# data[].attributes.body
BY: Esmat Doosty, Working Individually

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Picture showing the difference between a GMO injected and not injected one.

# data[].attributes.body
https://happilyunprocessed.com/news-and-other-things/gmos/

Description: Found the Picture from the website above that indicates the problem with GMOs. this picture basically indicates how rotten apples can still look like fresh apples with GMO injection.

Connection:
reason to beliefs is ideology and suppression by authority, in this case as we know that ideology is something that people shared based on their views and what they believe can possibly make this GMOs interesting because at some point we all have heard or seen food that has been injected by GMO like the fruit Banana, In Canada, we have bananas available all seasons which shouldn't be possible which bring us to our point that fruits cans be injected with GMOs and maybe dangerous chemical that not everyone fully understands. we have to export and import but it does not mean it is the best possible option if we think economy-wise. suppression by authority can be played out in this scenario

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Researchers found GMOs rich in Anthocyanin,

# data[].attributes.body
Description:
Chinese Researchers have found GMOs with boosted antioxidants in tomatoes can potentially lead us to more production of tomatoes.

Connection:
Again this picture also represents ideology due to researchers saying that some GMOs in food are good for us such as helping our cells, but not everyone is aware of the full information. millions of dollars are spent daily on groceries but not many people ask about the GMOs injected into the foods that researcher claim to be safe, while there are conspiracy theories that GMOs may have long-term side effects or even authorities can have a role in this which creates arguments about GMOs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post#5: Video   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qkrtObBiw&ab_channel=RealFarmLives                 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post#5: Video   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qkrtObBiw&ab_channel=RealFarmLives                 

# data[].attributes.body
Description:
This video shows some of the main Myths about GMOs such as GMOs are to cause Illnesses but Have been disproven due to researchers proving that GMOs are safe and have the same nutrition as the non-injected ones.

Connection:
The connection here is Simplicity due to Scientifically proven things being hard to understand or maybe misunderstood. Not many people understand or have access to all of the knowledge that is out there for GMOs to give assurance that GMOs are safe without any side effects. This is where ideology or suppression by authority plays out because of people making assumptions about how the government could be hiding things about GMOs from people.

# data[].attributes.body
Description:
This video shows that GMOs are safe and even talks about a study in The US and Europe to prove that GMOs are safe. GMOs are being consumed more in US and less in Europe, and the study shows that there is no higher risk to health due to GMOs.

Connection:
The connection between this video is simplicity due to scientific research being the argument, people lack scientific knowledge which is the main problem of people creating arguments on GMOs. science has proven the super long term effects because that will be shown overtime, but as of right know all the research on GMOs indicates that GMOs are safe.

# data[].attributes.body
Description:
Very Interesting video about how GMOs are misunderstood and myths are created.

Connection:
Unexplained connects to this because of how easy it is for people to make wrong consumptions while not having any idea or explanation for their assumption to be supported.

Red Flag: Ideology support makes perfect sense in this case because people tent to believe in things without any proof and pass on information from one to another without any claims that proves their argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Descriptions:
This source explains some of the top 10 misconceptions about GMOs. shows the studies and information about how GMOs do not necessarily need special regulations due to multiple pieces of research that have proven that GMOs are safe and leading the food industry to more production, more nutrition, and bigger crop Yield.

Connection:
The connection here is Simplicity because scientific knowledge is hard to understand and people lack the tools to learn or look through the information on how GMOs can be safe and very beneficial in terms of things like Farming. another reason to Believe, this is patternicity people get ideas from looking into foods and creating ideas about how GMOs can be unsafe and create long-term health illness due to food lasting longer than usual before it goes rotten due to GMO effects, GMO's making fruits eatable before its natural times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advertisement

Since scientists first began to test genetically engineered crops in the late 1980s, the idea of tinkering with the DNA in our food supply has been one of the most controversial subjects that you could imagine. To some, GMOs ( genetically modified organisms, which include both plants and animals) are a breakthrough scientific advance, one that will provide us with bigger crop yields and more nutritious food, and help farms in developing nations produce enough to banish hunger. To others, GMOs are "Frankenfood," a nightmarish example of science run amok, which poses grave potential risks to both human health and the environment.

The sharp division over GMOs isn't just ideological, but international as well. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided in 1992 that GMOs weren't inherently dangerous and didn't require special regulation [source: American Radio Works]. Today, about 60 to 70 percent of U.S. processed foods have ingredients derived from GMOs [source: Dupont]. By contrast, in Europe, the European Union imposed far more stringent regulations. Only about 1 percent of farmland has GMO crops under cultivation, and very few processed foods contain them [source: Barber].

GMO proponents point to approval from independent scientific organizations such as the National Research Council, which concluded in 2010 that GMOs actually have fewer adverse effects upon the environment than ordinary crops grown with pesticides, and the World Health Organization, whose Web site states that studies on genetically engineered foods show they "are not likely to present risks for human health" [sources: NAP, WHO]. Critics charge that safety research on GMOs is insufficient because it tends to focus on short-term rather than long-term effects, which they warn are unknown [source: Barber].

As often is the case with scientific controversies, the truth is far too complex and needs too many qualifications to fit on a bumper sticker. Here's a look at 10 assertions about GMOs that are frequently uttered by debaters, and the actual truth behind them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advertisement Since scientists first began to test genetically engineered crops in the late 1980s, the idea of tinkering with the DNA in our food supply has been one of the most controversial subjects that you could imagine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This image shows what the myths about GMOs are all about.  

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bio.org/blogs/get-know-gmos-month-spooky-gmo-myths-debunked

Description: This image is from the website above which is sharing the idea of GMOs and trying to create an activity with GMOs and some of the myths about GMOs.

Connection:

This image from the website connects to ideology due to people creating ideas or making assumptions about how some of the companies or scientists could potentially inject a dangerous chemical that can create health problems. another reason to believe that connected to this is conspiracy theories, there are theories that people in power are allowing big companies to Inject GMOs into foods to decrease the population by creating health problems for people and more jobs in the healthcare industry.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  I learned that we all have been possibly consuming GMOs because as we know we all buy Groceries and eat foods without asking questions. The craziest part that I learned about these GMOs was that some people started marching the street to protest about GMOs while doing absolutely zero research whatsoever.

2. We consume GMOs from many foods and what I find interesting is that Suppression by authority can be real and potentially some of the Information About GMOs can be possibly hidden from us due to the government wanting to reduce population or create more jobs. we sure have seen things that were hidden from us before due to authorities hiding them from people due to their plotting. A perfect example would be the Covid-19 vaccines, vaccine companies made billions of dollars and the government allowed it, now a study source shows the vaccine companies have said that they are unsure of vaccines being effective.

3. The Ideologies about the GMO myths were interesting to me, it was very informative, and learned new things that I did not have a clue about.

4. The one thing I will remember from this research is the fact that people created myths about GMOs while having zero research done on how they can be beneficial and safe.

5. I find a reason to believe - suppression by authority is the most harmful because some of the realistic ones are very harmful and perhaps outcome changes. The least harmful one has to be Unexplained due to nobody understanding it.

6. The most important piece of information I would share with the family after learning things from this course and all the topics that I researched has to be that it is important to make sure you do the research about things because sometimes things can be misleading and unrealistic which can time-consuming and potentially harm.

# data[].attributes.body
Description:
This source explains the myths about GMOs and also the Facts which are scientifically proven that the facts are creditable. Myths are things like GMOs causing cancer and illnesses, while the facts have proven that in 20 years in the market GMOs have not created any health problems.

Connections:
The connection here is Confusion with the correlation due to people creating myths About GMOs while thinking some of the health problems are caused by GMOs injected in Foods while not fully understanding the full depth of GMOs. GMOs have been proven to be safe and have been used in food for decades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMO Myth 1

There are dozens of GMO crops, including strawberries, bananas, and wheat. There is even GMO water and GMO salt.

GMO Fact 1

The top 5 most planted GMO crops worldwide are soybean, maize, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. The following biotech crops were also planted in different countries: papaya, eggplant (brinjal), potato, apple, safflower, pineapple, and sugarcane. Many of these are available in various countries around the world. Other GMO crops that could be available soon include rice, cowpea, cassava, sorghum, and banana. Please visit the ISAAA website for more information on GMO crops available in specific countries.

The majority of these crops, like alfalfa, field corn, and soy are actually used for livestock feed. Other uses for these crops include common food ingredients, such as sugar, canola oil, corn starch, and soy lecithin. What is true about GM crops is you may find only a few of these in your produce section: rainbow papaya, summer squash, sweet corn, potatoes, and apples.

You may also see non-GMO water and non-GMO salt, but here's the catch: it's not possible for either to be a GMO in the first place! Although many products aren't among the commercially available GMO crops sold, you may still see certified GMO-free labels even though there's no GMO counterpart.

GMO Myth 2

GMOs cause cancer, autism, allergies, gluten intolerance, and other illnesses.

GMO Fact 2

While some people may think there is such a thing as 'GMO cancer', in the 20-plus years on the market, GMOs have not caused or contributed to a single illness or death. The health and safety of GMOs have been validated by many independent scientists and organizations around the world. Groups ranging from the World Health Organization, the Royal Society of Medicine (UK), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the International Seed Federation (ISF), along with various governing bodies on every continent around the world have all affirmed the safety of GMO crops. Since 1992, more than 40 government agencies have given approvals for GMO food, feed, and cultivation. In many countries, multiple agencies are involved in the regulation of GMOs.

In the spring of 2016, The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) researched the issue of GMO safety and concluded, again, that GMOs are safe. Their study found "no substantial evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available genetically engineered crops and conventionally bred crops." More than 20 scientists, researchers, agricultural and industry experts reviewed over 20 years of data since GMOs were introduced, including nearly 900 studies and publications, animal studies, allergenicity testing, and North American and European health data and concluded that GMOs pose no risk to our health.

GMO Myth 3

GMO companies force farmers to grow their seeds or sue farmers if GMO seeds or pollen blow into other fields.

GMO Fact 3

Farmers choose what seeds to grow based on what is best for their farms, market demand, and local growing environments.

In fact, there are a wide variety of seed options available to farmers, including organic, hybrid, conventional, and genetically modified seeds. Many farmers successfully grow organic, non-GMO and genetically modified crops on the same farm.

Brian Scott, a farmer who grows corn and soybeans, among other crops, stated, "I choose what seeds I plant every year. I'm not locked into buying seed from one company from one season to the next."

With regard to biotech companies suing farmers for GMO replanting seeds or pollen blowing into their fields, this is simply not true. In this post, Greg Conko, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, explains that "Urban legends also claim that biotech seed companies troll the country, suing farmers for patent infringement when their crops have been accidentally cross-pollinated by a neighbor's genetically engineered plants. But not a single known case of this has actually occurred."

The myth is spread by misrepresenting cases, such as that of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who claimed he was sued when patented Roundup Ready canola plants were discovered on his farm. But the Canadian court that heard his case concluded that Schmeiser had intentionally planted canola seeds containing the patented Roundup Ready gene and was not merely a victim of unintended cross-pollination.

GMO Myth 4

GMOs harm bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.

GMO Fact 4

GMOs are not believed to have any impact on honey bee populations.

The sudden and widespread disappearances of adult honey bees from hives, termed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), became a national concern more than 10 years ago. Claims have been circulated that GMO crops somehow harm bees, but this is one of the myths about GMOs that have been refuted by the mainstream scientific community.

Scientists and regulators recognize the bee populations may be challenged by a number of factors including pests and parasites, microbial disease, inadequate diet and loss of genetic diversity.

The insecticidal proteins produced by the currently available insect-resistant crops are derived from a common soil bacterium and all of the proteins used in insect-resistant GM plants are tested for toxicity to honey bees. None of these proteins have provided any evidence of harm in either short or long term testing with both adult and larval honey bees.

If a variety of factors are impacting bee health, could GMOs be one of them? Bee Ambassador for Bayer Chris Sansone, who has more than 30 years of experience as a professor and extension specialist at Texas A&M University, points to several scientific studies indicating this is not the case. He notes that "genetically modified plants and their impact on honey bees have been widely studied and the results indicate that GM plants are not harmful to bees."

As for butterflies, there are a variety of factors impacting monarch butterfly populations, such as deforestation, parasitism and ebbing populations of their host milkweed plants. A 2019 paper shows that GMOs are not the main culprit in any monarch butterfly decline.

There are claims that GMOs and herbicides (more specifically a herbicide called glyphosate) are contributing to the decline in milkweed - a primary food source for monarch larvae (caterpillars)- and that the butterflies have been harmed by eating pollen from GM Bt corn. GMO Answers experts address both of these claims.

Dr. Andrew Kniss, associate professor of weed ecology and management at the University of Wyoming, explains why the cause for the milkweed decline is a complex issue, concluding that while herbicides may have played a role in the decline of species like milkweed, "the research does suggest that there are more important factors than herbicides responsible for the decline of native plant species near crop fields, including milkweeds." This study he points to was conducted by USDA-ARS and Penn State scientists.

GMO Myth 5

GMOs increase the price of food.

GMO Fact 5

GMOs have actually contributed to reducing the real cost of food.

This is one of the more common myths about GMOs, but it is untrue. Dr. Stuart Smyth, assistant professor with the department of bioresource policy, business and economics at the University of Saskatchewan explains, "Typically, GM crops are the more efficient crops and that means their price and costs as ingredients are less than non-GMOs." So in terms of the cost difference between GMO vs non-GMO foods, GMOs are helping to keep prices lower.

Food prices are affected by a number of factors, including commodity prices and by other costs, such as wages, transportation, in addition to losses due to weather, pests or disease. For example, foods that have to be shipped or hauled long distances will be affected when the cost of fuel rises.

Another interesting fact about GMOs is that GM crops have helped to increase the supply of corn and soybeans, so the rise in food prices is lower than it would be if GM crops did not exist. A 2016 study performed by Tyner et al from Purdue University presented the significant crop yield loss and other economic effects of banning GM crops in the U.S. They showed that if all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the U.S. will be eliminated, corn yield declines at 11% on average, soybeans lose 5% of their yields, and cotton at 18.6%. With lower crop yields without GMOs, corn prices would increase as much as 28% and soybeans as much as 22%, according to the study.

Looking globally, UC Berkeley Agriculture Professor David Zilberman's findings note, "Biotech corn has an estimated yield of 34% more in the Philippines, 11% in South Africa, 9% in Argentina and 5 to 6% each in the U.S. and Spain."

Without genetically modified crops, Zilberman also found, "the price of food would be 5 to 10%higher than it is now -particularly for meat, poultry, eggs, milk and processed food. The poorest people will suffer the most", he says, adding that the cost will be borne mostly by people in developing countries, where many of these foods are already difficult to come by.

GMO Myth 6

If livestock eats genetically modified grain, there will be GMO milk, meat and eggs.

GMO Fact 6

GMOs have never been detected in milk, meat or eggs derived from animals fed GM feed.

(Ref. U of Cal. GE and Animal Feed)

It has been estimated that over 70% of harvested GMO crops are fed to food-producing animals, making the world's livestock populations the largest consumers of the current generation of GMO crops. However, GMOs have never been detected in food derived from animals fed GMO crops.

It's important to understand that almost all the food that we (or animals) eat contains DNA and proteins. The DNA and proteins found in food, GMO and non-GMO, are processed by the digestive system in our gastrointestinal tract. During digestion, GMO and non-GMO DNA is broken down into the four nucleotides that make up all DNA, and/or into small nucleotide fragments. Similarly, proteins, again GMO and non-GMO, are broken down into one or a few of the 21 amino acids that exist in nature. Many studies have been conducted on the potential for GMO DNA or proteins to be transferred into animal tissue. No intact or immunologically reactive protein or DNA has been detected in animal tissue.

Therefore, as Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., extension specialist in animal genomics and biotechnology at the University of California, Davis, explains, "Genetically engineered crops are digested by animals in the same way as conventional crops. Evidence to date strongly suggests that feeding livestock with genetically engineered crops is equivalent to feeding unmodified feed sources in terms of nutrient composition, digestibility and feeding value." Additionally, Dr. Van Eenennaam states, " Genetically engineered DNA, or the novel proteins encoded therein, have never been detected in the milk, meat or eggs derived from animals fed genetically engineered feedstuffs. Several studies have documented that small fragments of plant-derived, but not genetically engineered, DNA can pass into the tissues of animals that consume the plants."

GMO Myth 7

GMOs have a negative impact on the environment.

GMO Fact 7

GMOs allow farmers to preserve the land while doing more with fewer resources and help us address today's most pressing environmental challenges.

When determining the environmental impact of GMOs vs non-GMOs in agriculture, consider the ability for GMOs to preserve biodiversity. GM crops increase productivity on existing agricultural land and protect biodiversity by sparing lands not intensively cultivated. Through enhanced adoption of conservation tillage practices, the reduction of insecticide use, and the use of more environmentally benign herbicides that increase yields, GM agriculture has alleviated the pressure to convert additional land into agricultural use.

GMOs can increase productivity in agriculture. According to PG Economics, from 1996 to 2018, GMO crops are estimated to have contributed to additional 306 million tons of soybeans, 549 million tons of corn, 36 million tons of cotton lint and 15 million tons of canola, without having to bring more land into production. To produce the same amount of crops without GM technology, farmers would have needed to cultivate 59 million additional acres of land, so in this case, the environmental impact of genetically modified crops is hugely positive. GM crops have contributed to higher yields, e.g., 30% more in some farming areas, and can contribute to poverty reduction and food security in developing countries.

GMOs can reduce soil erosion. Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops enable more farmers to adopt conservation tillage because they help farmers to more effectively and efficiently control weeds at a lower cost. Florida farmer Lawson Mozley explains that with herbicide tolerant GM crops, weeds can be sprayed and remain in the field to protect the soil. Then the incoming crop is planted directly into the leftover organic matter without turning over the soil.

GMOs can help conserve water. Farmers utilize many tools to conserve water including drip irrigation systems. GMOs provide another tool that farmers can employ to help conserve water. HT crops, along with conservation tillage, aid in soil moisture retention, which can reduce the need to irrigate. GMOs can help reduce water use in another way - drought tolerance. This GM trait can help crops cope with stress and allow farmers to increase yields when periods of drought occur - without supplemental water from irrigation.

GMOs can help improve air quality. GMOs can reduce agriculturally-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Agricultural economist Graham Brookes reports: GMOs have helped farmers reduce their environmental footprint by allowing them to use fewer inputs and enabling a shift to reduced tillage. These practices have led to less time spent on a tractor, less fuel used and fewer emissions. As a result, GMOs have helped reduce CO2 emissions equivalent to removing nearly 15.3 million cars from the road for one year.

GMOs can lead to fewer pesticide applications. A common misconception is that the adoption of GM crops have increased the use of pesticides when just the opposite is true. Overall GM crops, including crops with the "Bt" (Bacillus thuringiensis) trait for insect resistance, have contributed to an 8% decrease in pesticide applications. Not only is this beneficial to our environment, but also to the farmers who grow the crops. Learn more about how some GMOs have led to a reduction in pesticide applications.

GMO Myth 8

No long-term health studies have been conducted on GMO crops.

GMO Fact 8

GMO crops are repeatedly and extensively tested for consumer and environmental safety.

The truth about GMO testing is these tests are reviewed more in more than 40 countries around the world, and many countries have multiple regulatory agencies reviewing GMO crop approvals. Tests are conducted by both industry experts and independent organizations to ensure that GMO foods are safe to eat. Multiple studies are conducted to verify that each new GMO crop is as safe as its conventional counterparty. GMOs must be shown to be safe to grow, safe for the environment, and safe to eat.

An ongoing program called Project GRACE, publicly funded by the European Union, has several objectives, including conducting 90-day animal feeding trials and animal studies with an extended time frame. The scientists involved with this project recently published a 1-year feeding trial with GM maize MON810 variety and conventional maize varieties. The results obtained show that the MON810 maize at a level of up to 33% in the diet did not induce adverse effects in rats after chronic exposure.

This literature review provides a good summary of long-term feeding studies with diets containing large amounts of GMO-derived ingredients. It concludes that "the studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed." The European Commission report, A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research, also highlights the long-term safety and benefits of GMO crops.

In fact, every major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world has reviewed the research about GMOs and openly declared crop biotechnology and the foods currently available for sale to be safe. So, despite the myths, the truth about genetically modified food is that it is entirely safe for human consumption.

GMO Myth 9

The non-GMO label means the food is healthier, better for the environment, and doesn't contain any GMOS.

GMO Fact 9

The non-GMO label means a food product contains fewer than 1% of genetically modified ingredients. Because of this, food labeled non-GMO is not legally considered GMO-free.

The truth behind non-GMO labeling:

The non-GMO label doesn't always mean it's replacing a GMO alternative. Often, companies use the non-GMO label on foods that were never developed with biotechnology. For example, there aren't any GMO tomatoes available on supermarket shelves. So, when you see non-GMO tomatoes, remember, you're paying a premium for a meaningless label.

The non-GMO label doesn't mean it's healthier. There's scientific consensus that GMO foods are as healthy as non-GMO foods. Sometimes they're even healthier. Genetically modified foods are also safe to eat.

The non-GMO label doesn't mean it's better for the environment. Several GMO crops use less water and fewer pesticides. Non-GMO alternatives often need more environmental resources.

The non-GMO label doesn't mean there aren't any GMOs. Non-GMO labeled food products can contain up to 1% GMO ingredients. Non-GMO labeled livestock, poultry, beef, and seafood feed and supplements may include up to 5% GMO ingredients. Non-edible products, like lotions and cleaning supplies, can include up to 1.5% GMO ingredients.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are dozens of GMO crops, including strawberries, bananas, and wheat. There is even GMO water and GMO salt. The top 5 most planted GMO crops worldwide are soybean, maize, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. The following biotech crops were also planted in different countries: papaya, eggplant (brinjal), potato, apple, safflower, pineapple, and sugarcane.

# data[].attributes.body
Description:
This source is very Informative and Like the fact that it indicates how GMOs are beneficial to agriculture. A study by a university professor shows how can the expansion of sustainable intensification can be good.

Connection:
Ideology Support, claims that talk about GMOs and Myths are all not creditable due to unexplained assumptions without support. There are some myths about GMOs that can be possibly realistic due to suppression by authority, we live in a modern-day with developed technology that has created lies and changed outcomes because of the idea of people believing in things like science. science can be incorrect and misleading things, so this can be a big argument in support for the Myths in my Idea.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Molecular genetic engineering has spawned a strange new allergy. No, not the kind of allergy that causes hives or wheezing; rather, an aversion to mentioning the role of genetic engineering in agriculture. In analyses, reports, and supposedly scholarly articles on sustainable agriculture, individuals and institutions that know better often ignore or downplay the importance of the newer technologies, such as recombinant DNA ("gene-splicing") and gene editing.

An example of this was just published in the journal Science - a review by Professor Jules Pretty, titled, "Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agriculture systems." Less a review than a narrowly-focused, biased opinion piece, it seemed more appropriate to a New Age, anti-technology publication than to Science.

Mr. Pretty, a professor of "environment and society" at the University of Essex, introduced his subject thusly:

Sustainable intensification. . .comprises agricultural processes or systems in which production is maintained or increased while progressing toward substantial enhancement of environmental outcomes. It incorporates these principles without the cultivation of more land and loss of unfarmed habitats and with increases in system performance that incur no net environmental cost.

There's nothing wrong with the sustainable intensification (SI) concept or its goals, but with the exception of a nod in passing to the Green Revolution's "new crop varieties" in the first sentence, the article manages to discuss the subject without a single mention of terms like "new genetic varieties," "genetic engineering," "GMO," or "genetic improvement." In a "review" of "sustainable intensification" in agriculture as Pretty defines it, that is incomprehensible.

Pretty offers a good deal of abstruse verbiage, such as, "SI seeks to develop synergies between agricultural and landscape-wide system components." And: "Three nonlinear stages in transition toward sustainability have been proposed to occur: efficiency, substitution, and redesign. Although both efficiency and substitution are important, they are not sufficient for maximizing coproduction of favorable agricultural and beneficial environmental outcomes without redesign."

We are puzzled at how one can discuss "efficiency, substitution, and redesign" in agricultural practices without any mention of the critical contributions of new, improved genetic varieties over the past two decades. It's like addressing those same qualities in home design without mentioning terms like roof or foundation. Specifically, the introduction of crop plants modified with molecular techniques of genetic engineering - sometimes referred to as "GMOs" - has made prodigious contributions to farm income and environmental benefits by means of changes in tillage practices, and pesticide and herbicide use.

Pretty's observation that SI "is now a priority for the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations" is noteworthy, because UN agencies such as, incomprehensibly, its Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), are notorious for their unwillingness to acknowledge the already-prodigious scientific, economic, and humanitarian contributions and future potential of genetic engineering in their reports and analyses.

Instead of state-of-the art science, the FAO peddles " agroecology, " which it defines as "a scientific discipline, a set of practices and a social movement," focusing on "how different components of the agroecosystem interact...[and create] sustainable farming systems that optimize and stabilize yields." However, given that agroecology rejects many modern technological and biological agricultural advances, it is unlikely to produce yields that will keep up with population growth and changing consumer diets associated with higher incomes and urbanization. Most scientists dismiss it as a combination of wishful thinking and ignorance and consider it a threat to developing countries' food security.

By contrast, a report from the World Resources Institute released on December 5 was both more scientific and realistic:

Increased efficiency of natural resource use. . . is the single most important step toward meeting both food production and environmental goals. This means increasing crop yields at higher than historical rates, and dramatically increasing output of milk and meat per hectare of pasture.

How do we do that? They concluded:

Conventional breeding, the selection of best-performing crops based on genetic traits, accounted for around half of historical crop yield gains. New advances in molecular biology offer great promise for additional yield gains by making it cheaper and faster to map genetic codes of plants, test for desired DNA traits, purify crop strains, and turn genes on and off.

In addition, for decades the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have documented the economic and environmental benefits of genetic engineering, most recently in a voluminous report released in 2016. It concluded that the introduction of genetically engineered varieties that incorporate a natural pesticide (one or more proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis) reduced overall pesticide use and pest populations (and therefore benefited even non-genetically engineered crops, the so-called "halo effect"), and increased insect diversity. It also found that the cultivation of herbicide-resistant crops resulted in an increase in yield without any decrease in plant diversity.

When it comes to the importance of genetic engineering in sustainable agriculture, the highly politicized UN is clearly beyond help, either ignoring it or trying to impose excessive, unscientific regulation. But Pretty's unpretty review is surprising. Its shallowness does no credit to him or to Science.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. Follow him on Twitter @henryimiller Colin A. Carter is Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics, at the University of California, Davis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Viewpoint: GMO crops are key to sustainable farming-why are some scientists afraid to talk about them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Molecular genetic engineering has spawned a strange new allergy. No, not the kind of allergy that causes hives or wheezing; rather, an aversion to mentioning the role of genetic engineering in agriculture. In analyses, reports, and supposedly scholarly articles on sustainable agriculture, individuals and institutions that know better often ignore or downplay the importance of the newer technologies, such as recombinant DNA ("gene-splicing") and gene editing.