The Many Strands of the Debates Over GMOs
click image to enlarge
Genetically modified organisms, especially crop plants used in the production of food for human consumption, have generated quite a lot of controversy. It is important to distinguish among these controversies, however, inasmuch as criticisms of some sort may have more evidence and argument behind them than for others. Most critics adopt a broadside approach that surveys every imaginable objection. Defenders as well often respond by defending the indefensible, perhaps out of frustration in the face of opponents who will concede no possible ground to the idea that some genetic manipulation of living organisms may produce benefits for human health without harm to the environment. There are, then, many issues and it is important to assess each one separately. Here are a few of the distinct issues discussed in the entries below:
- the risks posed to human health by the consumption of foods containing GMOs
- the risks to local ecologies by the introduction of non-native GMO plants, especially on a large scale
- the specific environmental risks associated with particular types of GMOs such as built-in herbicide resistance coupled with widespread use of herbicides
- the role of GMO crops in vertical and horizontal market integration and the creation of monopolies and monopsonies
- the potential threat to biodiversity posed by a small number of commercial seeds for staple crops that crowd out the production and perpetuation of other species (that one day may be especially valuable in the face of a monoculture pest)
- the exaggerated negative impact of agribusiness on the livelihood of peasant farmers in developing nations
- the potential negative impact of some GMO crops and their associated production processes on the health of agricultural workers and their families
- the inadequacy of legal and biosafety protections in countries where biotech crops are introduced without adequate regulatory schemes and well-functioning institutions
- the potential for asymmetric control over the lives and fortunes of farmers and consumers who increasingly lack options to produce and market crops grown without GMOS
- the issue of adequate labeling and consumer information with regard to food products containing GMOs
- the impediments to research and development of valuable foods and pharmaceuticals posed by patent schemes that disproportionately favor powerful economic interests and market incentives over public health and food security interests
- worries about what some see as inherently wrong about "playing god"
- concerns about the lack of regulatory oversight in the production and dissemination of human-made biological products for which the long term consequences are unstudied
- the lack of adequate physical separation between GM crops and other species and the risk of unintended and undesirable gene flow
- the extent to which more GMO research and ownership should be vested in the hands of public entities, or at least removed from exclusive control by private, for-profit entities
|
"The World According to Monsanto"
This film is a critical documentary discussing the ownership, distribution, and economic and environmental consequences of GMO seeds. Its portrait of the entire industry, as many of its staunchest critics see it, is shown through the lens that examines one of the largest GMO patent holders. And it covers in broad strokes a bit of perhaps all of the issues listed above.
Note: the You tube video is no longer available, but you can get it here (and a lot more documentaries that are not easy to find!) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/ |
Seeds for the Future: The Impact of Genetically Modified Crops on the Environment
click image for link
This book by Jennifer A. Thomson, a well-regarded microbiologist, investigates the current evidence and future threats regarding the environmental impact of all types of GM crops. This work expands upon her earlier book Genes for Africa, in which she defends GM technology as an invaluable tool in the ongoing fight to combat hunger, disease, and underdevelopment throughout the continent.
The first chapter of Seeds for the Future summarizes this argument within the context of her subsequent environmental research. The next several chapters examine the history of GM crops through a variety of thematic concentrations: insect-resistant crops, herbicide-tolerant crops, virus-resistant crops, and drought-tolerant crops. Thomson divides each of these concentrations into sub-categories that include important crop-specific and regional case studies. From there, the book begins to treat broader environmental issues such as pollen spread, gene flow, horizontal gene transfer, and other potential effects on biodiversity.
The penultimate chapter focuses necessarily on regulatory, trade, and legal issues related to biosafety. Finally, Thomson concludes her work with a "future watch" in which she details some of the more likely technological innovation of the near future.
This is a fascinating, comprehensive book about the latest research on the environmental impacts of GM crops. It is important to note that Thomson structures her work around two key dichotomies: (1) GM crops versus non-GM crops, and (2) the developed world versus the developing world. Each pair represents a crucial, new lens through which to analyze the material - something that Thomson realizes more thoroughly than many of her peers.
The first chapter of Seeds for the Future summarizes this argument within the context of her subsequent environmental research. The next several chapters examine the history of GM crops through a variety of thematic concentrations: insect-resistant crops, herbicide-tolerant crops, virus-resistant crops, and drought-tolerant crops. Thomson divides each of these concentrations into sub-categories that include important crop-specific and regional case studies. From there, the book begins to treat broader environmental issues such as pollen spread, gene flow, horizontal gene transfer, and other potential effects on biodiversity.
The penultimate chapter focuses necessarily on regulatory, trade, and legal issues related to biosafety. Finally, Thomson concludes her work with a "future watch" in which she details some of the more likely technological innovation of the near future.
This is a fascinating, comprehensive book about the latest research on the environmental impacts of GM crops. It is important to note that Thomson structures her work around two key dichotomies: (1) GM crops versus non-GM crops, and (2) the developed world versus the developing world. Each pair represents a crucial, new lens through which to analyze the material - something that Thomson realizes more thoroughly than many of her peers.
The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: A Follow-up Discussion Paper
click image for link
This discussion paper by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a follow-up to its earlier report on ethical and social issues related to GM crops, in which the Nuffield Council concluded that this technology should be made available to people in developing countries who want them. Building upon this foundation, the more recent paper seeks to address the debate over GM crops in its political, economic, cultural, and historical contexts. In practice, this means connecting the GM debate from its roots in the failings of the Green Revolution to its ongoing politicization in European and global politics, which encourages people to consider GM technology in the abstract when it would be more appropriate to compare its potential impact with that of alternative approaches. The evidence used to support these connections leads the Nuffield Council to consistently emphasize that an embargo
of any new technology driven by fear rather than by facts would be both unnecessary
and inappropriate.
In addition to the historical and political overview, this discussion paper covers a range of pressing issues in great detail, including the impact of European regulations, the role of food aid, intellectual property rights and liability issues, developing world governance, and environmental considerations such as gene flow and threats to biodiversity. It is one of the most comprehensive, well-researched papers available to the general public in this field.
Building off of its 1999 Report, the Council concludes that, “there is a moral imperative to make GM crops readily and economically available to people in developing countries who want them” in order to strengthen their respective agricultural sectors and improve global food security. The report notes that Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South and Central Asia saw few initial gains from Green Revolution technologies, and food security and poverty have continued to increase due primarily to subsequent water shortages, soil depletion, and the emergence of new pests and diseases. The conclusion is that the most pervasive, sustainable solution continues to be the improvement of small farm productivity, for which GM technology may play a pivotal role. However, this does not mean that either GM or small farm productivity gains alone are sufficient. They note that other approaches that should continue wherever possible include the "redistribution of surpluses, land reform programs, and food aid programs, although these often pose “serious practical and political challenges” (xiii).
One of the main conclusions from a study that examines a large variety of GMOs in diverse ecological settings is that “possible costs, benefits, and risks associated with particular GM crops can be assessed only on a case by case basis” (xiv). The Report also criticizes the European reliance upon a risk-averse precautionary principle approach, and it argues that because most current privately-funded research on GM crops serves the interests of large-scale developed world farmers, there must be “a major expansion of public GM-related research into tropical and sub-tropical staple foods, suitable for the needs of small-scale farmers in developing countries” (xvi-xvii).
It is important to note that the Council is not endorsing the current intellectual property regime and market concentration that has in fact been the most important social consequence of GM technology thus far. They argue that the availability of suitable seeds (whether GM or non-GM) must be maintained through (1) support for the public sector and (2) policies that keep the private supply of seeds reasonably competitive. These are important caveats easy to miss in a lengthy report bristling with anti-European sentiment.
In addition to the historical and political overview, this discussion paper covers a range of pressing issues in great detail, including the impact of European regulations, the role of food aid, intellectual property rights and liability issues, developing world governance, and environmental considerations such as gene flow and threats to biodiversity. It is one of the most comprehensive, well-researched papers available to the general public in this field.
Building off of its 1999 Report, the Council concludes that, “there is a moral imperative to make GM crops readily and economically available to people in developing countries who want them” in order to strengthen their respective agricultural sectors and improve global food security. The report notes that Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South and Central Asia saw few initial gains from Green Revolution technologies, and food security and poverty have continued to increase due primarily to subsequent water shortages, soil depletion, and the emergence of new pests and diseases. The conclusion is that the most pervasive, sustainable solution continues to be the improvement of small farm productivity, for which GM technology may play a pivotal role. However, this does not mean that either GM or small farm productivity gains alone are sufficient. They note that other approaches that should continue wherever possible include the "redistribution of surpluses, land reform programs, and food aid programs, although these often pose “serious practical and political challenges” (xiii).
One of the main conclusions from a study that examines a large variety of GMOs in diverse ecological settings is that “possible costs, benefits, and risks associated with particular GM crops can be assessed only on a case by case basis” (xiv). The Report also criticizes the European reliance upon a risk-averse precautionary principle approach, and it argues that because most current privately-funded research on GM crops serves the interests of large-scale developed world farmers, there must be “a major expansion of public GM-related research into tropical and sub-tropical staple foods, suitable for the needs of small-scale farmers in developing countries” (xvi-xvii).
It is important to note that the Council is not endorsing the current intellectual property regime and market concentration that has in fact been the most important social consequence of GM technology thus far. They argue that the availability of suitable seeds (whether GM or non-GM) must be maintained through (1) support for the public sector and (2) policies that keep the private supply of seeds reasonably competitive. These are important caveats easy to miss in a lengthy report bristling with anti-European sentiment.
The Future of Food: GMOs as the Cause of Market Consolidation and Loss of Crop Genetic Diversity
The 2005 documentary, The Future of Food, occupies a special niche among the various food documentaries produced during the last decade. Its focus is on the linkage between the market proliferation of GMOs, leading to vertical consolidation in agriculture, which in turn, leads to loss of genetic diversity, and in turn the potential for increased food insecurity and diminished consumer choices.
The film begins by reminding viewers of historical instances of food crises precipitated by farming practices that relied upon a narrow genetic base for crop production and as a result, suffered when insects or disease decimated monocultures. What then is the linkage between GMOs and loss of genetic diversity?
The patenting of GMO crops and subsequent legal decisions has allowed owners of patented seeds to enforce their patents aggressively, in many jurisdictions, holding landowners legally liable for inadvertent (e.g., cross-pollination, wind-blown seeds) contamination of existing seed stocks. But why would large corporations act pursue such aggressive legal strategies when the economic value in each instance is often quite insubstantial. Some of the interviewees in the film speculate that the underlying business model is one designed to eliminate competition in the seed markt by forcing farmers to destroy their own, now contaminated seed stocks, and thus leave farmers with few market options but to buy their GMO seeds for staple crops.
The consequence is increased market concentration in seeds. But the market concentration does not end there. Seed companies are now chemical/pharmaceutical companies that own seeds that are genetically modified to make them resistant to the herbicides and insecticides that the companies also own. In the case of Bt corn, for example, is registered for patent purposes as an insecticide. So in addition to horizontal consolidation of the seed market, the conglomerate industries control more of the inputs to farm production and this achieve vertical consolidation of more parts of the food supply chain. Market consolidation occurs as well at the other end of the food supply chain with fewer buyers controlling where farmers can sell and ultimately what they can plant, given the demands of fewer and fewer buyers for their products.
The film also provides a scientifically informed, but broadly accessible elementary discussion of the processes by which plants are genetically modified. They emphasize that these techniques are designed to modify a single gene in order to produce one trait - e.g., fungal resistance - but every gene modified affect other traits as well, which may not be known for years or may be adverse to human health or the environment. However, the film does not exploit fears but merely explains the scientific basis of theoretical risks.
The central message pertains to the role of GMOs as the economic gateway to market consolidation and the attendant risks to food security as genetic crop diversity is lost by patent-driven mechanisms for achieving market consolidation.
The film begins by reminding viewers of historical instances of food crises precipitated by farming practices that relied upon a narrow genetic base for crop production and as a result, suffered when insects or disease decimated monocultures. What then is the linkage between GMOs and loss of genetic diversity?
The patenting of GMO crops and subsequent legal decisions has allowed owners of patented seeds to enforce their patents aggressively, in many jurisdictions, holding landowners legally liable for inadvertent (e.g., cross-pollination, wind-blown seeds) contamination of existing seed stocks. But why would large corporations act pursue such aggressive legal strategies when the economic value in each instance is often quite insubstantial. Some of the interviewees in the film speculate that the underlying business model is one designed to eliminate competition in the seed markt by forcing farmers to destroy their own, now contaminated seed stocks, and thus leave farmers with few market options but to buy their GMO seeds for staple crops.
The consequence is increased market concentration in seeds. But the market concentration does not end there. Seed companies are now chemical/pharmaceutical companies that own seeds that are genetically modified to make them resistant to the herbicides and insecticides that the companies also own. In the case of Bt corn, for example, is registered for patent purposes as an insecticide. So in addition to horizontal consolidation of the seed market, the conglomerate industries control more of the inputs to farm production and this achieve vertical consolidation of more parts of the food supply chain. Market consolidation occurs as well at the other end of the food supply chain with fewer buyers controlling where farmers can sell and ultimately what they can plant, given the demands of fewer and fewer buyers for their products.
The film also provides a scientifically informed, but broadly accessible elementary discussion of the processes by which plants are genetically modified. They emphasize that these techniques are designed to modify a single gene in order to produce one trait - e.g., fungal resistance - but every gene modified affect other traits as well, which may not be known for years or may be adverse to human health or the environment. However, the film does not exploit fears but merely explains the scientific basis of theoretical risks.
The central message pertains to the role of GMOs as the economic gateway to market consolidation and the attendant risks to food security as genetic crop diversity is lost by patent-driven mechanisms for achieving market consolidation.
"Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural Organisms: The Shock of the Not-So-New"
click image for link
There are not many good sources for general information about intellectual property issues in agricultural products. There are plenty of generalized complaints against patenting nature, the economic implications that patents have for market concentration, worries about gene flow and biodiversity implications, and of course, the papers that mostly rehearse (with little current context) the short and ignominious history of the "terminator gene." These are all important issues, especially the significance of patenting for market dominance and ultimately, for biodiversity. But what is less readily available, other than in standard, laborious legal prose with next to no philosophical insight is an account of the overall features of common intellectual property regimes throughout the world.
"Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural Organisms: The Shock of the Not-So-New," a chapter by Jack Wilson in Genetically Modified Foods, pp. 149-162, (edited by Michael Ruse and David Castle) takes a comprehensive look at how intellectual property rights function in our globalized agricultural system. In particular, it highlights the various mechanisms for property protection and their respective roles in the historical context of the industry.
In a thesis of sorts that informs the analysis, the author structures his argument around the claim that: “Intellectual property protection involves the manipulation of either the plant or the farmer, and the less one manipulates the first, the more one must manipulate the second, and vice versa” (157).
The article details the six primary ways to protect intellectual property (IP) rights: plant patents, plant variety protection certificates, utility patents, trade secrets, technology use agreements, and recombinant DNA Methods. In this way, it is one of the most useful, informative articles on this subject matter, especially given its relatively short length. More on that in a moment
But for all the useful practical insight the article offers into the world of IP, the paper begins with 3 big philosophical questions
All of the the six types of IP protection are important, but two distinctions are likely to be obscured in many public discussions of plant patenting. First, plants have been given patent protection for more than 70 years in the US. The Townsend-Purnell Plant Patent Act (PPA) of 1930 only protects the actual plant and its clones. That is similar to the protection against theft accorded to tangible property insofar as it protects against unlicensed asexual reproduction. It does not protect against others creating a plant with similar characteristics in the way conventional patents on other creations prevents infringement of the underlying intellectual basis of what is created. If I can figure out how to grow a tomato with properties more or less like those in your patented tomato then I am free to do so. I am not free to figure out how Apple makes its i-pad screens function and employ the same processes to make my own screen devices.
Then there are utility patents. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the 1980 US Supreme Court decision ruled that living organisms could be patented under the utility patent statutes as “compositions of matter.” The case involved Ananda Chakrabarty’s application for a US patent in 1972 for a bacteria that could digest components of crude oil. The 5-4 majority concluded that a patent may include “anything under the sun that is made by man.” We not only open the door to patenting of humanly created simple life forms such as bacteria, but it has led to an expansive interpretation that subsequently resulted in the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals extending patent protection to multicellular plants and animals.
The article provides an overview of some current issues of social and economic significance. Here are some examples:
"Intellectual Property Rights in Agricultural Organisms: The Shock of the Not-So-New," a chapter by Jack Wilson in Genetically Modified Foods, pp. 149-162, (edited by Michael Ruse and David Castle) takes a comprehensive look at how intellectual property rights function in our globalized agricultural system. In particular, it highlights the various mechanisms for property protection and their respective roles in the historical context of the industry.
In a thesis of sorts that informs the analysis, the author structures his argument around the claim that: “Intellectual property protection involves the manipulation of either the plant or the farmer, and the less one manipulates the first, the more one must manipulate the second, and vice versa” (157).
The article details the six primary ways to protect intellectual property (IP) rights: plant patents, plant variety protection certificates, utility patents, trade secrets, technology use agreements, and recombinant DNA Methods. In this way, it is one of the most useful, informative articles on this subject matter, especially given its relatively short length. More on that in a moment
But for all the useful practical insight the article offers into the world of IP, the paper begins with 3 big philosophical questions
- “[W]ho is entitled to intellectual property protection, and for what kinds of innovations and discoveries?” (152)
- “[H]ow much and what kind of control [should] the inventor [have]?” (152)
- “[W]hat kinds of things should count as inventions?” (152)
All of the the six types of IP protection are important, but two distinctions are likely to be obscured in many public discussions of plant patenting. First, plants have been given patent protection for more than 70 years in the US. The Townsend-Purnell Plant Patent Act (PPA) of 1930 only protects the actual plant and its clones. That is similar to the protection against theft accorded to tangible property insofar as it protects against unlicensed asexual reproduction. It does not protect against others creating a plant with similar characteristics in the way conventional patents on other creations prevents infringement of the underlying intellectual basis of what is created. If I can figure out how to grow a tomato with properties more or less like those in your patented tomato then I am free to do so. I am not free to figure out how Apple makes its i-pad screens function and employ the same processes to make my own screen devices.
Then there are utility patents. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the 1980 US Supreme Court decision ruled that living organisms could be patented under the utility patent statutes as “compositions of matter.” The case involved Ananda Chakrabarty’s application for a US patent in 1972 for a bacteria that could digest components of crude oil. The 5-4 majority concluded that a patent may include “anything under the sun that is made by man.” We not only open the door to patenting of humanly created simple life forms such as bacteria, but it has led to an expansive interpretation that subsequently resulted in the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals extending patent protection to multicellular plants and animals.
The article provides an overview of some current issues of social and economic significance. Here are some examples:
- Technology Use Agreements (TUAs), a form of license to use a patented invention. With respect to agricultural plants, a TUA is “a contract specifying that farmers do not own the seed, that they just grow it under a contract and have to deliver all the grain in accordance with [the seed company’s] wishes”
- Case Study: Farmer Requirements under Monsanto’s TUA: (1) required to plant the commercial crop for only one season; (2) to not supply any of the protected seed to anyone else for planting, or to save any crop produced from the seed for replanting; (3) to not use the seed or provide it to anyone for crop-breeding or research; (4) to spray only with “Roundup” (also manufactured by Monsanto) if using a glyphosate-based herbicide
- Plant Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) – genetic transformations in a patented plant that prevent the unauthorized use of genetic traits (i.e. genes that ensure that farmers cannot replant GM crops by saving seeds); while the famous terminator gene was patented in by Monsanto in 1998, of the more than 30 patents for GURTs have been granted in the US and Europe, no corresponding seeds have been commercially released thus far.
- A host of concrete issues arising from the introduction of GM crops in the developing world
"Plants and Animals as Commodities"
A short segment of chapter 5 from Unsustainable: A Primer for Global Environmental
and Social Justice (pp. 153-161) by Patrick Hossay explores the moral and biological pitfalls of
agricultural biotechnology. At the heart of this work is the claim that multinational
corporations (MNCs) purposefully utilize GM technology to transform seeds into
“a discrete and patentable commodity” that can be used to vertically integrate and consequently monopolize the industry (153).
With this in mind, the author supports his argument by emphasizing a variety of issues, including the oppression of small farmers, the monopolization of knowledge, the suppression of public criticism by Big Agribusiness, loss of biodiversity, and other environmental concerns, as well as various health and moral issues.
Some readers are likely to react negatively to the somewhat conspiratorial tone of the writing. But it is true that the global legal battles over the control of patents in the biotech arena have been fierce and are likely to escalate over the coming years. The case studies of audacious industry efforts to overreach and outdo their competitors is quite well documented in the footnotes. Much of the documentation comes from journalistic accounts, but whatever intentions you might want to attribute to the key players, there is no doubt that there is a lot of money at stake and a lot of lawyers who will remain busy for the foreseeable future in an increasingly global conflict over patented foods and pharmaceuticals. Also clear is that whatever lines may have existed separating the business of food production, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals are erased by technological and biological imperatives that make separate business models obsolete.
Some readers are likely to react negatively to the somewhat conspiratorial tone of the writing. But it is true that the global legal battles over the control of patents in the biotech arena have been fierce and are likely to escalate over the coming years. The case studies of audacious industry efforts to overreach and outdo their competitors is quite well documented in the footnotes. Much of the documentation comes from journalistic accounts, but whatever intentions you might want to attribute to the key players, there is no doubt that there is a lot of money at stake and a lot of lawyers who will remain busy for the foreseeable future in an increasingly global conflict over patented foods and pharmaceuticals. Also clear is that whatever lines may have existed separating the business of food production, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals are erased by technological and biological imperatives that make separate business models obsolete.
"Why Africa Needs Agricultural Biotech" - Another useful chapter from Genetically Modified Foods
This article by Florence Wambugu contrasts GM technology in Europe and Africa,
particularly with regards to their respective cultural perceptions and potential
for utilization. The bulk of the article focuses on the African perspective,
concluding with a brief overview of the remaining problems faced by the
continent in this context. The chapter echoes the sentiment of the Nuffield report: “The public debate on transgenic crops in Europe is centered on fear and mistrust” (304).
Much of the argument centers on the lack of evidence of harm to human health or the environment from transgenic food production and consumption. In particular, Wambugu cites findings from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. A citation to more recent findings from the Authority than the web resource cited in the chapter is:
Food Safety Authority of Ireland. "Irish Attitude to Food Safety More Positive than European Average, Survey Reveals." Eurobarometer Survey. 17 Nov. 2010. http://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/press_releases/17112010.html
While the emphasis of the article is the claim that “the priority of Africa is to feed her people with safe foods and to sustain agricultural production and the environment” (306), there is an acknowledgement of significant problems in translating GM potential for increasing agricultural yields in Africa into sustainable and beneficial results for the people in most of the continent's countries. There are vast deficiencies in government and regulatory structures necessary for biosafety assurance and a lack of adequate legal frameworks for determining breeders's rights. Although Wambugu does not draw the parallel, the worries raised here about the practicalities of biotech in Africa are much the same as the worries identified in the extensive literature on the resource curse associated with traditional extractive industries.
Much of the argument centers on the lack of evidence of harm to human health or the environment from transgenic food production and consumption. In particular, Wambugu cites findings from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. A citation to more recent findings from the Authority than the web resource cited in the chapter is:
Food Safety Authority of Ireland. "Irish Attitude to Food Safety More Positive than European Average, Survey Reveals." Eurobarometer Survey. 17 Nov. 2010. http://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/press_releases/17112010.html
While the emphasis of the article is the claim that “the priority of Africa is to feed her people with safe foods and to sustain agricultural production and the environment” (306), there is an acknowledgement of significant problems in translating GM potential for increasing agricultural yields in Africa into sustainable and beneficial results for the people in most of the continent's countries. There are vast deficiencies in government and regulatory structures necessary for biosafety assurance and a lack of adequate legal frameworks for determining breeders's rights. Although Wambugu does not draw the parallel, the worries raised here about the practicalities of biotech in Africa are much the same as the worries identified in the extensive literature on the resource curse associated with traditional extractive industries.
Another Strong Plea for More Biotech for Africa
click image to enlarge
Calestous Juma, the director of the Agricultural Innovation in Africa program at Harvard's Kennedy School, in a 2011 editorial published in Science, argued that "major international agencies such as the United Nations have persistently opposed expanding biotechnology to regions most in need of its societal and economic benefits." One argument is that because many of the continent's farmers cannot afford to buy pesticides genetically insect-resistant corn and cotton might offer a solution to an enduring economic barrier to greater yields. Moreover, genetic modifications have not been developed for many of the main staple crops in Africa, in part because of the enormous investment costs associated with their scientific development, marketing, and government approval processes. A short, largely sympathetic opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal produced a flurry of comments worth further exploration.
The chart above produced by a proponent of increased biotech investment in African Agriculture illustrates some of the potential benefits that have been touted by advocates.
Juma's 2011 book, The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa, presses the case in greater detail.
The chart above produced by a proponent of increased biotech investment in African Agriculture illustrates some of the potential benefits that have been touted by advocates.
Juma's 2011 book, The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa, presses the case in greater detail.
The Promotion of Drought Resistent Corn in Africa
click image for link
A 2010 study predicts that widespread adoption of recently developed drought-tolerant varieties of maize could boost harvests in 13 African countries by 10 to 34 percent and generate up to US$1.5 billion in benefits for producers and consumers.
The study was conducted as part of the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Initiative (DTMA) implemented by CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center - known by its Spanish acronym CIMMYT) and IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. CIMMYT and IITA have worked with national agriculture research centers in Africa to develop over 50 new maize varieties that in drought conditions can produce yields that are 20 to 50 percent higher than existing varieties.
The CIMMYT-IITA analysis of the benefits of conventional drought-tolerant maize for Africa, or DTMA, examined the potential impact in Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The study was conducted as part of the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Initiative (DTMA) implemented by CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center - known by its Spanish acronym CIMMYT) and IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. CIMMYT and IITA have worked with national agriculture research centers in Africa to develop over 50 new maize varieties that in drought conditions can produce yields that are 20 to 50 percent higher than existing varieties.
The CIMMYT-IITA analysis of the benefits of conventional drought-tolerant maize for Africa, or DTMA, examined the potential impact in Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Failure to Yield - Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops
click image for link
Failure to Yield, a 2009 report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, evaluated the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. The report's summary online notes that "genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices."
Golden Rice: A Case Study in Overpromising
click image for link to the Gates Foundation
A risk-benefit calculus question: Quite apart from worries that GM foods might be unsafe for human consumption, the flip side of the skeptical coin is the worry that GM foods may not bring the benefits sufficient to warrant the potential added risks. Moreover, if one cannot trust the assertions of those who tout the benefits, then it is reasonable to ask why one should trust the assertions of the very same people who seek to assure us that the risks are minimal. The Green Revolution promised a solution to the problem of global hunger and malnutrition. Genetic alteration of food crops was sold as the science-based solution to a problem with seemingly few other viable alternatives for addressing. Public relations hype over “golden rice” was intense, and it was one of the main calling cards of the industry in selling GM food products. The biotech industry promoted its “golden rice,” which is genetically modified to produce beta-carotene (a nutrient that the body can use to produce Vitamin A), as a means for helping to eradicate xeropthalmia and blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiency. You can see the gauzy television ads in the film, The Future of Food.
Missing from the campaign, however, was the fact that a child would need to eat about 27 bowls of “golden rice” per day in order to meet the minimum suggested requirements for Vitamin A. Critics quickly seized upon the hype and it fueled - and continues to fuel - deep skepticism regarding the potential for GM crops to feed the world, along with doubts about the sincerity of some of the GM industry's promoters. As Patrick Hossay notes, “If biotech really wanted to help children, they could simply provide Vitamin A supplements to malnourished families … [or make] simple, wholesome brown rice available to impoverished communities” (159).
• Source: Michael Pollan, “The Way We Live Now: The Great Yellow Hype,” New York Times, 4 March 2001.
• Source: Tina Hesman, “Bioengineered Rice Loses Glow as Vitamin A Source,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4 March 2001.
The Golden Rice story continues to evolve. The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations continue to tout the fact that 250,000 children per year go blind from bata carotene deficiencies. The corporate partners Syngenta and emphasize that the venture with the International Rice Research Institute is purely philanthropic and not part of a for-profit plan. Critics (Vandana Shiva) worry that is a Trojan Horse designed to soften up the public's hard-edged skepticism of GMOs on the grounds that they are inherently part of the global consolidation of food from seed to shelf. Michael Pollan now says that he thinks the research should go forward. Protesters in the Philippines burned acres of rice planted as part of ongoing field tests designed to evaluate the nutrient efficiency of recent modifications. The newer modifications involve insertion of a gene from corn instead of a gene from a daffodil into the Rice genome. What's the verdict? Who knows. We have to await results of the field tests. It's due out in 2016.
What has been the results so far of the broad promise of a golden age of biotech agriculture? So far, there are just two traits in widespread use: Herbicide tolerance and pest resistance. That's 99% of all GMOs. What's in the pipeline? Tom Philpott from Mother Jones offers this assessment based on his research. There are 13 products in the USDA pipeline: 9 of which are herbicide tolerance or pest resistance. He notes that in 2008, Monsanto boasted that it would "reduce by one-third the amount of key resources required to grow crops by 2030." The problem is that the GMOs in current use involve the modification of a single gene to produce a new trait (such as herbicide tolerance), but complex traits such as heat or drought resistance are regulated by the interactions of multiple genes (they are polygenic).
Still, optimists are hopeful though the window of scientific advance seems 15-20 years out for traits that might do much to close the widely noted "yield gap." The hope is that we might create useful varieties of "C4 rice" that can produce as much as 50% more per acre by making photosynthesis more efficient, or crops that use less nitrogen or water. Even if the optimists's faith is well-placed, when we consider the timeline for projected impact of climate change on agriculture, the issue becomes one of keeping pace. Whatever value is added from biotechnology in the race to feed the world, it needs to come sooner rather than later, and it needs to be big if it is to earn its place on the short list of "all of the above" strategies.
Most Recent USDA-NASS Census of Agriculture Data on the Prevalence of GMO Crops in the US
The 2012 US Census data contains information about the prevalence of GMO crops in the US and tracks the growth of GMOs for tree major crops from 2000 through 2010. See Table 834. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops: 2000 to 2010
for more detailed information about the type of genetic modifications (e.g., herbicide or pesticide resistance) for each of the three crops and other information about methodology behind their estimates.
Genetically engineered crop 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Corn . . . . . . . . . . . 25 26 34 40 47 52 61 73 80 85 868866
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . 61 69 71 73 76 79 83 87 86 88 93
Soybean . . . . . . . . 54 68 75 81 85 87 89 91 92 91 93
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.,” July 2010, <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/>.
for more detailed information about the type of genetic modifications (e.g., herbicide or pesticide resistance) for each of the three crops and other information about methodology behind their estimates.
Genetically engineered crop 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Corn . . . . . . . . . . . 25 26 34 40 47 52 61 73 80 85 868866
Cotton . . . . . . . . . . 61 69 71 73 76 79 83 87 86 88 93
Soybean . . . . . . . . 54 68 75 81 85 87 89 91 92 91 93
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.,” July 2010, <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/>.
The Prevalence of GM crops in the US
click image to enlarge
Here is a recent (2012) graphic display of the estimated prevalence of GM crops through 2012. Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops are ones that are developed to survive application of specific herbicides that previously would have destroyed the crop along with the targeted weeds. Insect-resistant (Bt) crops contain soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces a protein that is toxic to specific insects. The adoption of "stacked" varieties of cotton and corn, which have both HT and Bt traits has accelerated in recent years.
The Global Uptake of GM Crops: What about the Money?
click image for a larger view
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) report on the global status of genetically modified crops shows the remarkable pace of adoption of GM crops globally. The graph on the left shows the adoption rates by crop. The executive summary of the report (quoted below) provides some aggregate numbers:
"In 2010, the accumulated hectarage planted during the 15 years, 1996 to 2010, exceeded for the first time, 1 billion hectares, which is equivalent to more than 10% of the enormous total land area of the USA (937 million hectares) or China (956 million hectares). It took 10 years to reach the first 500 million hectares in 2005, but only half that time, 5 years, to plant the second 500 million hectares to reach a total of 1 billion hectares in 2010." This is a record 87-fold increase between 1996 and 2010.
An updated ISAAA report in 2012 shows that the US continues to be the largest producer of GMO crops and Brazil remains in 2nd place with one of the fastest rates of growth in the world. Argentina was third, followed by Canada and India. This industry association now reports that the current global quantity of biotech crop in production increased by 6% from 2011, and that the current figure represents a 100-fold from1.7 million hectares in 1996, to 170 million hectares in 2012. Moreover, developing countries in 2012 grew 52% of global biotech crops in 2012 compared to industrial countries that accounted for 48%. The 2012 growth rate for biotech crops was three times as fast, and five times as large in developing countries, at 11% or 8.7 million hectares, versus 3% or 1.6 million hectares in industrial countries.
The full report for 2012 (only the summary is available electronically) indicates that in Europe there are 11 countries that prohibit the use of genetically modified seeds, and only Portugal, Spain, Romania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic planted transgenic crops. 95 percent of these crops in the EU are concentrated in Spain (88 percent) and Portugal (seven percent).
Have GMOs been a pathway out of poverty for the global poor, or a cost-saving innovation for farmers in the developed world?
Corn and soy seed prices in the US have gone up 135% and 108% respectively between 2001-2009 while the consumer price index went up only 20% in that period. Industry spokespersons typically reply that the GMO seeds have permitted other costs of production, such as pesticides and herbicides to fall. Whether there is a net economic benefit to farmers is contested. Studies cited by Nathanael Jacobson in Grist show the following pattern of reward distribution:
"The studies Zilberman consulted on this question have found that the biotech industry captures between 10 and 70 percent of the money generated by their transgenic seeds. The rest of the benefit (30 to 90 percent) is shared by U.S. farmers, U.S. eaters, and the rest of the world. That’s a huge range, but it’s interesting that every study examining this issue has found that consumers do benefit from food prices. It may not be much — less than 2 percent is the estimate at the lower end — but the average Joe and Jane are probably getting some extra change thanks to GMOs."
For more on the contested economic picture, see the rest of Jacobson's excellent article, along with this one as well on the net benefit to farmers of opting for GMO seeds versus conventional seeds. Bottom line: worth their weight in gold: Not exactly. Sometimes GMO seeds pay off by reducing risks and reducing labor costs, but over time, pesticide resistance and other factors begin to eat into profits. Plus, selling organics has introduced new market dynamics: there is a premium for organics, at least as long as the market is skewed toward more affluent, less price-conscious consumers.
"In 2010, the accumulated hectarage planted during the 15 years, 1996 to 2010, exceeded for the first time, 1 billion hectares, which is equivalent to more than 10% of the enormous total land area of the USA (937 million hectares) or China (956 million hectares). It took 10 years to reach the first 500 million hectares in 2005, but only half that time, 5 years, to plant the second 500 million hectares to reach a total of 1 billion hectares in 2010." This is a record 87-fold increase between 1996 and 2010.
An updated ISAAA report in 2012 shows that the US continues to be the largest producer of GMO crops and Brazil remains in 2nd place with one of the fastest rates of growth in the world. Argentina was third, followed by Canada and India. This industry association now reports that the current global quantity of biotech crop in production increased by 6% from 2011, and that the current figure represents a 100-fold from1.7 million hectares in 1996, to 170 million hectares in 2012. Moreover, developing countries in 2012 grew 52% of global biotech crops in 2012 compared to industrial countries that accounted for 48%. The 2012 growth rate for biotech crops was three times as fast, and five times as large in developing countries, at 11% or 8.7 million hectares, versus 3% or 1.6 million hectares in industrial countries.
The full report for 2012 (only the summary is available electronically) indicates that in Europe there are 11 countries that prohibit the use of genetically modified seeds, and only Portugal, Spain, Romania, Slovakia and the Czech Republic planted transgenic crops. 95 percent of these crops in the EU are concentrated in Spain (88 percent) and Portugal (seven percent).
Have GMOs been a pathway out of poverty for the global poor, or a cost-saving innovation for farmers in the developed world?
Corn and soy seed prices in the US have gone up 135% and 108% respectively between 2001-2009 while the consumer price index went up only 20% in that period. Industry spokespersons typically reply that the GMO seeds have permitted other costs of production, such as pesticides and herbicides to fall. Whether there is a net economic benefit to farmers is contested. Studies cited by Nathanael Jacobson in Grist show the following pattern of reward distribution:
"The studies Zilberman consulted on this question have found that the biotech industry captures between 10 and 70 percent of the money generated by their transgenic seeds. The rest of the benefit (30 to 90 percent) is shared by U.S. farmers, U.S. eaters, and the rest of the world. That’s a huge range, but it’s interesting that every study examining this issue has found that consumers do benefit from food prices. It may not be much — less than 2 percent is the estimate at the lower end — but the average Joe and Jane are probably getting some extra change thanks to GMOs."
For more on the contested economic picture, see the rest of Jacobson's excellent article, along with this one as well on the net benefit to farmers of opting for GMO seeds versus conventional seeds. Bottom line: worth their weight in gold: Not exactly. Sometimes GMO seeds pay off by reducing risks and reducing labor costs, but over time, pesticide resistance and other factors begin to eat into profits. Plus, selling organics has introduced new market dynamics: there is a premium for organics, at least as long as the market is skewed toward more affluent, less price-conscious consumers.
Health and Non-Health Benefits and Risks: The Debate over GMO Food Labeling and Quality of Data
click Image for NAS report
The 2012 political battle over the California Proposition 37 GMO labeling law ended with an expensive victory for the biotech industry when the proposition was defeated. Similar legislation continues to be introduced in various states within the US and some of the large food retailers with reputations for a preference for organic products have announced a phasing out of GMO products. However, the dominant position of GMO crops in the US makes it difficult to guess how the demand for non-GMO corn and grains will be met.
Moreover, the critics' case for the increased or unique personal health risks of consuming GMO products is far from conclusive, even if many studies have raised great doubts about health benefits often claimed by proponents. A 2012 statement by the prestigious and independent American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was unequivocal in its judgment: “[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” The United Kingdom' s 2003 Genetic Modification Science Review reached the same conclusion.
However, a dissenting body made up of many AAAS members argues that such statements are premature, largely because the voluntary testing and proprietary nature of test results obtained by industry experts leaves the public with little basis for informed evaluation of the evidence. In fact, the corporate secrecy and lack of oversight is one reason that some defend labeling laws in the face of inadequate or even misleading health risk claims about GMO foods.
Some of the mystery surrounding the state of knowledge on health safety of GMO foods is a function of the baroque regulatory system in the US. To do a field test on new GMOs you need a permit from USDA, and trials take years, followed by an industry petition to have the crop deregulated for commercial use. If a GMO is designed to make a plant pesticide-resistant, it has to undergo EPA evaluation. But since in the end, the seeds produce food for human consumption, the FDA has to evaluate the safety and nutritional content of GMO foods.
Consider the FDA process since that is where the big food safety issues get evaluated. Industry must subject the GMO to FDA review if they want the FDA's stamp of approval. But there is no legal requirement to seek that approval. But, of course, no company goes to market with their product without it. Since there are no legal guidelines for FDA review it works on a case-by-case basis. The typical review focuses on the potential presence of known allergens, the potential for amplification of naturally existing toxins in a plant, and potential changes in nutritional values.
Are there other worries specific to various genetic modification techniques? That's hard to say. With conventional plant breeding techniques whole strands of DNA are mixed together. Genetic modification, by contrast typically involves the insertion of one gene. There are other ways to induce genetic mutation. For example, you can expose them to radiation or mutagenic chemicals. But the main methods for genetically engineering plants involves "shooting" DNA coated pellets into DNA strands with a "gene gun" or using a microbe to to insert the new gene into the nucleus. One worry is that these methods will place the new genes in more unstable sections of the genome, but thus far this worry remains hypothetical. Another worry is that transfer of a gene from one species to another will introduce allergens not normally found in some plant. You don't want peanut allergies to crop up in your tomatoes. That's why testing for known allergens is such an important part of the review process. There are other worries as we.
What about the creation of wholly new allergens? There are several kinds of tests, but at best, all these can do is identify proteins that resemble known allergens and see if they provoke the same responses. How likely is that? Some scientists claim that the risk of exposure to unfamiliar food allergens from genetic modification might well be less than exposure to unfamiliar foods from other countries. There are various tests recommended by WHO-FAO and other groups, but there is not much agreement on what ought to be a global scientific standard. The fact is that companies petitioning for FDA review choose their own methods - remember, there are no regulations or guidelines.
Critics of US governmental agencies in charge of oversight also remind us of the industry-friendly regulators and Washington revolving door phenomenon.
Those who share the vision of GMO proponents such as Jonathan Foley, who argue that GMO foods may be necessary for feeding an increasing global population in a sustainable fashion worry that labeling laws might unfairly stigmatize what will turn out to be humanity's best hope.
Consumers do have options for making informed purchasing decisions other than legally mamdated labels, for example, using ShopNoGmo, an I-phone app that helps consumers find GMO-free products. But as it with many other consumer-driven solutions to health and environmental problems, it is doubtful that they do much to counteract the larger market forces that make GMOs so prevalent. Some studies in fact suggest that the impact of labeling laws on consumer behavior is insignificant.
A 2010 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concludes that there are substantial non-health benefits from GMO crops in the US, but it warns of potential problems as well. The report aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of how GE crops are affecting all U.S. farmers, including those who grow conventional or organic crops. Among the main conclusions are benefits that accrue to the farmers. Many who grow GM crops "are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits -- such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields -- compared with conventional crops... The caveat is that "Roundup and other commercial weed killers -- could develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate... [GM] crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices."
What is the evidence? Well, one thing is for certain: we want to reduce reliance on pesticides, especially the broad spectrum varieties that kill far more than just the pests. The aim of Integrated Pest Management is to make reliance on pesticides a smaller part of an overall strategy. The evidence is mixed. In some places and for some crops, the reduction is astounding. Bt Cotton crops have fared especially well in both the US and places such as China and India. That's good for the environment. In other places, we have seen dramatic evidence of the pesticide treadmill, where insects adapt quickly to the insecticide and the farmer has to resort to more harmful broad spectrum chemicals that were meant to be replaced.
Herbicides are a somewhat different story. Herbicide use has gone up exponentially, particularly the glyphosate (the ingredient in Roundup). But this is far less harmful than many alternatives. The downside is an increase in herbicide-resistant weeds, leading to the predictable arms race between chemicals and weeds. Evolution does not take a holiday.
Moreover, the critics' case for the increased or unique personal health risks of consuming GMO products is far from conclusive, even if many studies have raised great doubts about health benefits often claimed by proponents. A 2012 statement by the prestigious and independent American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was unequivocal in its judgment: “[T]he science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.” The United Kingdom' s 2003 Genetic Modification Science Review reached the same conclusion.
However, a dissenting body made up of many AAAS members argues that such statements are premature, largely because the voluntary testing and proprietary nature of test results obtained by industry experts leaves the public with little basis for informed evaluation of the evidence. In fact, the corporate secrecy and lack of oversight is one reason that some defend labeling laws in the face of inadequate or even misleading health risk claims about GMO foods.
Some of the mystery surrounding the state of knowledge on health safety of GMO foods is a function of the baroque regulatory system in the US. To do a field test on new GMOs you need a permit from USDA, and trials take years, followed by an industry petition to have the crop deregulated for commercial use. If a GMO is designed to make a plant pesticide-resistant, it has to undergo EPA evaluation. But since in the end, the seeds produce food for human consumption, the FDA has to evaluate the safety and nutritional content of GMO foods.
Consider the FDA process since that is where the big food safety issues get evaluated. Industry must subject the GMO to FDA review if they want the FDA's stamp of approval. But there is no legal requirement to seek that approval. But, of course, no company goes to market with their product without it. Since there are no legal guidelines for FDA review it works on a case-by-case basis. The typical review focuses on the potential presence of known allergens, the potential for amplification of naturally existing toxins in a plant, and potential changes in nutritional values.
Are there other worries specific to various genetic modification techniques? That's hard to say. With conventional plant breeding techniques whole strands of DNA are mixed together. Genetic modification, by contrast typically involves the insertion of one gene. There are other ways to induce genetic mutation. For example, you can expose them to radiation or mutagenic chemicals. But the main methods for genetically engineering plants involves "shooting" DNA coated pellets into DNA strands with a "gene gun" or using a microbe to to insert the new gene into the nucleus. One worry is that these methods will place the new genes in more unstable sections of the genome, but thus far this worry remains hypothetical. Another worry is that transfer of a gene from one species to another will introduce allergens not normally found in some plant. You don't want peanut allergies to crop up in your tomatoes. That's why testing for known allergens is such an important part of the review process. There are other worries as we.
What about the creation of wholly new allergens? There are several kinds of tests, but at best, all these can do is identify proteins that resemble known allergens and see if they provoke the same responses. How likely is that? Some scientists claim that the risk of exposure to unfamiliar food allergens from genetic modification might well be less than exposure to unfamiliar foods from other countries. There are various tests recommended by WHO-FAO and other groups, but there is not much agreement on what ought to be a global scientific standard. The fact is that companies petitioning for FDA review choose their own methods - remember, there are no regulations or guidelines.
Critics of US governmental agencies in charge of oversight also remind us of the industry-friendly regulators and Washington revolving door phenomenon.
Those who share the vision of GMO proponents such as Jonathan Foley, who argue that GMO foods may be necessary for feeding an increasing global population in a sustainable fashion worry that labeling laws might unfairly stigmatize what will turn out to be humanity's best hope.
Consumers do have options for making informed purchasing decisions other than legally mamdated labels, for example, using ShopNoGmo, an I-phone app that helps consumers find GMO-free products. But as it with many other consumer-driven solutions to health and environmental problems, it is doubtful that they do much to counteract the larger market forces that make GMOs so prevalent. Some studies in fact suggest that the impact of labeling laws on consumer behavior is insignificant.
A 2010 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concludes that there are substantial non-health benefits from GMO crops in the US, but it warns of potential problems as well. The report aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of how GE crops are affecting all U.S. farmers, including those who grow conventional or organic crops. Among the main conclusions are benefits that accrue to the farmers. Many who grow GM crops "are realizing substantial economic and environmental benefits -- such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields -- compared with conventional crops... The caveat is that "Roundup and other commercial weed killers -- could develop more weed problems as weeds evolve their own resistance to glyphosate... [GM] crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices."
What is the evidence? Well, one thing is for certain: we want to reduce reliance on pesticides, especially the broad spectrum varieties that kill far more than just the pests. The aim of Integrated Pest Management is to make reliance on pesticides a smaller part of an overall strategy. The evidence is mixed. In some places and for some crops, the reduction is astounding. Bt Cotton crops have fared especially well in both the US and places such as China and India. That's good for the environment. In other places, we have seen dramatic evidence of the pesticide treadmill, where insects adapt quickly to the insecticide and the farmer has to resort to more harmful broad spectrum chemicals that were meant to be replaced.
Herbicides are a somewhat different story. Herbicide use has gone up exponentially, particularly the glyphosate (the ingredient in Roundup). But this is far less harmful than many alternatives. The downside is an increase in herbicide-resistant weeds, leading to the predictable arms race between chemicals and weeds. Evolution does not take a holiday.
The Prevalence of Organic Farming in the US: Analysis of Recent Data
The National Agricultural StatisticsService (USDA NASS) conducted a first-ever, highly-detailed survey of Organic agriculture for the 2008 crop year. The data are found in at the US Census website taken from the USDA/NASS Census of Agriculture and other follow-up surveys in Charts 832 and 833. These charts contain data regarding the size of organic farm operations, number of acres of organic production for various crops,, and other information that shows the trends from 2000 through 2008, the last year for which the USDA census has information. The next Census of Agriculture is set for 2012 and survey forms are set for mailing in December, 2012
Here are some of the key findings found in the survey's accompanying analysis by Steven D. Savage, Ph.D.
Here are some of the key findings found in the survey's accompanying analysis by Steven D. Savage, Ph.D.
- The 1.6 million acres of harvested Organic cropland in 2008 represented 0.52% of the total US cropland.
- Organic crop acres are highly concentrated in the dry, irrigated, Western states (43%vs 12% for non-Organic.
- In the vast majority of cases national Organic average yields are moderately to substantially below those of the overall, national average: Winter Wheat (60% of overall average), Corn (71%), Soybeans (66%), Spring Wheat (47%) and Rice 59%; Grapes (51%), Apples (88%), Almonds (56%), Avocados (62%),Oranges (43%), Strawberries (58%); Tomatoes (63%), Potatoes (72%), Sweet Corn (79%),Celery (50%) and Cabbage (43%)
- To have Organically produced the full output of 2008 US crops, it would have been necessary to harvest from an additional 121.7 million acres of cropland (based on 30 major crops and excluding crops for which Organic growers might be growing specialty type) - a 39% increase over current US cropland, or the equivalent of all the current cropland acres in Iowa, Illinois, North Dakota, Florida, Kansas,Minnesota combined
GMO Labeling: What Informs the Controversy Globally?
click image for larger view
Over 50 countries, including all European Union countries, require foods produced with GMO crops be labeled as such. In the US, such laws at both the state and federal level are vigorously opposed by the industry? Why? The public defense of the industry position is the expense and logistical difficulties of labeling, and the fact that no significant differences have been found between GE and conventional food and that such labeling will falsely lead consumers to believe that GMO food has been demonstrated to be unsafe.
One alternative theory - a rather conspiratorial one - is that the industry knows something and wants to hide it. Another hypothesis is that like all industry groups they take a page out of the NRA's playbook and adopt a dragnet lobbying approach, which is to resist any and all regulation. They would do so on the theory that any concession weakens their ability to oppose more significant regulations and inspections. Better to stop the slide at the sharp end of the slippery slope, on this account.
Yet another theory that makes sense to lawyers and public health practitioners is that the industry resists "making the food chain legible" for the simple reason that lack of traceability of food products prevents epidemiological surveillance studies and the creation of illness registries that could at some point provide the evidentiary basis either for tort litigation or regulation that would require proof or the safety of their products. Any or all certainly are plausible hypotheses but preventing the systematic generation of knowledge is such a good business strategy that on its own it is sufficient reason for risk averse lawyers to recommend vigorous opposition to otherwise seemingly innocuous food labeling laws.
One alternative theory - a rather conspiratorial one - is that the industry knows something and wants to hide it. Another hypothesis is that like all industry groups they take a page out of the NRA's playbook and adopt a dragnet lobbying approach, which is to resist any and all regulation. They would do so on the theory that any concession weakens their ability to oppose more significant regulations and inspections. Better to stop the slide at the sharp end of the slippery slope, on this account.
Yet another theory that makes sense to lawyers and public health practitioners is that the industry resists "making the food chain legible" for the simple reason that lack of traceability of food products prevents epidemiological surveillance studies and the creation of illness registries that could at some point provide the evidentiary basis either for tort litigation or regulation that would require proof or the safety of their products. Any or all certainly are plausible hypotheses but preventing the systematic generation of knowledge is such a good business strategy that on its own it is sufficient reason for risk averse lawyers to recommend vigorous opposition to otherwise seemingly innocuous food labeling laws.
The Genetics of Heirloom Tomatos: Things Aren't Necessarily What They Seem
Steven Tanksley, a geneticist at Cornell University has shown that "all that diversity of heirlooms can be accounted for by a handful of genes. There's probably no more than 10 mutant genes that create the diversity of heirlooms you see." It turns out that the heirloom is actually a very fragile product of some rather disappointing breeding experiments of the late 19th century. Heirlooms lack the disease resistant genes that many other tomatos possess and researchers are busy trying to breed new varieties that contain the protective genes. You can read more on the history of the tomato and its genetic basis in a 2009 Scientific American article reporting on the background to a scientific paper that appeared in Nature Genetics that same year.
Can GM Crops be an Important Part of the Strategy for Adapting to Climate Change?
One worry about increase temperature and its effect on agriculture is the effect of heat waves on water, initially by creating drought, but over the longer term, by reducing the groundwater in deep aquifers that feed lakes, rivers, and streams. Another worry about higher temperatures is the prospect that traditional staple crops might not fare well where they once did. Some agronomists have argued that with temperatures above a certain threshold, yields fall sharply.
But climate change may bring problems for agriculture for reasons other than heat levels that exceed crop species tolerance levels. Weather pattern disruption may be a more potent challenge to agriculture in some locations. The same variability in weather patterns that produces draught can produce floods when it rains heavily in normally dry seasons and dries up during wetter seasons when crops are growing. Shorter, wetter, colder growing seasons can cripple some crops as surely as longer, drier, warmer ones can destroy others.
One avenue of adaptation would be the genetic engineering of new staple crop species, ones that are more resistant to drought, flooding, extreme heat, and the new breeds of pests that will surely follow. One worry is that parts of the world most likely to be hit first and worst by extreme changes in climate affecting agricultural productivity lack the investment in the kinds of research that could aid in their adaptation.
A 35 minute discussion, Feeding A Hotter, More Crowded Planet, from NPR's Science Friday serie (2011) features Lester Brown, author, "World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse", founder and president, Earth Policy Institute, Gawain Kripke, director, policy and research, Oxfam America, Gerald Nelson, senior research fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute.
A skeptical response to the promotion of GM crops as an important part of the adaptation strategies for dealing with global warming is the report by Friends of the Earth, Europe. Click on the image above for the link to the full report.
There are a variety of reported trials of other plants meant to withstand a more inhospitable environment. In France researchers are conducting field tests on grapes designed to fight common viruses, and Australian wheat is being tested to determine if it can produce food with a lower glycemic index. The Gates Foundation is funding research on cassava that is resistant to viruses common in Sub-Saharan Africa, bananas that contain more iron, and corn that uses less nitrogen (cutting the need for fertilizer).
But climate change may bring problems for agriculture for reasons other than heat levels that exceed crop species tolerance levels. Weather pattern disruption may be a more potent challenge to agriculture in some locations. The same variability in weather patterns that produces draught can produce floods when it rains heavily in normally dry seasons and dries up during wetter seasons when crops are growing. Shorter, wetter, colder growing seasons can cripple some crops as surely as longer, drier, warmer ones can destroy others.
One avenue of adaptation would be the genetic engineering of new staple crop species, ones that are more resistant to drought, flooding, extreme heat, and the new breeds of pests that will surely follow. One worry is that parts of the world most likely to be hit first and worst by extreme changes in climate affecting agricultural productivity lack the investment in the kinds of research that could aid in their adaptation.
A 35 minute discussion, Feeding A Hotter, More Crowded Planet, from NPR's Science Friday serie (2011) features Lester Brown, author, "World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse", founder and president, Earth Policy Institute, Gawain Kripke, director, policy and research, Oxfam America, Gerald Nelson, senior research fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute.
A skeptical response to the promotion of GM crops as an important part of the adaptation strategies for dealing with global warming is the report by Friends of the Earth, Europe. Click on the image above for the link to the full report.
There are a variety of reported trials of other plants meant to withstand a more inhospitable environment. In France researchers are conducting field tests on grapes designed to fight common viruses, and Australian wheat is being tested to determine if it can produce food with a lower glycemic index. The Gates Foundation is funding research on cassava that is resistant to viruses common in Sub-Saharan Africa, bananas that contain more iron, and corn that uses less nitrogen (cutting the need for fertilizer).