Slashdot Mirror
Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says (nbcnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a report released Tuesday. "The committee delved into the relevant literature, heard from 80 diverse speakers, and read more than 700 comments from members of the public to broaden its understanding of issues surrounding GE crops," the report reads. Panel members read more than 900 reports. A lot of concern centered on health effects. The committee determined the following: there is no evidence of large-scale health effects on people from genetically modified foods; there is some evidence that crops genetically engineered to resist bugs have benefited people by reducing cases of insecticide poisoning; genetically engineered crops to benefit human health, such as those altered to produce more vitamin A, can reduce blindness and deaths due to vitamin A deficiency; using insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops did not damage plant or insect diversity and in some cases increased the diversity of insects; sometimes the added genes do leak out to nearby plants -- a process called gene flow -- but there is no evidence it has caused harm; in general, farmers who use GM soybean, cotton, and corn make more money but it does depend on how bad pests are and farming practices; GM crops do reduce losses to pests, and if farmers use insect-resistant crops but don't take enough care, sometimes pest insects develop resistance. The National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have put the evidence up on a website for skeptics of the report. The report also includes a 'Summarized Comments Received from Members of the Public' section for people to look up the facts to answer their concerns.
Cancer research has been casting doubt on the safety of roundup (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-probably-carcinogenic-humans/). There is a huge interest in burying the dangers being discovered. The most common GMOs are those modified to work with roundup.
Actually, that isn't really so extreme. If you use these seeds, you can't keep back seeds from your crops for next year's crops, a practice that is as old as agriculture itself. This might sound like it isn't a big deal "Just don't use GMO seeds", but it is getting so the variety of seeds that aren't GMO is diminishing, leaving few choices. I'm not claiming it is evil, but there are some ramifications that haven't been worked out.
This is why some 3rd world countries won't use it, not fear of GMO itself, but they don't want to be beholden to an American company for their seeds. I really don't blame them. I'm a USAF vet, all American guy, but I wouldn't trust US companies (or our govt) strong enough for the food supply of another nation. We have a bad history of using shit like that to our advantage.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
If you use these seeds, you can't keep back seeds from your crops for next year's crops, a practice that is as old as agriculture itself.
1. Not true for all GMO crops. Golden Rice is patent free
2. Keeping back seed died on most farms in the USA quite some time before GMO became a thing. Buying new hybrid seed each year has been around for a while because it's more profitable.
I don't read AC A human right
There are also companies who profit from selling seeds and have a history of lawsuits against independent farmers for allegedly stealing seeds. It's amazing how these "debates" mostly revolve around the asinine extremes isn't it?
One lawsuit against one farmer who deliberately bred GM plants. He determined which were which by exposing them to glyphosate and breeding the ones that survived.
Anyways, it's moot because that particular patent expired last year.
... and have a history of lawsuits against independent farmers for allegedly stealing seeds.
The farmers that were sued openly, flagrantly and repeatedly violated IP laws. The most famous example is Perry Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer who was sued by Monsanto, after he intentionally and repeatedly used patented glyphosate resistant seed. He was the subject of the wildly inaccurate documentary "David versus Monsanto". The widely held belief that Monsanto has sued farmers for innocent and unintentional infringement due to pollen blowing in on the wind is baloney.
Note: Most patents for glyphosate (Roundup) resistant seeds have expired, and farmers can now grow and replant soybean and canola (rapeseed) license free.
Well they're not entirely wrong to think that, given that miRNA from rice has been shown to alter gene expression.
One of the type of genetic modifications performed involves modifying the plants so that you could actually use more chemical crap without hurting the produce.
That is a misconception. It doesn't enable you to use 'more' herbicide, it enables you to change when and what you use. Instead of a series of pre- and post-emergent herbicides you can have fewer applications of a less harsh herbicide. Ideal? No, but do you have a better weed management strategy?
For example, using more herbicides and fertilizer to promote the growth of crops using the latter but preventing weeds from doing the same using the former results in the Gulf of Mexico becoming a eutrophicated, dead zone.
That's actually the exact opposite of true. Because of herbicide tolerant crops, more and more farmers have switched to no-till systems, and have used herbicide applications instead of tillage for weed control. Thing with tillage is, it helps with weeds, but tears up the soil and contributes to soil degradation and fertilizer runoff, the nitrogen from witch causes eutrophication. If dead zones are your concern, you should be supportive of things that facilitate no-till farming.
Golden Rice is patent free
Actually, Golden Rice is covered by a range of patents. They are offering a free license to third-world farmers that make less than $10000, but others will be required to pay royalties.
Most of those organizations are pro business growth at any cost, that's why they like GMO and fund research to sell it. The farmers of the world that GMO claims to help are so sick of top down reorganization they will not buy it , its that simple. GMO farming is buying into a system you don't control that will ultimately control you. Notice the careful wording about the situations where pests become resistant, that's because its not magic. If you offer a choice to indiginous farmers (without destroying their land first) they reject it.
[site]
A lot of GM crops are significantly more hardy than the original variants. This means that, if they breed true, then they are going to displace all of the originals and you will end up with a homogeneous group, which is then vulnerable to a single parasite/bacterium. Humans already have a dangerous lack of diversity in our food crops (go and look up the WHO's projections on how many millions would starve to death if wheat production were threatened globally) and GM crops are likely to decrease diversity even more.
The second problem is that many of them don't breed true or, indeed, at all. You must keep buying new seeds from the same company, you can't collect your own seed stock. This means that your food supply becomes entirely dependent on a small number of companies. This is less of a problem for the USA, but the EU spends a lot of money subsidising farmers to ensure that we have an independent food supply and making it dependent on seeds bought from the US seems to counter this quite effectively.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News