Genetically modified foods: good news, bad news
The National Research Council has a new study out evaluating the benefits of GM (Genetically Modified) foods: Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. The blurb about the book gives the good and bad news (which is which depends on how you interpret it):
Since genetically engineered (GE) crops were introduced in 1996, their use in the United States has grown rapidly, accounting for 80-90 percent of soybean, corn, and cotton acreage in 2009. To date, crops with traits that provide resistance to some herbicides and to specific insect pests have benefited adopting farmers by reducing crop losses to insect damage, by increasing flexibility in time management, and by facilitating the use of more environmentally friendly pesticides and tillage practices.
But then it continues:
However, excessive reliance on a single technology combined with a lack of diverse farming practices could undermine the economic and environmental gains from these GE crops.
I haven’t had a chance to read the book yet but I most certainly will. I am curious to know how the report defines “sustainability” in relation to GM food crops. In the meantime, the New York Times has weighed in on some clearly unsustainable aspects of this technology:
Use of Roundup, or its generic equivalent, glyphosate, has skyrocketed to the point that weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to the chemical. That is rendering the technology less useful, requiring farmers to start using additional herbicides, some of them more toxic than glyphosate…Shares of Monsanto [the manufacturer of Roundup], which have been falling since January, slipped nearly 2 percent Tuesday to $67.75.
When the FDA first approved GM food crops for planting in 1994, critics warned that overuse of Roundup would eventually promote the growth and proliferation of plants resistant to this chemical. Well, yes.
As for the scope of planting, we have Louis Umerlik to thank for creating these nifty maps of use of GM crops in the U.S. Start with this one (it gives references to sources of the information). Then look at his maps of soybean, corn, and cotton plantings. Enjoy (or not).
Leave a comment
Follow Marion
Next public appearance
New York: NGO Working Group on Food and Hunger, U.N.
Policy lunch talk in the series “the future of global food policy,” UN church Centre, 777 UN Plaza @44th St and 1st Ave, 1:00-2:45.
Comments
This is overwhelming… it’s amazing we’re able to find non-GMO options at all!
GM food crops damage the environment, decrease crop diversity, and who knows what they do to our bodies. We need to move the country towards the direction of organics because what good are pesticides doing if the insects are becoming immune anyways. While we could put money towards creating new chemicals and herbicides, why not put the money towards finding a sustainable way to make organic farming mainstream?
Molecular plant breeding has not been applied to many crops in the U.S. because the regulatory cost of approval for such a crop often exceeds the value of the entire market for that crop. I think the monocrop issue would be solved by lowering the regulatory costs, so that the technology can be applied to crops that have smaller market sizes than corn and soy.
Many consumers in the US mistakenly believe that the FDA approves genetically modified foods through rigorous, in-depth, long-term studies.
In reality, the agency has absolutely no safety testing requirements. Instead the agency relies on research from companies like Monsanto, research that is meticulously designed to avoid finding problems and covers up the dangers of genetically modified foods.
The overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that GM foods could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. The FDA scientists who had urged superiors to require long-term studies were ignored.
GM crops are designed to increase the profits of the big food corporations – period. These people don’t really care about solving the world’s food shortages unless it means big profits.
Barack Obama is unfortunately turning out to be just as pro-GMO as the preceding Bush and Clinton administrations, filling the USDA and other government bureaucracies with Monsanto supporters.
http://www.antioxidants-for-health-and-longevity.com/are-genetically-modified-foods-safe.html
Something is seriously wrong when allow for profit businesses to own patents to the bottom run of the food pyramid and then help them put farmers out of businesses who don’t have rights to grow the crops they want and we need.
Moreover, being able to grow food faster is good to a point, but the faster growth comes at the expense of fewer nutrients per gram of plant. It might fill you up, but the body won’t have all the building blocks it needs to continually repair itself. No wait, I forgot we have pills for that made by another guy.
edSanDiego – you got that right. The government subsidizes processed food which makes corporations rich and causes degenerative diseases, then the “healthcare” industry sells you pills that claim to cure the disease. What a racket!
What enrages me most about GMOs–more than the possibility that they are unsafe or that they are “greenwashed” as a sustainable crop– is their threat to world food sovereignty. GMO-based agriculture is another example of corporate take-over. As Stan said above, GMO agribiz is only interested in earning huge profits–they are in no way interested in solving world food insecurity or malnutrition issues (and much of this is based on the poor distribution of food and geopolitical problems, which always seem to be the elephant in the room…). Seeds controlled by corporations, instead of by localized seed banks and farmers, should not be tolerated here or in any other country.
It’s interesting to see the comments but no links to any REAL research listed. Real research are peer reviewed articles in a published journal. Everything else is just hyperbole. Yes, companies are in it for a profit, period. They don’t give a damn about feeding the hungry, except to give away old product. But we have been altering the genetics of plants for hundreds of years with no ill effects and there have been no problems with GM food since it was released in 1994 (aside from the very regrettable cross pollination issues). If you want “pure” foodstuffs, grow your own like I do.
In many people’s views Monsanto is a criminal organization.
[...] leads to weight gain. Vegan topics of the week: 5 ways to get calcium but dairy, from Dr. Weil. Marion Nestle updates us on the Genetically Modified food issue. Is agave worse than high fructose corn syrup? [...]
I am doing research on this topic and have found meny cons about it but I don’t see the big deal. it’s just food, don,t like it do,t eat it.
I agree very overwhelming! We are a new blog working hard to grow an audience please check out our blog post on genetically engineered foods. Also you can find our home page at Organically Thought.