# data[].attributes.headline
Article- Paragraph 6. The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.subject
Article- Paragraph 6. The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uuaAxlCNc6Euvq2AnCxR52uREqT6Qx0nXKzRGavx_EE/edit#heading=h.uifbjpvba60f

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consumers are deeply suspicious of GMO foods--products made from genetically modified agricultural crops. They are told that growing such crops may have adverse health effects. They are warned that the transfer of genes across species amounts to an "unnatural" global experiment in human beings. They are led to believe that GMO cultivation techniques have disastrous environmental effects, due to heavy use of pesticides and insecticides. And they worry about crop biodiversity and about the unintended effects on other species that live in GMO fields.

I used to worry about these things too. I was concerned about the environmental impact and the integrity of the food production. But then I decided to teach a class on "Food Law" at the University of Chicago, and in preparation I read the literature-not the pamphlets, but rather the underlying science. I was astonished to discover that my prior suspicions were deeply misguided. I have since witnessed the same "aha" moment among numerous audiences, realizing that their GMO environmental fears are refuted by the evidence. And yet, outside the narrow confines of the informed public, GMO paranoia continues to rage.

Now, a new report published in Nature's "Scientific Reports" has the potential to help put a categorical end to these worries. The report compiles the entire body of science that previously examined the impact of genetically modified corn-over 6,000(!) published articles-and distills the essential findings of that massive research. The conclusion of the report is clear cut. It is a dramatic account of how big the benefit and small the risk is from GMO crops.

The societal effects of GMO crops, and especially corn, have attracted enormous public and scientific attention, not least because such crops dominate the food we eat. Almost all the science in the area has consistently produced a reassuring message, but until now it continued to be received with skepticism in some circles. To persuade the skeptics, the new report examines the results only of those prior scientific investigations that performed large field experiments and that compared GM and conventional corn crops grown under identical conditions. Here are the results:

First, genetic modification increases corn yields, by a lot. This not surprising: pests account for a loss of almost one third of yields, and weeds for a loss of another 10%. Genetic modification addresses these two sources of loss, and thus crops resistant to either pest or weeds yield on average 10% more grain, and crops resistant to both deliver a 25% increase in grain yield. Consider the global importance of such an effect: the world could use one-fifth less farm land to produce its food. This means less deforestation. It also means less greenhouse gas emissions, by as much as one-eighth of the annual emissions from automobiles. There is no other policy that a true environmentalist should support more vigorously than the transition of the rest of the world to GMO-based agriculture.

Second, genetically modified crops are not only richer, but also better. In GMO fields, there is an average 60% reduction in damaged crops (84% reduction if counting only the most advanced GMOs). None of the nutritious composition of corn is reduced. On the contrary: GMO corn was found to have one third less "mycotoxins"-poisonous chemicals introduced into the crops by insect attacks. This reduction in the contamination of grain is particularly large in developing countries, where the illnesses such contaminations cause have significant economic costs.

Finally, there is a prevailing concern that GMO agriculture uses chemicals that cause unintended environmental harms. The meta-report shows that the concern is misguided. Of all the species living in the cornfield ecology, only one family of parasitic wasps is negatively affected. Overall, there is no substantial effect on insect biodiversity. And other studies have found a dramatic reduction in the use of herbicides and insecticides.

Wisely, the authors of the report chose to err on the side of caution. They excluded much evidence that provides even stronger support for the safety and quality of GMO crops. They did not examine the enormous advantages of GM crops other than corn, which are engineered to yield important nutritional value or to reduce the adverse effects of conventional crops.

This comprehensive and careful assessment is exactly the kind of science that should be taken as conclusive to resolve a public policy debate. Consumers should not attach any added value, and should not agree to pay any added price, for "non-GMO" food products. And environmentalists should be at the forefront of advocating in favor of GMO technology. And yet, paradoxically, the more resounding the statements of scientific unanimity about the environmental benefits of GMOs, the stronger the ongoing campaigns in retail markets to promote non-GMO foods.

Why are consumers oblivious to the scientific reality? The blame, in part, falls on anti-GMO propaganda. Advocacy groups that ordinarily preach for the supremacy of scientific evidence in informing public policy (climate change? gun control?) remain unshakeable by the mountains of scientific proof in this context. There is a dogmatic, almost religious, fervor in the conviction that "frankenfoods" are immoral. It seems that no quantum of evidence can budge this belief.

Consumers are also misled by opportunistic non-GMO campaigns launched by companies that know the underlying science. It is ironic that in the epicenters of such consumer demand-in elite stores that purport to sell environmentally responsible foods-there is an ongoing concerted effort to breed, rather than uproot, these irrational and harmful fears.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consumers are deeply suspicious of GMO foods--products made from genetically modified agricultural crops. They are told that growing such crops may have adverse health effects. They are warned that the transfer of genes across species amounts to an "unnatural" global experiment in human beings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article-  Paragraph 5. The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.subject
Article-  Paragraph 5. The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uuaAxlCNc6Euvq2AnCxR52uREqT6Qx0nXKzRGavx_EE/edit#heading=h.uifbjpvba60f

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consumers are deeply suspicious of GMO foods--products made from genetically modified agricultural crops. They are told that growing such crops may have adverse health effects. They are warned that the transfer of genes across species amounts to an "unnatural" global experiment in human beings. They are led to believe that GMO cultivation techniques have disastrous environmental effects, due to heavy use of pesticides and insecticides. And they worry about crop biodiversity and about the unintended effects on other species that live in GMO fields.

I used to worry about these things too. I was concerned about the environmental impact and the integrity of the food production. But then I decided to teach a class on "Food Law" at the University of Chicago, and in preparation I read the literature-not the pamphlets, but rather the underlying science. I was astonished to discover that my prior suspicions were deeply misguided. I have since witnessed the same "aha" moment among numerous audiences, realizing that their GMO environmental fears are refuted by the evidence. And yet, outside the narrow confines of the informed public, GMO paranoia continues to rage.

Now, a new report published in Nature's "Scientific Reports" has the potential to help put a categorical end to these worries. The report compiles the entire body of science that previously examined the impact of genetically modified corn-over 6,000(!) published articles-and distills the essential findings of that massive research. The conclusion of the report is clear cut. It is a dramatic account of how big the benefit and small the risk is from GMO crops.

The societal effects of GMO crops, and especially corn, have attracted enormous public and scientific attention, not least because such crops dominate the food we eat. Almost all the science in the area has consistently produced a reassuring message, but until now it continued to be received with skepticism in some circles. To persuade the skeptics, the new report examines the results only of those prior scientific investigations that performed large field experiments and that compared GM and conventional corn crops grown under identical conditions. Here are the results:

First, genetic modification increases corn yields, by a lot. This not surprising: pests account for a loss of almost one third of yields, and weeds for a loss of another 10%. Genetic modification addresses these two sources of loss, and thus crops resistant to either pest or weeds yield on average 10% more grain, and crops resistant to both deliver a 25% increase in grain yield. Consider the global importance of such an effect: the world could use one-fifth less farm land to produce its food. This means less deforestation. It also means less greenhouse gas emissions, by as much as one-eighth of the annual emissions from automobiles. There is no other policy that a true environmentalist should support more vigorously than the transition of the rest of the world to GMO-based agriculture.

Second, genetically modified crops are not only richer, but also better. In GMO fields, there is an average 60% reduction in damaged crops (84% reduction if counting only the most advanced GMOs). None of the nutritious composition of corn is reduced. On the contrary: GMO corn was found to have one third less "mycotoxins"-poisonous chemicals introduced into the crops by insect attacks. This reduction in the contamination of grain is particularly large in developing countries, where the illnesses such contaminations cause have significant economic costs.

Finally, there is a prevailing concern that GMO agriculture uses chemicals that cause unintended environmental harms. The meta-report shows that the concern is misguided. Of all the species living in the cornfield ecology, only one family of parasitic wasps is negatively affected. Overall, there is no substantial effect on insect biodiversity. And other studies have found a dramatic reduction in the use of herbicides and insecticides.

Wisely, the authors of the report chose to err on the side of caution. They excluded much evidence that provides even stronger support for the safety and quality of GMO crops. They did not examine the enormous advantages of GM crops other than corn, which are engineered to yield important nutritional value or to reduce the adverse effects of conventional crops.

This comprehensive and careful assessment is exactly the kind of science that should be taken as conclusive to resolve a public policy debate. Consumers should not attach any added value, and should not agree to pay any added price, for "non-GMO" food products. And environmentalists should be at the forefront of advocating in favor of GMO technology. And yet, paradoxically, the more resounding the statements of scientific unanimity about the environmental benefits of GMOs, the stronger the ongoing campaigns in retail markets to promote non-GMO foods.

Why are consumers oblivious to the scientific reality? The blame, in part, falls on anti-GMO propaganda. Advocacy groups that ordinarily preach for the supremacy of scientific evidence in informing public policy (climate change? gun control?) remain unshakeable by the mountains of scientific proof in this context. There is a dogmatic, almost religious, fervor in the conviction that "frankenfoods" are immoral. It seems that no quantum of evidence can budge this belief.

Consumers are also misled by opportunistic non-GMO campaigns launched by companies that know the underlying science. It is ironic that in the epicenters of such consumer demand-in elite stores that purport to sell environmentally responsible foods-there is an ongoing concerted effort to breed, rather than uproot, these irrational and harmful fears.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consumers are deeply suspicious of GMO foods--products made from genetically modified agricultural crops. They are told that growing such crops may have adverse health effects. They are warned that the transfer of genes across species amounts to an "unnatural" global experiment in human beings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article-  Paragraph 5. The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.subject
Article-  Paragraph 5. The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uuaAxlCNc6Euvq2AnCxR52uREqT6Qx0nXKzRGavx_EE/edit#heading=h.uifbjpvba60f

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consumers are deeply suspicious of GMO foods--products made from genetically modified agricultural crops. They are told that growing such crops may have adverse health effects. They are warned that the transfer of genes across species amounts to an "unnatural" global experiment in human beings. They are led to believe that GMO cultivation techniques have disastrous environmental effects, due to heavy use of pesticides and insecticides. And they worry about crop biodiversity and about the unintended effects on other species that live in GMO fields.

I used to worry about these things too. I was concerned about the environmental impact and the integrity of the food production. But then I decided to teach a class on "Food Law" at the University of Chicago, and in preparation I read the literature-not the pamphlets, but rather the underlying science. I was astonished to discover that my prior suspicions were deeply misguided. I have since witnessed the same "aha" moment among numerous audiences, realizing that their GMO environmental fears are refuted by the evidence. And yet, outside the narrow confines of the informed public, GMO paranoia continues to rage.

Now, a new report published in Nature's "Scientific Reports" has the potential to help put a categorical end to these worries. The report compiles the entire body of science that previously examined the impact of genetically modified corn-over 6,000(!) published articles-and distills the essential findings of that massive research. The conclusion of the report is clear cut. It is a dramatic account of how big the benefit and small the risk is from GMO crops.

The societal effects of GMO crops, and especially corn, have attracted enormous public and scientific attention, not least because such crops dominate the food we eat. Almost all the science in the area has consistently produced a reassuring message, but until now it continued to be received with skepticism in some circles. To persuade the skeptics, the new report examines the results only of those prior scientific investigations that performed large field experiments and that compared GM and conventional corn crops grown under identical conditions. Here are the results:

First, genetic modification increases corn yields, by a lot. This not surprising: pests account for a loss of almost one third of yields, and weeds for a loss of another 10%. Genetic modification addresses these two sources of loss, and thus crops resistant to either pest or weeds yield on average 10% more grain, and crops resistant to both deliver a 25% increase in grain yield. Consider the global importance of such an effect: the world could use one-fifth less farm land to produce its food. This means less deforestation. It also means less greenhouse gas emissions, by as much as one-eighth of the annual emissions from automobiles. There is no other policy that a true environmentalist should support more vigorously than the transition of the rest of the world to GMO-based agriculture.

Second, genetically modified crops are not only richer, but also better. In GMO fields, there is an average 60% reduction in damaged crops (84% reduction if counting only the most advanced GMOs). None of the nutritious composition of corn is reduced. On the contrary: GMO corn was found to have one third less "mycotoxins"-poisonous chemicals introduced into the crops by insect attacks. This reduction in the contamination of grain is particularly large in developing countries, where the illnesses such contaminations cause have significant economic costs.

Finally, there is a prevailing concern that GMO agriculture uses chemicals that cause unintended environmental harms. The meta-report shows that the concern is misguided. Of all the species living in the cornfield ecology, only one family of parasitic wasps is negatively affected. Overall, there is no substantial effect on insect biodiversity. And other studies have found a dramatic reduction in the use of herbicides and insecticides.

Wisely, the authors of the report chose to err on the side of caution. They excluded much evidence that provides even stronger support for the safety and quality of GMO crops. They did not examine the enormous advantages of GM crops other than corn, which are engineered to yield important nutritional value or to reduce the adverse effects of conventional crops.

This comprehensive and careful assessment is exactly the kind of science that should be taken as conclusive to resolve a public policy debate. Consumers should not attach any added value, and should not agree to pay any added price, for "non-GMO" food products. And environmentalists should be at the forefront of advocating in favor of GMO technology. And yet, paradoxically, the more resounding the statements of scientific unanimity about the environmental benefits of GMOs, the stronger the ongoing campaigns in retail markets to promote non-GMO foods.

Why are consumers oblivious to the scientific reality? The blame, in part, falls on anti-GMO propaganda. Advocacy groups that ordinarily preach for the supremacy of scientific evidence in informing public policy (climate change? gun control?) remain unshakeable by the mountains of scientific proof in this context. There is a dogmatic, almost religious, fervor in the conviction that "frankenfoods" are immoral. It seems that no quantum of evidence can budge this belief.

Consumers are also misled by opportunistic non-GMO campaigns launched by companies that know the underlying science. It is ironic that in the epicenters of such consumer demand-in elite stores that purport to sell environmentally responsible foods-there is an ongoing concerted effort to breed, rather than uproot, these irrational and harmful fears.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consumers are deeply suspicious of GMO foods--products made from genetically modified agricultural crops. They are told that growing such crops may have adverse health effects. They are warned that the transfer of genes across species amounts to an "unnatural" global experiment in human beings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article-  Paragraph 5. The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.subject
Article-  Paragraph 5. The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uuaAxlCNc6Euvq2AnCxR52uREqT6Qx0nXKzRGavx_EE/edit#heading=h.uifbjpvba60f

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consumers are deeply suspicious of GMO foods--products made from genetically modified agricultural crops. They are told that growing such crops may have adverse health effects. They are warned that the transfer of genes across species amounts to an "unnatural" global experiment in human beings. They are led to believe that GMO cultivation techniques have disastrous environmental effects, due to heavy use of pesticides and insecticides. And they worry about crop biodiversity and about the unintended effects on other species that live in GMO fields.

I used to worry about these things too. I was concerned about the environmental impact and the integrity of the food production. But then I decided to teach a class on "Food Law" at the University of Chicago, and in preparation I read the literature-not the pamphlets, but rather the underlying science. I was astonished to discover that my prior suspicions were deeply misguided. I have since witnessed the same "aha" moment among numerous audiences, realizing that their GMO environmental fears are refuted by the evidence. And yet, outside the narrow confines of the informed public, GMO paranoia continues to rage.

Now, a new report published in Nature's "Scientific Reports" has the potential to help put a categorical end to these worries. The report compiles the entire body of science that previously examined the impact of genetically modified corn-over 6,000(!) published articles-and distills the essential findings of that massive research. The conclusion of the report is clear cut. It is a dramatic account of how big the benefit and small the risk is from GMO crops.

The societal effects of GMO crops, and especially corn, have attracted enormous public and scientific attention, not least because such crops dominate the food we eat. Almost all the science in the area has consistently produced a reassuring message, but until now it continued to be received with skepticism in some circles. To persuade the skeptics, the new report examines the results only of those prior scientific investigations that performed large field experiments and that compared GM and conventional corn crops grown under identical conditions. Here are the results:

First, genetic modification increases corn yields, by a lot. This not surprising: pests account for a loss of almost one third of yields, and weeds for a loss of another 10%. Genetic modification addresses these two sources of loss, and thus crops resistant to either pest or weeds yield on average 10% more grain, and crops resistant to both deliver a 25% increase in grain yield. Consider the global importance of such an effect: the world could use one-fifth less farm land to produce its food. This means less deforestation. It also means less greenhouse gas emissions, by as much as one-eighth of the annual emissions from automobiles. There is no other policy that a true environmentalist should support more vigorously than the transition of the rest of the world to GMO-based agriculture.

Second, genetically modified crops are not only richer, but also better. In GMO fields, there is an average 60% reduction in damaged crops (84% reduction if counting only the most advanced GMOs). None of the nutritious composition of corn is reduced. On the contrary: GMO corn was found to have one third less "mycotoxins"-poisonous chemicals introduced into the crops by insect attacks. This reduction in the contamination of grain is particularly large in developing countries, where the illnesses such contaminations cause have significant economic costs.

Finally, there is a prevailing concern that GMO agriculture uses chemicals that cause unintended environmental harms. The meta-report shows that the concern is misguided. Of all the species living in the cornfield ecology, only one family of parasitic wasps is negatively affected. Overall, there is no substantial effect on insect biodiversity. And other studies have found a dramatic reduction in the use of herbicides and insecticides.

Wisely, the authors of the report chose to err on the side of caution. They excluded much evidence that provides even stronger support for the safety and quality of GMO crops. They did not examine the enormous advantages of GM crops other than corn, which are engineered to yield important nutritional value or to reduce the adverse effects of conventional crops.

This comprehensive and careful assessment is exactly the kind of science that should be taken as conclusive to resolve a public policy debate. Consumers should not attach any added value, and should not agree to pay any added price, for "non-GMO" food products. And environmentalists should be at the forefront of advocating in favor of GMO technology. And yet, paradoxically, the more resounding the statements of scientific unanimity about the environmental benefits of GMOs, the stronger the ongoing campaigns in retail markets to promote non-GMO foods.

Why are consumers oblivious to the scientific reality? The blame, in part, falls on anti-GMO propaganda. Advocacy groups that ordinarily preach for the supremacy of scientific evidence in informing public policy (climate change? gun control?) remain unshakeable by the mountains of scientific proof in this context. There is a dogmatic, almost religious, fervor in the conviction that "frankenfoods" are immoral. It seems that no quantum of evidence can budge this belief.

Consumers are also misled by opportunistic non-GMO campaigns launched by companies that know the underlying science. It is ironic that in the epicenters of such consumer demand-in elite stores that purport to sell environmentally responsible foods-there is an ongoing concerted effort to breed, rather than uproot, these irrational and harmful fears.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consumers are deeply suspicious of GMO foods--products made from genetically modified agricultural crops. They are told that growing such crops may have adverse health effects. They are warned that the transfer of genes across species amounts to an "unnatural" global experiment in human beings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article- Paragraph 3. Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Foods On The Environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Article- Paragraph 3. Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Foods On The Environment

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NFahwQlrg6ejPS69GHpW6D_Bdwf8M72KqVUoJYA79bs/edit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Erica Kannall

Erica Kannall is a registered dietitian and certified health/fitness specialist with the American College of Sports Medicine. She has worked in clinical nutrition, community health, fitness, health coaching, counseling and food service. She holds a Bachelor of Science in clinical dietetics and nutrition from the University of Pittsburgh.

Genetically modified foods -- also known as GMOs or genetically engineered organisms -- appear on grocery store shelves and restaurant plates throughout the United States. Unfortunately, you're probably unaware that the food has been genetically altered because no requirement exists that requires food to be labeled as genetically modified. Eating genetically modified foods may have negative effects on your overall health and on the environment.

Genetically modified foods are biologically altered foods. To do this, scientists isolate a desired gene from one plant, animal or organism and splice it into another. By doing so, scientists are hoping to achieve a specific benefit such as increased crop yield, resistance to herbicides and pesticides, resistance to disease or drought tolerance. In the U.S., more than 88 percent of all the soy, corn, canola, sugar beets and cotton plants grown here are genetically modified. Alfalfa, papaya and summer squash are genetically engineered, as well. Animal products such as meat, milk and eggs often contain genetically modified foods, because the food fed to livestock are from crops that have been genetically modified.

Genetically modified foods are relatively new to the food supply, and people have only been consuming these foods since the mid-1990s when the first genetically modified tomatoes appeared in grocery stores. There is no long-term data on how genetically modified foods affect human health. Clinical trials done on animals that were fed genetically modified crops are of short duration and show mixed outcomes. A study published in the "International Journal of Biological Sciences" in December 2009, notes that rats fed genetically modified corn had a decline in liver, kidney, heart, adrenal gland and spleen health and function. Short-term studies in which animals were fed genetically modified foods for only 4 weeks usually show few negative side effects. No research has been conducted on the health and safety for people who eat genetically modified foods.

The genes themselves in these biotech foods may pose a human health risk, but the chemicals the plants are treated with also have negative consequences. Soybeans, for example, are genetically engineered to withstand spray from powerful herbicides, which kill all weeds and other plants in the farm field, while leaving soy plants unharmed. As a result, the food you eat may contain traces of these toxic chemicals. The Environmental Protection Agency notes that some pesticides have been linked to nervous system disturbances, visual and skin irritations, endocrine problems and an increase in certain cancers.

In addition to your health, genetically modified foods may have negative side effects on the environment. Genetically modified crops are often sprayed with powerful pesticides and herbicides, and are fertilized with chemical fertilizers. These chemicals then contaminate the environment by traveling through the air; they leach into the ground, where they end up in fresh-water sources. Weeds have begun to develop a resistance to some of these chemicals -- which means that in the future, it will be more difficult to control noxious plants. Wind also carries the pollen from genetically engineered crops to neighboring farm fields where seed stock is then cross-contaminated with genetically modified pollen. Over time, this leads to a reduction in the biodiversity of crop strains. Insect populations may also be harmed by genetically modified crops that produce pesticides.

Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require genetically modified foods to be labeled as such. Companies can voluntarily label foods, if they choose. This means that you have no idea whether the product you buy contains genetically modified ingredients or not. You can still select foods that have not been modified by looking closely at the label. Foods that have the "organic" seal or that state they are "100 percent organic," means that the food cannot contain genetically modified. Even if it's not organic, look for a seal stating the food is "Non-GMO Project Verified." Otherwise, you may be consuming genetically modified food with potential negative health implications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified foods -- also known as GMOs or genetically engineered organisms -- appear on grocery store shelves and restaurant plates throughout the United States. Unfortunately, you're probably unaware that the food has been genetically altered because no requirement exists that requires food to be labeled as genetically modified. Eating...

# data[].attributes.headline
Picture of GMO helping with deforestation

# data[].attributes.subject
Picture of GMO helping with deforestation

# data[].attributes.headline
graph of increase of corn yield because of GMOs

# data[].attributes.subject
graph of increase of corn yield because of GMOs

# data[].attributes.body
food grown in toxic soil

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetically modified foods (GMOs) are something we've all likely eaten at least once. They are foods that have benefited from genetic engineering. Many strands of corn, soybeans, cotton and similar crops are frequently planted in US fields every year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, GMOs account for 90% or more of the most common crops that are grown by American farmers.

Many believe that GMO foods are perfectly safe to eat and can be grown in greater yields than non-modified crops. There are also many that believe GMOs are unsafe to eat and could be contributing to an increase in common health issues. The pros and cons of GMOs are quite complex, so here are the key points to consider.

What Are the Pros of GMOs?

1. GMOs improve the quality of the food that is grown.
Genetically modified foods can be engineered to have a longer shelf life, which can limit food waste. It can be used to create stronger colors, eliminate seeds, or have the crop be more tolerant to severe weather changes. Many foods have been genetically modified to improve nutrient content, including calcium and protein.

2. GMOs are easier for farmers to grow.
Genetically modified foods can also be engineered to grow in specific, sometimes challenging environments. Crops can be created that have a greater resistance to insects. They may be engineered to have a better tolerance to various herbicides that may be used. In return, farmers can typically receive a better crop yield at the end of the growing season, which increases their profits.

3. It increases the food yields that we can produce on existing croplands.
By the year 2050, the human population on our planet is expected to top 10 billion people. This means we'll need more food to be produced with our existing resources in order to support this increase. GMOs give us the potential to do so without changing the cost structures of food.

4. GMOs can be shipped to remote areas of the planet.
The planet currently produces 17% more food than it needs for current population levels. At issue is how food can be distributed to rural populations that have few local food resources. The amount of time it takes for food to arrive in these areas is enough for it to spoil before it can be consumed. GMOs improve the lifespan of the food and its durability, allowing for them to be shipped greater distances with less waste to those who have the greatest hunger needs.

5. Herbicide use on GMO crops is lower than other crops.
In a study by PG Economics which looked at pesticide use on GMO cotton from 1996-2011, it found that there had been a 6.1% decrease in the number of herbicides that had been used compared to how much was expected to be used. More than 1.5 kg of herbicide is still used per hectare, however, and this figure is expected to rise to 3.5 kg per hectare by 2025.

6. The FDA requires GMO foods to meet the same requirements as all other foods.
Stanford University compared organic foods to GMO foods and found that there was no strong evidence that one or the other is either more nutritious or more likely to carry with it additional health risks that are associated with its consumption.

What Are the Cons of GMOs?

1. They may contribute to an increase in food-related allergies.
Information from the CDC shows that food allergies in children have increased from 3.4% to 5.1% in the last decade. Although there is no evidence that supports the idea that GMOs can contribute to an increase in food-related allergies, the idea that it can happen has been firmly planted. This idea causes many people to avoid products which contain GMOs.

2. Genetic engineering can trigger allergies from alternative foods.
GMOs that contained proteins from Brazil nuts were found to trigger an allergic reaction in people who are allergic to them. Because of this, any proteins that come from a different food item must be listed as part of the ingredients or growing process and be tested to determine their ability to cause an allergic reaction.

3. GMOs may contribute to antibiotic resistance.
GMOs are often incorporated with antibiotic-resistant genes in order to strengthen the crops that will grow. There is speculation, but no confirmed facts or correlations, that this process could be contributing to the formation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

4. One research paper connects GMOs to cancer formation.
A paper that was first published in 2013 linked the herbicide that is found in Roundup-tolerant crops to cancer development in rats. This paper was retracted by the initial journal that published it for having invalid or misleading information, but it has been republished by other journals since the retraction. This has caused many to believe that consuming GMO corn could be hazardous to their health.

5. Just 6 companies control almost the entire GMO seed market and 70% of the global pesticide market.
Much of the negative energy which surrounds GMOs tends to involve Monsanto. There are 5 other companies that, along with Monsanto, control nearly all of the GMO seed market. This include Sungenta, Dow Agrosciences, Bayer, BASF, and DuPont. This means a majority of corn and soybean products are not only profiting the farmer, but they are profiting companies as well. To protect these profits, patents are sought on certain seeds, which has caused legal troubles for some farmers who have had GMO seeds cross-pollinate with their crops, despite not planting GMOs.

6. Herbicide resistance happens naturally without the need for genetic engineering.
There are currently 64 different types of weeds which have been proven to be resistant to atrazine. This is despite the fact that none of these weeds have been paired with GMO crops to encourage such a resistance. Some farmers in the Southeastern United States can lose up to half of their yield, even when planting GMO crops, to atrazine-resistant weeds.

7. Independent research is not allowed with GMO seeds from half of today's controlling organizations.
User agreements with half of today's leading GMO seed producers prohibit the use of independent research on the final product. This helps to protect the royalties that the companies earn when farmers are able to harvest a yield through the use of their seeds. Since the seeds are considered company property, even the unintended growing of a GMO crop can result in the need to pay a royalty.

In the pros and cons of GMOs, we find that there is just as much disinformation as there are facts. They may be able to feed a hungry world, but they may also cause digestive issues in doing so. What really needs to be addresses is how GMO seeds are treated. Farmers shouldn't need to purchase seeds every year or fear a lawsuit because another farmer planted GMO crops that spread to their fields. This would allow us to benefit from the efforts of everyone in the agricultural field.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified foods (GMOs) are something we've all likely eaten at least once. They are foods that have benefited from genetic engineering. Many strands of corn, soybeans, cotton and similar crops are frequently planted in US fields every year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Crops are engineered in a number of ways. Often, they are made resistant to an herbicide, so a farmer can spray one on their fields and keep their plots free from weeds without killing the crop itself. Or they can be innately poisonous to its predators, like milkweed is, which reduces the amount of pesticides needed to keep a crop safe.

But do these things harm the environment? According to the data: not really. GM crops appear to be just as sustainable and productive as non-GM crops, if not more so.

"Sustainability," in addition to being a buzzword, is a measure of a local environment's ability to remain diverse and productive. Studies show that choosing to farm either non-GM or GM crops doesn't make much difference when it comes to sustainability. And in both aspects, biodiversity and productivity, GM agriculture has been performing better than non-GM crops for the last 20 years.

Biodiversity

Any kind of farming inevitably results in biodiversity loss: the immense diversity of forests and woods is cleared for the monotony and monoculture of the crops we need for our food, feed, fibers, and fuel. And this deforestation and agriculture account for 20-30 percent of all greenhouse gases emissions.

Matteo Farinella

But cultivating GM crops has proven better for biodiversity than the conventional alternative, because one way to maintain biodiversity in a local ecosystem is to reduce pesticide use. A GM crop can do this by carrying its own defenses, making pesticides less necessary. For instance, "Bt" corn is engineered to be toxic to predators that would otherwise prey on it. They don't need as much outside assistance in the form of pesticides sprayed over an entire field.

Another upside to GM crops is that the toxin they carry is specific to their predators, making them less harmful than a spray with collateral effects. That means that primary predators like the European corn borer (nicknamed " the billion dollar bug" because of its heavy effects on the corn market) can be precisely targeted, while leaving other harmless, passerby insects unaffected. Such genetic engineering is remarkably efficient - according to a 2014 meta-analysis, GM-based farming has required 37 percent fewer pesticides than conventional agriculture.

The biodiversity of a field can also be monitored through the levels of insects living on it. A recent meta-study based on 839 publications released over 20 years reaches the conclusion that, worldwide, GM corn does not effect the majority of insect families. Basically, no ladybugs or butterflies were harmed - at least, not more than they would've been through conventional agriculture. The only insects that were affected by the Bt-corn were the European corn borer (the intended target), the Western corn rootworm, and other corn pests.

And, finally, an important aspect of biodiversity is the soil in a given area: one teaspoon of soil contains more living organisms than people in the world and soil microorganisms have a crucial impact on the fertility and the sustainability of agricultural systems. For example, the majority of plant roots establish symbiotic relationships with fungi or bacteria living in the soil that both siphons them nutrients and provides protection against root diseases. Soil microbial communities are not affected by GM crops, which interact with soil microorganisms ( worms, insect, fungi, and bacteria) in the same way as non-GM crops.

Productivity

The productivity of GM plants is typically 20 percent higher than that of non-GM ones, making it an appealing way to approach the pressures of the rising global food demand due to population growth. GM crops are also an appealing approach in the face of climate change and pollution.

Matteo Farinella

As climate change progresses, land becomes more arid, usable topsoil is depleted, and water becomes more scarce. Conventional crops are typically not drought tolerant, and so as human-caused climate change continues, agricultural yields could drop. One study found that each degree of warming will result in anywhere from a 3-7 percent drop in global yield in wheat, rice, corn, and soybean. Tactics to adapt to this include engineering crops to retain more water, or adding genes that essentially stabilize cells, make them hardier, and hopefully able to withstand the stresses of a drought.

We have gathered enough data in research performed over 20 years in different parts of the world to show that GE crops are generally beneficial to the environment, given their reduced land usage, need for pesticides, and lack of off-target effects. If we continue to engineer plants for other characteristics (like, say, improved photosynthesis and enhanced plant growth, which would increase yield and reduce land usage further), genetic engineering can be an important ally in protecting the environment and achieving a more sustainable agriculture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs are better for the environment than you'd think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Crops are engineered in a number of ways. Often, they are made resistant to an herbicide, so a farmer can spray one on their fields and keep their plots free from weeds without killing the crop itself. Or they can be innately poisonous to its predators, like milkweed is, which reduces the amount of pesticides needed to keep a crop safe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - A global ban on genetically modified crops would raise food prices and add the equivalent of nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a study by researchers from Purdue University shows.

Using a model to assess the economic and environmental value of GMO crops, agricultural economists found that replacing GMO corn, soybeans and cotton with conventionally bred varieties worldwide would cause a 0.27 to 2.2 percent increase in food costs, depending on the region, with poorer countries hit hardest. According to the study, published Oct. 27 in the Journal of Environmental Protection, a ban on GMOs would also trigger negative environmental consequences: The conversion of pastures and forests to cropland - to compensate for conventional crops' lower productivity - would release substantial amounts of stored carbon to the atmosphere.

Conversely, if countries that already plant GMOs expanded their use of genetically modified crops to match the rate of GMO planting in the United States, global greenhouse gas emissions would fall by the equivalent of 0.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide and would allow 0.8 million hectares of cropland (about 2 million acres) to return to forests and pastures.

"Some of the same groups that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also want to ban GMOs. But you can't have it both ways," said Wally Tyner, the James and Lois Ackerman Professor of Agricultural Economics. "Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint."

GMOs have been a source of contention in the United States and abroad, as some believe genetically modified crops pose potential risks to human health and the environment. Three U.S. regulatory agencies - the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency - have deemed GMO foods safe to eat, and the United States is the global leader in planting GMO crops and developing agricultural biotechnology.

But in many European and Asian countries, consumer and economic concerns have led to strict regulations on GMO crops, with partial or full bans on their cultivation.

Tyner and fellow researchers Farzad Taheripour, research associate professor of agricultural economics, and then-master's student Harry Mahaffey used an extension of the Purdue-developed Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP-BIO) model to investigate two hypothetical scenarios: "What economic and environmental effects would a global ban on GMO corn, soybeans and cotton have?" and "What would be the additional impact if global GMO adoption caught up to the U.S. and then a ban were implemented?"

The model is set to 2011 crop prices, yields and growing conditions and encompasses the ripple effects of how a change in one sector impacts other sectors.

GTAP-BIO predicted a modest and region-specific rise in overall food costs under a global GMO ban, a result of the lower productivity of non-GMO crops. Tyner said people in poorer regions would be most burdened by the price increase, as they spend about 70 percent of their income on food, compared with about 10 percent in the U.S.

Countries that export crops would gain economically by the increase in food prices, while countries that import crops would suffer. As a result, the U.S., despite being the biggest planter of GMO crops, would profit under a GMO ban because of its strength as a crop producer and exporter. China, a major crop importer, would suffer a welfare loss - a measure of economic wellbeing - of $3.63 billion.

"The U.S. is the largest agricultural exporter, so if the price of agricultural products goes up, we benefit," Tyner said.

Banning GMO crops would also lead to an increase in global cropland of 3.1 million hectares (about 7.7 million acres), as land would be cleared to compensate for the lower yields of conventional crops. Converting forests and pastures into farmland is an environmentally-costly process that releases carbon stored in plants and soil, and this expansion of cropland would add the equivalent of 0.92 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Tyner said the economic consequences of a GMO ban came as no surprise to him and his co-authors, but the toll such a ban would have on the environment was an eye-opener - and a component that is notably missing from global discussion of GMOs.

"It's quite fine for people to be concerned about GMOs - there's no scientific basis to those concerns, but that's their right," he said. "But the adverse impact on greenhouse gases without GMOs is something that is not widely known. It is important that this element enter into the public conversation."

The paper is available at http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=71584

The study was conducted with support from research funds via Tyner's endowed chair.

Writer: Natalie van Hoose, 765-496-2050, nvanhoos@purdue.edu

Sources: Wally Tyner, 765-494-0199, wtyner@purdue.edu

Farzad Taheripour, 765-494-4612, tfarzad@purdue.edu
ABSTRACT Evaluating the Economic and Environmental Impacts of a Global GMO Ban Harry Mahaffey 1, Farzad Taheripour2, and Wallace E. Tyner2 1 Cargill, Kansas City, United States 2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States E-mail: tfarzad@purdue.edu
The objective of this research is to assess the global economic and greenhouse gas emission impacts of banning GMO crops. This is done by modeling two counterfactual scenarios and evaluating them apart and in combination using a well-known Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model, GTAP-BIO. The first scenario models the impact of a global GMO ban. The second scenario models the impact of increased GMO penetration. The focus is on the price and welfare impacts, and land use change greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with GMO technologies. Much of the prior work on the economic impacts of GMO technology has relied on a combination of partial equilibrium analysis and econometric techniques. However, CGE modelling is a way of analyzing economy-wide impacts that take into account the linkages in the global economy. Here the goal is to contribute to the literature on the benefits of GMO technology by estimating the impacts on price, supply and welfare. Food price impacts range from an increase of 0.27% to 2.2%, depending on the region. Total welfare losses associated with loss of GMO technology total up to $9.75 billion. The loss of GMO traits as an intensification technology has not only economic impacts, but also environmental ones. The full environmental analysis of GMO is not undertaken here. Rather we model the land use change owing to the loss of GMO traits and calculate the associated increase in GHG emissions. We predict a substantial increase in GHG emissions if GMO technology is banned.

Agricultural Communications: (765) 494-8415;
Darrin Pack, dpack@purdue.edu
Agriculture News Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Model predicts elimination of GMO crops would cause hike in greenhouse gas emissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - A global ban on genetically modified crops would raise food prices and add the equivalent of nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a study by researchers from Purdue University shows.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetically modified foods (GMOs) are something we've all likely eaten at least once. They are foods that have benefited from genetic engineering. Many strands of corn, soybeans, cotton and similar crops are frequently planted in US fields every year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, GMOs account for 90% or more of the most common crops that are grown by American farmers.

Many believe that GMO foods are perfectly safe to eat and can be grown in greater yields than non-modified crops. There are also many that believe GMOs are unsafe to eat and could be contributing to an increase in common health issues. The pros and cons of GMOs are quite complex, so here are the key points to consider.

What Are the Pros of GMOs?

1. GMOs improve the quality of the food that is grown.
Genetically modified foods can be engineered to have a longer shelf life, which can limit food waste. It can be used to create stronger colors, eliminate seeds, or have the crop be more tolerant to severe weather changes. Many foods have been genetically modified to improve nutrient content, including calcium and protein.

2. GMOs are easier for farmers to grow.
Genetically modified foods can also be engineered to grow in specific, sometimes challenging environments. Crops can be created that have a greater resistance to insects. They may be engineered to have a better tolerance to various herbicides that may be used. In return, farmers can typically receive a better crop yield at the end of the growing season, which increases their profits.

3. It increases the food yields that we can produce on existing croplands.
By the year 2050, the human population on our planet is expected to top 10 billion people. This means we'll need more food to be produced with our existing resources in order to support this increase. GMOs give us the potential to do so without changing the cost structures of food.

4. GMOs can be shipped to remote areas of the planet.
The planet currently produces 17% more food than it needs for current population levels. At issue is how food can be distributed to rural populations that have few local food resources. The amount of time it takes for food to arrive in these areas is enough for it to spoil before it can be consumed. GMOs improve the lifespan of the food and its durability, allowing for them to be shipped greater distances with less waste to those who have the greatest hunger needs.

5. Herbicide use on GMO crops is lower than other crops.
In a study by PG Economics which looked at pesticide use on GMO cotton from 1996-2011, it found that there had been a 6.1% decrease in the number of herbicides that had been used compared to how much was expected to be used. More than 1.5 kg of herbicide is still used per hectare, however, and this figure is expected to rise to 3.5 kg per hectare by 2025.

6. The FDA requires GMO foods to meet the same requirements as all other foods.
Stanford University compared organic foods to GMO foods and found that there was no strong evidence that one or the other is either more nutritious or more likely to carry with it additional health risks that are associated with its consumption.

What Are the Cons of GMOs?

1. They may contribute to an increase in food-related allergies.
Information from the CDC shows that food allergies in children have increased from 3.4% to 5.1% in the last decade. Although there is no evidence that supports the idea that GMOs can contribute to an increase in food-related allergies, the idea that it can happen has been firmly planted. This idea causes many people to avoid products which contain GMOs.

2. Genetic engineering can trigger allergies from alternative foods.
GMOs that contained proteins from Brazil nuts were found to trigger an allergic reaction in people who are allergic to them. Because of this, any proteins that come from a different food item must be listed as part of the ingredients or growing process and be tested to determine their ability to cause an allergic reaction.

3. GMOs may contribute to antibiotic resistance.
GMOs are often incorporated with antibiotic-resistant genes in order to strengthen the crops that will grow. There is speculation, but no confirmed facts or correlations, that this process could be contributing to the formation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

4. One research paper connects GMOs to cancer formation.
A paper that was first published in 2013 linked the herbicide that is found in Roundup-tolerant crops to cancer development in rats. This paper was retracted by the initial journal that published it for having invalid or misleading information, but it has been republished by other journals since the retraction. This has caused many to believe that consuming GMO corn could be hazardous to their health.

5. Just 6 companies control almost the entire GMO seed market and 70% of the global pesticide market.
Much of the negative energy which surrounds GMOs tends to involve Monsanto. There are 5 other companies that, along with Monsanto, control nearly all of the GMO seed market. This include Sungenta, Dow Agrosciences, Bayer, BASF, and DuPont. This means a majority of corn and soybean products are not only profiting the farmer, but they are profiting companies as well. To protect these profits, patents are sought on certain seeds, which has caused legal troubles for some farmers who have had GMO seeds cross-pollinate with their crops, despite not planting GMOs.

6. Herbicide resistance happens naturally without the need for genetic engineering.
There are currently 64 different types of weeds which have been proven to be resistant to atrazine. This is despite the fact that none of these weeds have been paired with GMO crops to encourage such a resistance. Some farmers in the Southeastern United States can lose up to half of their yield, even when planting GMO crops, to atrazine-resistant weeds.

7. Independent research is not allowed with GMO seeds from half of today's controlling organizations.
User agreements with half of today's leading GMO seed producers prohibit the use of independent research on the final product. This helps to protect the royalties that the companies earn when farmers are able to harvest a yield through the use of their seeds. Since the seeds are considered company property, even the unintended growing of a GMO crop can result in the need to pay a royalty.

In the pros and cons of GMOs, we find that there is just as much disinformation as there are facts. They may be able to feed a hungry world, but they may also cause digestive issues in doing so. What really needs to be addresses is how GMO seeds are treated. Farmers shouldn't need to purchase seeds every year or fear a lawsuit because another farmer planted GMO crops that spread to their fields. This would allow us to benefit from the efforts of everyone in the agricultural field.

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified foods (GMOs) are something we've all likely eaten at least once. They are foods that have benefited from genetic engineering. Many strands of corn, soybeans, cotton and similar crops are frequently planted in US fields every year.