnology, theory and empirical
evidence suggest genetically engineered crops deliver environmental
benefits, saving land and agrochemicals and maintaining, rather than
diminishing, agricultural biodiversity.
Considering acceptance or rejection of GMOs and biotechnology,
Minnesota farmer Kristy Swenson gave a values-oriented summary:
“with . . . the vast
amount of information available, it is so hard to sort out . . .
what’s twisted from what’s true. What one person finds credible may
not be a credible source for someone else. I encourage you to seek
out sources of information that provide facts rather than
perpetuating myths, to have respectful conversations with people who
work with biotechnology, and to think critically about what you
find.”
References
Barrows, Geoffrey, Steven Sexton, and David Zilberman. 2014.
"Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of
Genetically Modified Crops." Journal of Economic Perspectives,
28(1): 99-120.
Buiatti, M., Christou, P., Pastore, G. “The application of GMOs in
agriculture and in food production for a better nutrition: two
different scientific points of view Genes Nutrition. (2013)
8:255–270
CommonGround
Volunteer Shares GMO Insight
National Corn Grower’s Association.
“Biotechnology: GMO Labeling”
National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
2010. "The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm
Sustainability in the United States”
Suggested century
Spiertz, Huub. Food production, crops and sustainability: restoring
confidence in science and technology
|
