Sunday, October 30, 2016

Doubts about the promised Bounty of GMO

This is longer than the usual post and so it will count for two posts and comments are due on or before Nov. 12, 2016

                                                 *****************************************

The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat. But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides. The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides. Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise. An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre —when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops. At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides. One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent. By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent. Profound differences over genetic engineering have split Americans and Europeans for decades. Although American protesters as far back as 1987 pulled up prototype potato plants, European anger at the idea of fooling with nature has been far more sustained. In the last few years, the March Against Monsanto has drawn thousands of protesters in cities like Paris and Basel, Switzerland, and opposition to G.M. foods is a foundation of the Green political movement. Still, Europeans eat those foods when they buy imports from the United States and elsewhere. Fears about the harmful effects of eating G.M. foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis. The potential harm from pesticides, however, has drawn researchers’ attention. Pesticides are toxic by design — weaponized versions, like sarin, were developed in Nazi Germany — and have been linked to developmental delays and cancer. “These chemicals are largely unknown,” said David Bellinger, a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health, whose research has attributed the loss of nearly 17 million I.Q. points among American children 5 years old and under to one class of insecticides. “We do natural experiments on a population,” he said, referring to exposure to chemicals in agriculture, “and wait until it shows up as bad.” The industry is winning on both ends — because the same companies make and sell both the genetically modified plants and the poisons. Driven by these sales, the combined market capitalizations of Monsanto, the largest seed company, and Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide giant, have grown more than sixfold in the last decade and a half. The two companies are separately involved in merger agreements that would lift their new combined values to more than $100 billion each. When presented with the findings, Robert T. Fraley, the chief technology officer at Monsanto, said The Times had cherry­picked its data to reflect poorly on the industry. “Every farmer is a smart businessperson, and a farmer is not going to pay for a technology if they don’t think it provides a major benefit,” he said. “Biotech tools have clearly driven yield increases enormously.” Regarding the use of herbicides, in a statement, Monsanto said, “While overall herbicide use may be increasing in some areas where farmers are following best practices to manage emerging weed issues, farmers in other areas with different circumstances may have decreased or maintained their herbicide usage.” Genetically modified crops can sometimes be effective. Monsanto and others often cite the work of Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg­August­University of Göttingen, Germany, including a meta­analysis of studies that he helped write finding significant yield gains from genetically modified crops. But in an interview and emails, Dr. Qaim said he saw significant effects mostly from insect­resistant varieties in the developing world, particularly in India. “Currently available G.M. crops would not lead to major yield gains in Europe,” he said. And regarding herbicide­resistant crops in general: “I don’t consider this to be the miracle type of technology that we couldn’t live without.” A A Vow to Curb Chemicals First came the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, which was supposed to stay fresh longer. The next year it was a small number of bug­resistant russet potatoes. And by 1996, major genetically modified crops were being planted in the United States. Monsanto, the most prominent champion of these new genetic traits, pitched them as a way to curb the use of its pesticides. “We’re certainly not encouraging farmers to use more chemicals,” a company executive told The Los Angeles Times in 1994. The next year, in a news release, the company said that its new gene for seeds, named Roundup Ready, “can reduce overall herbicide use.” Originally, the two main types of genetically modified crops were either resistant to herbicides, allowing crops to be sprayed with weedkillers, or resistant to some insects. Figures from the United States Department of Agriculture show herbicide use skyrocketing in soybeans, a leading G.M. crop, growing by two and a half times in the last two decades, at a time when planted acreage of the crop grew by less than a third. Use in corn was trending downward even before the introduction of G.M. crops, but then nearly doubled from 2002 to 2010, before leveling off. Weed resistance problems in such crops have pushed overall usage up. To some, this outcome was predictable. The whole point of engineering bugresistant plants “was to reduce insecticide use, and it did,” said Joseph Kovach, a retired Ohio State University researcher who studied the environmental risks of pesticides. But the goal of herbicide­resistant seeds was to “sell more product,” he said — more herbicide. Farmers with crops overcome by weeds, or a particular pest or disease, can understandably be G.M. evangelists. “It’s silly bordering on ridiculous to turn our backs on a technology that has so much to offer,” said Duane Grant, the chairman of the Amalgamated Sugar Company, a cooperative of more than 750 sugar beet farmers in the Northwest. He says crops resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s most popular weedkiller, saved his cooperative. But weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup around the world — creating an opening for the industry to sell more seeds and more pesticides. The latest seeds have been engineered for resistance to two weedkillers, with resistance to as many as five planned. That will also make it easier for farmers battling resistant weeds to spray a widening array of poisons sold by the same companies. Growing resistance to Roundup is also reviving old, and contentious, chemicals. One is 2,4­D, an ingredient in Agent Orange, the infamous Vietnam War defoliant. Its potential risks have long divided scientists and have alarmed advocacy groups. Another is dicamba. In Louisiana, Monsanto is spending nearly $1 billion to begin production of the chemical there. And even though Monsanto’s version is not yet approved for use, the company is already selling seeds that are resistant to it — leading to reports that some farmers are damaging neighbors’ crops by illegally spraying older versions of the toxin. High­Tech Kernels Two farmers, 4,000 miles apart, recently showed a visitor their corn seeds. The farmers, Bo Stone and Arnaud Rousseau, are sixth­generation tillers of the land. Both use seeds made by DuPont, the giant chemical company that is merging with Dow Chemical. To the naked eye, the seeds looked identical. Inside, the differences are profound. In Rowland, N.C., near the South Carolina border, Mr. Stone’s seeds brim with genetically modified traits. They contain Roundup Ready, a Monsanto­made trait resistant to Roundup, as well as a gene made by Bayer that makes crops impervious to a second herbicide. A trait called Herculex I was developed by Dow and Pioneer, now part of DuPont, and attacks the guts of insect larvae. So does YieldGard, made by Monsanto.  Another big difference: the price tag. Mr. Rousseau’s seeds cost about $85 for a 50,000­seed bag. Mr. Stone spends roughly $153 for the same amount of biotech seeds. For farmers, doing without genetically modified crops is not a simple choice. Genetic traits are not sold à la carte. Mr. Stone, 45, has a master’s degree in agriculture and listens to Prime Country radio in his Ford pickup. He has a test field where he tries out new seeds, looking for characteristics that he particularly values — like plants that stand well, without support. “I’m choosing on yield capabilities and plant characteristics more than I am on G.M.O. traits” like bug and poison resistance, he said, underscoring a crucial point: Yield is still driven by breeding plants to bring out desirable traits, as it has been for thousands of years. That said, Mr. Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use (though he would welcome help with stink bugs, a troublesome pest for many farmers). And Roundup resistance in pigweed has emerged as a problem. “No G.M. trait for us is a silver bullet,” he said. By contrast, at Mr. Rousseau’s farm in Trocy­en­Multien, a village outside Paris, his corn has none of this engineering because the European Union bans most crops like these. “The door is closed,” says Mr. Rousseau, 42, who is vice president of one of France’s many agricultural unions. His 840­acre farm was a site of World War I carnage in the Battle of the Marne. As with Mr. Stone, Mr. Rousseau’s yields have been increasing, though they go up and down depending on the year. Farm technology has also been transformative. “My grandfather had horses and cattle for cropping,” Mr. Rousseau said. “I’ve got tractors with motors.”He wants access to the same technologies as his competitors across the Atlantic, and thinks G.M. crops could save time and money. “Seen from Europe, when you speak with American farmers or Canadian farmers, we’ve got the feeling that it’s easier,” Mr. Rousseau said. “Maybe it’s not right. I don’t know, but it’s our feeling.” Feeding the World With the world’s population expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, Monsanto has long held out its products as a way “to help meet the food demands of these added billions,” as it said in a 1995 statement. That remains an industry mantra. “It’s absolutely key that we keep innovating,” said Kurt Boudonck, who manages Bayer’s sprawling North Carolina greenhouses. “With the current production practices, we are not going to be able to feed that amount of people.” But a broad yield advantage has not emerged. The Times looked at regional data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, comparing main genetically modified crops in the United States and Canada with varieties grown in Western Europe, a grouping used by the agency that comprises seven nations, including the two largest agricultural producers, France and Germany. For rapeseed, a variant of which is used to produce canola oil, The Times compared Western Europe with Canada, the largest producer, over three decades, including a period well before the introduction of genetically modified crops. Despite rejecting genetically modified crops, Western Europe maintained a lead over Canada in yields. While that is partly because different varieties are grown in the two regions, the trend lines in the relative yields have not shifted in Canada’s favor since the introduction of G.M. crops, the data shows. For corn, The Times compared the United States with Western Europe. Over three decades, the trend lines between the two barely deviate. And sugar beets, a major source of sugar, have shown stronger yield growth recently in Western Europe than the United States, despite the dominance of genetically modified varieties over the last decade. Jack Heinemann, a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, did a pioneering 2013 study comparing trans­Atlantic yield trends, using United Nations data. Western Europe, he said, “hasn’t been penalized in any way for not making genetic engineering one of its biotechnology choices.” Biotech executives suggested making narrower comparisons. Dr. Fraley of Monsanto highlighted data comparing yield growth in Nebraska and France, while an official at Bayer suggested Ohio and France. These comparisons can be favorable to the industry, while comparing other individual American states can be unfavorable. Michael Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said that while the industry had long said G.M.O.s would “save the world,” they still “haven’t found the mythical yield gene.” Few New Markets Battered by falling crop prices and consumer resistance that has made it hard to win over new markets, the agrochemical industry has been swept by buyouts. Bayer recently announced a deal to acquire Monsanto. And the state­owned China National Chemical Corporation has received American regulatory approval to acquire Syngenta, though Syngenta later warned the takeover could be delayed by scrutiny from European authorities. The deals are aimed at creating giants even more adept at selling both seeds and chemicals. Already, a new generation of seeds is coming to market or in development. And they have grand titles. There is the Bayer Balance GT Soybean Performance System. Monsanto’s Genuity SmartStax RIB Complete corn. Dow’s PhytoGen with Enlist and WideStrike 3 Insect Protection. In industry jargon, they are “stacked” with many different genetically modified traits. And there are more to come. Monsanto has said that the corn seed of 2025 will have 14 traits and allow farmers to spray five different kinds of herbicide. Newer genetically modified crops claim to do many things, such as protecting against crop diseases and making food more nutritious. Some may be effective, some not. To the industry, shifting crucial crops like corn, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed almost entirely to genetically modified varieties in many parts of the world fulfills a genuine need. To critics, it is a marketing opportunity. “G.M.O. acceptance is exceptionally low in Europe,” said Liam Condon, the head of Bayer’s crop science division, in an interview the day the Monsanto deal was announced. He added: “But there are many geographies around the world where the need is much higher and where G.M.O. is accepted. We will go where the market and the customers demand our technology.”  NYT 10/30/2016

12 comments:

  1. Then comparison between GM crops and naturally grown crops has always been an issue of discussion. The GM crops were made to be able to resist more pesticides and other chemicals to protect plants from insects or animals and to make a growth in crop yields, but after the study of The New York Times, it is been proven that Genetically Modified crops have not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides, meaning that GM crops are not a very good solution. By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides, but as shown in the results of the studies, technology has fallen short of the promised.
    We can observe that in other countries like France or Germany, that rejected the use of GM crops, are still ahead in the production of them, the are more productive and more efficient using natural grown crops. Not only with productivity, but also with he pesticide usage, United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides. So the United States not only use GM crops but also use more pesticides. They thought that with genetically modified crops, they would be able to lower pesticides and have better products, but after the studies made by NYT, it is shown that even with GM crops, the usage of pesticides has increased in contrast with naturally grown crops, where pesticides usage has decreased.
    In my opinion, I feel like Western Europe did a good choice not choosing to grow GM crop yields and just keep it the way they were, because now the US is realizing that using genetically modified crops was not the best solution. They thought they could lower the usage of pesticides and increase the crop yields in order to help with the world hunger and instead of that, they are falling backwards and not helping at all.
    That is my thought about it, but I think that the way to go is always the traditional way in agriculture, as the more products we try to put in the vegetables to last and grow faster, the more those crops and vegetables are modified, and in the end, it keeps being worst.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think at this point, GMO's are a topic that will be seen as controversial for a while. Some claim there is evidence that GMO's are good for the planet and the economy, and some claim the opposite. We previously compared the pros and cons of GMO's themselves, but this article goes in depth about the economics of GMO's as a whole.

    Something I found interesting was the comparison between GMO areas and non-GMO areas, specifically the US / Canada vs. Europe. The article states "United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre —when measured against Western Europe . . . 'there was little evidence' that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops." The argument that GMO's increase the yield of crops seems to fall flat here, and that was a large argument when we talked about the pros of GMO's.

    I also found it interesting that the use of pesticides and other chemicals has dramatically fallen in European countries (specifically France), where GMO's don't exist, yet the United States has increased their use of these things to produce GMO's. If GMO's don't increase crop yield, then what is the advantage of them that can counteract this increased use of chemicals and justify why it is okay?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have never been a fan of GMOs and this article further discredits the usage of such modifications. Economics aside, our bodies are intended to eat ingredients that grow naturally, be it plant or animal. A chicken breast or a strawberry is supposed to be just that, not a chicken breast treated with growth hormone or a strawberry containing 6 different chemicals to 'protect the harvest'. I am a firm believer in eating only foods whos ingredients you can see, read, and pronounce. GMOs also bring up the issue of transparency in our society. It is absurd that when you buy 'blueberries' you are buying blueberries laced with some list of chemicals, unless otherwise stated as organic. Perhaps I'd be able to look passed these facts if GMOs were living up to their promise. The study by NYT makes it evident that the use of GMOs is essentially useless and should be discontinued in the US. Clearly the answer to sustainable agriculture is not chemical additives. The benefits of GMOs are not apparent in any way, beside the percentage of GDP associated with the production and distribution of these chemicals that essentially benefit the chemists and polluters (Monsanto). GMOs are clearly not benefiting society and the use should be ceased. It is disappointing that this is not a more pressing matter in society.

    ReplyDelete
  4. GMO’s have always been a highly debatable and controversial topic. I personally do not agree with the use of them and think they should not be so widely used. We are meant to eat natural organic food. Not food that is enhanced with all kinds of unnatural artificial chemicals. I liked the information the blog had comparing the use of GMO’s in Canada and the U.S. to Western Europe. Western Europe does not use genetically modified crops like Canada and the U.S. Results showed that Canada and the U.S. had no advantage in crop yields, suggesting that GMO’s do not have a significant impact on crop yield. Another piece of information I found interesting was the statistics on the use of pesticides, herbicides, and other toxins used on crops. Europe has been decreasing their overall use of these harmful chemicals. While the United States has cut back on the use of many chemicals, they have increased their use of herbicides. I do not agree with the use of GMO’s.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In our previous discussion we looked over the pros and cons of GMOs. Most of the cons had not been sufficiently researched and tested, which makes people doubt their claims. Instead of focusing on the pros and cons of ingesting GMOs, this article talks about how genetic modification has not lived up to its original purpose, which was to produce accelerated increases in crop yields and reduce our need for pesticides. The two main types of genetically modified crops were either resistant to herbicides or resistant to some insects. The studies mentioned in this article show the difference between countries, particularly the United States compared with Western European countries, that use genetic modification and those that don’t. They have come to find that using genetic modification has not led to any advantage in terms of crop production. France and Germany have continued to maintain the lead over Canada’s crop yields, despite having rejected genetic modifications. Although genetic modification has not led to increased crop yields it has, however, lead to a dramatic increase in the use of pesticides. Instead of using toxins to kills insects and fungi, we now spray herbicides in higher volumes. Although, in France, which does not support or use genetic modification, their use of insecticides and fungicides has decreased by 65% and their herbicide use has decreased by 36%. Weed resistance in crops are the main reason for this increase in herbicides. People continue to use herbicides because they know their genetically modified seed will prevent them from being affected. We have still failed to find conclusive evidence that the use of these chemicals can negatively affect us. It seems like less of a priority in this article and hasn’t really been investigated extensively. Genetic modification is also about taking the best characteristics of other plants that are needed, such as plants that stand up well. Mr. Stone believes greater yield production will result by breeding plants to bring out desirable traits. The use of genetically modified seeds also has the advantage of being much cheaper than regular seeds. I can see why some people are for genetic modification and why others are not. There is not enough research on genetic modification and its repercussions on people as well as other plants and our environment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is obvious that GM crop is a controversial issue. For the last article, we know the GMO's advantages and disadvantages. However, this article shows the doubts of the GMO's advantages. The one of advantages is that GMO can increase the yield of crops. However, this article disagrees with this view by comparing GMO areas and non-GMO areas. US and Canada are GMO areas and Europe is non-GMO area. The US and Canada's yield of crops do not higher than Europe, as the article state:"An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre —when measured against Western Europe." This shows that GMO cannot increase the yield.

    The GMO not only cannot increase the production of crops, but also increase the use of pesticides. The GMO areas such as US decrease the use of toxins to kill the insects, but they increase the use of herbicides by 21 percent. However, non-GMO areas like France decrease the use of insecticides and herbicides separately by 65 percent and 36 percent. These statistics are obvious to claim the argument for the pros of GMO. If genetically modified crops don't have any advantages, why GMO areas still use genetically modified crops? This shows that GMO is a controversial issue again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Before we discussed the use GMOs at all in this class, I always felt against the use of them. After reading and discussing the pros and cons of GMOs in the previous week, I could actually begin to see the positive sides to them, such as making crop more resistant and most importantly, being environmentally friendly. With the use of GMOs, we are able to save time, water, land and machinery when it comes to agriculture. Contrasting this statement, in this text, we can see that in the GMO areas like the US and Canada, and non GMO areas like Western Europe, there are not a lot of advantages when looked at the results of using GMOs and not using GMOs in agriculture. One statement in the text that made me very interested was " genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides. " If so, why does the U.S and Canada continue using GMOs? If the US and Canada use GMOs and still there is no reduction in pesticides or even an increase in herbicides, then what is the purpose of still using GMOs?

    I believe that when Europe rejected the use of GMOs 2 decades ago, the US and Canada should have done the same. This topic really is a controversial topic and needs further research to come up with the best solution for both the US and Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To be quite honestl, I personally do not see a pro or a positive advantage of using GMO seeds in agriculture. Although science has proved to us that yes the use of GMO seeds created bountiful crop yields and makes it easier to take care of the crop, but what many producers of GMO crops have failed to do is inform the human population about hte potential side effects of GMO's. They might be efficient when creating great and sustainable crop but they are not so great when it comes to the human health. A study, ofcourse not published in the United States, actually has been retracted by Monsanto, by dr. Serallini, a French doctor who studied the impact of GMO's on mice has shown that the consumption of GMO's is linked to a number of various diseases such as thyroid problems, digestive problems and also cancers. There is a reason why Western Europe and Russia has such a firm standing against GMO's, and that is exactly the reason, health impacts of GMO's. When using GMO seeds, the seeds have been genetically engineered to withstand roundup and various insect repellents. Over the years, the insects and weeds have adapted to the roundup and repellents and have been immune to such, causing more and more chemicals to be doused on our crops that doesn't simply wash away when washed with water. The protein found in the Bt corn, isn't digested by human bodies, creating what is known as Celiac disease. THere is just so many negatives and cons about GMO'S! Not to mention, growing food organically and without repellents and GMO's and other of that fancy stuff creates and generates the same exact yields as the crop grown using GMO. I think America should open their eyes, and not be so for profit but for once for their citizens health. Post By CAN KARAKO

    ReplyDelete
  9. As the article says, Western Europe does not use GMOs and have rejected the use unlike America. The leading agricultural countries of non GMO areas being France and Germany, I can relate and have previous knowledge of agriculture in Western Europe, specially France, as a French citizen, I grew up in France and know how people feel about GMOs. One way to look at the difference of France's agriculture to America's is if we look at our supermarkets. In France, we will nearly never see any tag that labels a food for being organic of GMO free, we also do not have very expensive, huge organic supermarkets such as Whole Foods. Both those ideas seem a little ridiculous. I did not grow up looking at the labels of foods or ever wondered what kind of chemicals I have in my vegetables. Since I moved to America, I started becoming conscious of what I am buying and made a habit of looking at each label. Even though the article says that the dangers of GMOs have not been fully and scientifically proven, the increasing use of herbicides (21%) can show us that any chemical that has been added to plants, that was not there naturally, must have its negative effects. The view of French people, generally, are very much against GMOs and we do not regret our decision on rejecting GMOs until this day. If there were to ever be GMOs used by farmers in France, the public would be outrages. Although I doubt every single food being 100% natural in France, I can say with confidence that the use of chemicals in foods, is far less than in America. (and I hope for it to stay that way.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. The use of GMO's has been widely debated over the years. I found this article very interesting to read because it took a different stance than the previous article we read on GMO's. The main two reasons to genetically modify products are to increase crop yields and reduce the need for pesticides. Ideally, these are both great uses, but it doesn't always work that way. Decades ago, when the US and Canada became very interested in the use and regulation of GMO's, Europe decided to go the opposite direction. Science thanks them for making that decision because now we can compare the results between North America and Western Europe. Recent studies compared plant yields (per acre) in North America (US and Canada) with plant yields in Western Europe (France and Germany). The results showed that total yields weren't higher in North America than in Western Europe. Studies also showed that compared to years ago in the US, before the use of GMO's, the plant yields were not significantly less. If the positive possibilities from the use of GMO's are not happening, then why use them at all? It is clear that the potential health effects outweigh the positive effects at the moment. In the near future, I see the harvesting of GMO's becoming more standardized and popularized, once all of the negative side effects are figured out. Once the potential negative health effects are eliminated, it couldn't hurt to use GMO's. Even if yields remain the same, less pesticides would still be necessary, making it more healthy for consumption. For the moment, I think that the US needs to follow the lead of European countries such as France (when it comes to the use of GMO's).

    ReplyDelete
  11. After reading this article I am thoroughly confused. If GMOs do not in fact actually increase the crop yield and/or reduce the use of pesticides. Then, what is the point? Especially since no one knows the long term effects that these food have on the human body. So far the research is showing that GMOs is basically pointless. How is it that Western Europe is thriving and reducing the use of pesticides while the US and Canada which seems to believe in the promise of GMOs isn't excelling? It really seems to me that the US and Canada is taking a huge risk and that these companies are selling these farmers a dream that isn't coming to reality. Although the "fears about the harmful effects of eating G.M. foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis" many people are concerned with the unknown and potential health risk. It really seems like companies have not developed the GMO that they have promised. Although the product may have some added benefit to farmers it really seems that we may be moving in the wrong direction or wasting resources in something that may never deliver.

    ReplyDelete
  12. To say that no genetically modified organism will serve as a silver bullet to all problems is a testament to the truth of this article. These modifications do not solve every problem. Instead, farmers must be given access to subsidies, utilize them, test the seeds to see if they are successful in their advertised purposes, and wait a while before profit yields are experienced. Whereas a normal business investment of new farm equipment, for instance, can be felt almost immediately as to their effectiveness, GMOs take time in order to be truly appreciated.
    The problems experienced by farmers where neighboring farms are utilizing old and dated seeds that end up poisoning their own is a tragedy. In this case, a farmer is missing on their profit from the season and the government ought to step in and buy their crops. A penalty should be given to the neighboring farm and systems put in place in order to prevent such serious incidents as these.
    GMOs have a long way to come. They have never been and never will be perfect silver bullets. It is how we utilize them that we can experience agricultural benefits: where a doctor's medicine must be taken even after symptoms disappear, these GMO seeds must be utilized exactly as they are prescribed by distributing entities. This means returning or otherwise recouping costs from dated and incorrect products.

    ReplyDelete