# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humans have been modifying crops for over ten thousand years.

Conventional methods (such as crossbreeding or treating plants with mutagens or radiation) involve large-scale and imprecise changes that are unknown.

Using biotech solutions like genetic modification, researchers can make small, precise and extremely well-known changes to crops for the benefit of humans and the environment. GM crops are also much more well-tested than conventional crops to make sure they at least as safe.

So what are some of the environmental benefits of GM crops?
#1 GMOs decrease dangerous pesticide usage
Genetically modified insect-resistant crops produce their own, highly-specific pesticide (called Bt proteins) against a specific group of pests. This means that farmers do not need to spray that much insecticides over their crops. Bt proteins are also a lot safer than pesticides used in conventional farming.

Crops genetically modified to resist the herbicide glyphosate mean that farmers can use this much safer herbicide instead of much more dangerous herbicide that they used before.

Thus, GMOs have reduced pesticide use by 37% and has allowed farmers to severely decrease their reliance on dangerous pesticides and herbicides.
#2 GMOs increases yield and decrease land use
Because GMOs increases yield whereas organic farming decreases yield by 34%, GMOs requires substantially less land compared with conventional and organic farming to grow the same amount of food. It has thus a much milder agricultural impact than the alternatives.
#3 GMOs boost no-tilling farming
Tilling is used (among other things) as a weed-management method, but it also removes nutrients from the soil, causes more erosion and run-off, and harms earthworms, ants and other organisms.

Because herbicide-resistant crops do not require as much mechanical weed removal, GM farmers do not need to till their soil as much and some farms that grow GMOs do not engage in any tilling at all.
#4 GMOs save beneficial insects
Because insect-resistant GMOs that use the Bt proteins only affect a specific group of insect pests, it has little to no effect on any other insects. This means that beneficial insects that would previously have died due to broad-spectrum insecticides being sprayed will now survive on farms that grow GM crops.
#5 GMOs reduce carbon dioxide emissions
Because GMOs reduce pesticide usage and tilling, farms that grow GMOs require less diesel to power their tractors and thus produce less carbon dioxide.

Less carbon dioxide mean that GM farms have a smaller carbon footprint and are thus more eco-friendly in this area.
Bottom line
Many GMOs are good for the environment.

If you care about environmental issues and GMOs, hit the heart below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humans have been modifying crops for over ten thousand years. Conventional methods (such as crossbreeding or treating plants with mutagens or radiation) involve large-scale and imprecise changes that are unknown. Using biotech solutions like genetic modification, researchers can make small, precise and extremely well-known changes to crops for the benefit of humans and the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate over the environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops is growing increasingly complex, intense, and extremely emotional. It is further complicated as new research is published. Are GM crops safe for the environment?

Assessing the environmental impact of GM crops is often difficult as many factors are considered. Some scientists focus on the potential risks of GM crops, while others emphasize their potential benefits. Just what are the issues and how can we address them?

What is the current environmental situation?

A growing population, global warming, and loss of biodiversity have a tremendous impact on our environment.

By year 2050, there will be 9.5 billion people living on this planet. This means that in less than 50 years, world population is expected to increase by 3 billion. Feeding these people will mean massive changes in the production, distribution, and stability of food products.

Unfortunately, cropland and population are not uniformly distributed. For example, China has only 1.4% of the world's productive land but 20-25% of the world's population. ¹ This situation is further aggravated by diminishing cropland due to erosion, fewer renewable resources, less water, and a reduced population working the land.

The destruction of wilderness and forests, and continued use of coal and oil have led to a steady increase in carbon dioxide levels, resulting in global warming. It is predicted that the average global temperature will rise by 1.4 - 5.8ºC by 2100, with increasing fluctuations in weather conditions. Climate change can radically alter rainfall patterns and therefore require the migration of people and shifts in agricultural practices.

Further, an increasing human population is responsible for wilderness destruction, water quality problems, and diversion of water. The loss of habitat has resulted in many species being displaced.

Thus, to conserve forests, habitats, and biodiversity, it is necessary to ensure that future food requirements come only from cropland currently in use.

What are the environmental benefits of GM crops?

One of the significant environmental benefits of GM crops is the dramatic reduction in pesticide use, with the size of the reduction varying between crops and introduced trait.

1. A study assessing the global economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops for the first twenty one years (1996-2016) of adoption showed that the technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 671.2 million kg and has reduced environmental footprint associated with pesticide use by 18.4%. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture equivalent to removing 16.75 million cars from the roads. ²

2. According to a meta-analysis on the impacts of GM crops, GM technology has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent.³

3. A study of U.S. maize and soybean farmers from 1998 to 2011 concluded that adopters of herbicide tolerant maize used 1.2% (0.03 kg/ha) less herbicide than non-adopters, and adopters of insect resistant maize used 11.2% (0.013 kg/ha) less insecticide than non-adopters.⁴

4. In China, use of Bt cotton resulted in pesticide use reduction of 78,000 tons of formulated pesticides in 2001. This corresponds to about a quarter of all the pesticides sprayed in China in the mid-1990s.⁵ Furthermore, another study covering data collected from 1999 to 2012 showed that Bt cotton adoption has caused a significant reduction in pesticide use.⁶

5. The use of Bt cotton can substantially reduce the risk and incidence of pesticide poisonings to farmers.⁷

6. Herbicide tolerant crops have facilitated the continued expansion of conservation tillage, especially no-till cultivation system, in the USA. The adoption of conservation and no-till cultivation practices saved nearly 1 billion tons of soil per year.⁸

7. Biotech cotton has been documented to have a positive effect on the number and diversity of beneficial insects in the US and Australian cotton fields.⁹

8. Adoption of Bt corn in the Philippines did not show an indication that Bt corn had negative effect on insect abundance and diversity.¹⁷

How are GM crops assessed for environmental safety?

GM crops are thoroughly evaluated for environmental effects before entering the marketplace. They are assessed by many stakeholders in accordance with principles developed by environmental experts around the world. 10,11,12 Among those who conduct risk assessment procedures are the developers of GM crops, regulatory bodies, and academic scientists.

Most countries use similar risk assessment procedures in considering the interactions between a GM crop and its environment. These include information about the role of the introduced gene, and the effect that it brings into the recipient plant. Also addressed are specific questions about unintentional effects such as:

1. impact on non-target organisms in the environment

2. whether the modified crop might persist in the environment longer than usual or invade new habitats

3. likelihood and consequences of a gene being transferred unintentionally from the modified crop to other species

Further, an increasing human population is responsible for wilderness destruction, water quality problems, and diversion of water. The loss of habitat has resulted in many species being displaced.

Thus, to conserve forests, habitats, and biodiversity, it is necessary to ensure that future food requirements come only from cropland currently in use.

What are the potential risks?
Potential of the introduced genes to outcross to weedy relatives as well as the potential to create weedy species
Out-crossing is the unintentional breeding of a domestic crop with a related plant. A major environmental concern associated with GM crops is their potential to create new weeds through out-crossing with wild relatives, or simply by persisting in the wild themselves.

The potential for the above to happen is assessed prior to introduction, and is monitored after the crop is planted as well. A ten-year study initiated in 1990 demonstrated that there is no increased risk of invasiveness or persistence in wild habitats for GM crops (oilseed rape, potatoes, corn, and sugar beet) and traits (herbicide tolerance, insect protection) tested when compared to their unmodified counterparts. ¹³ The researchers stated, however, that these results "do not mean that genetic modifications could not increase weediness or invasiveness of crop plants, but they do indicate that productive crops are unlikely to survive for long outside cultivation." It is therefore important, however, as regulations require, to evaluate individual GM crops on a case-by-case basis, both prior to release and after commercialization.
Direct effects on non-target organisms
In May 1999, it was reported that pollen from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insect resistant corn had a negative impact on Monarch butterfly larvae. This report raised concerns and questions about potential risks to Monarchs and perhaps other non-target organisms. Some scientists, however, urged caution over the interpretation of the study because it reflects a different situation than that in the environment. The author indicated "Our study was conducted in the lab and, while it raises an important issue, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about the risk to Monarch populations in the field solely on these initial results." In 2001, a study published in PNAS concluded that the impact of Bt corn pollen on Monarch butterfly populations is negligible. ¹⁶

A report from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that the "data provide a weight of evidence indicating no unreasonable adverse effects of Bt proteins expressed in plants to non-target wildlife." Furthermore, a collaborative research effort by North American scientists has concluded that in most commercial hybrids, Bt expression in pollen is low, and laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density that would be encountered in the field. ¹³ A Nature publication of Losey, 1999; and lab experiments on force-fed predators and extensive field work demonstrated no significant impact on Monarch Butterfly populations. ¹⁸
Development of insect resistance
Another concern over the use of Bt crops is that it will lead to the development of insect resistance to Bt. Insect resistance management plans have been developed by government, industry, and scientists to address this issue. These plans include a requirement that every field of insect resistant crops must have an associated refuge of non-GM crops in order for the insects to develop without selection to the insect resistant varieties.

Additional resistance management practices are also being developed by scientists all over the world. These must be performed in line with post-approval monitoring, where GM crops, as well as their immediate environment, will be constantly evaluated for changes even after the crop has been released.

Conclusion

The environmental and ecological concerns potentially associated with GM crops are evaluated prior to their release. In addition, post-approval monitoring and good agricultural systems need to be in place to detect and minimize potential risks, as well as to ensure that GM crops continue to be safe after their release. Comparisons among GM, conventional, and other agricultural practices, such as organic farming, will bring to light the relative risks and benefits of adopting GM crops.

References:

1. China urges further protection of arable land, March 23, 2004. http://english.people.com.cn/200403/23/eng20040332_138213.shtml.

2. Brookes, G and P Barfoot. 2018. GM crops: Global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2016. PG Economics Ltd, UK. p 1-204

3. Klümper, W and M Qaim. 2014. A Meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9(11): e111629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629.

4. Perry, ED, F Ciliberto, DA Hennessy, and GC Moschini. 2016. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans. Science Advances 2(8): e1600850. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850.full.

5. Pray, CE, J Huang, R Hu and S Rozelle. 2002. Five years of Bt cotton in China - the benefits continue. The Plant Journal, 31(4):423-430

6. Qiao, F, J Huang, S Wang, and Q Li. The impact of Bt cotton adoption on the stability of pesticide use. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. Doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(17)61699-X.

7. Hossain, F, CE Pray, Y Lu, J Huang and R Hu. 2004. Genetically modified cotton and farmers' health in China. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 10: 296-303

8. Fawcett, R and D Towery. 2002. Conservation tillage and plant biotechnology: how new technologies can improve the environment by reducing the need to plow. Conservation Tillage Information Center, West Lafayette, Indiana. http://ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/BiotechPaper.pdf

9. Carpenter, J, A Felsot, T Goode, M Hammig, D Onstad and S Sankula. 2002. Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn and cotton crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa, June.

10. Canola Council of Canada. 2001. An agronomic and economic assessment of transgenic canola. Canola Council of Canada: 1-95. http://www.canola-council.org/production/gmo1.html

11. US National Research Council. 1989. Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for decisions. Committee on Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction of Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Plants into the Environment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

12. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1992. Safety considerations for biotechnology. OECD, Paris, 50 pp.

13. Government of Canada. 1994. Assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with novel traits. Dir. 9408, Dec. 16, 1994. Plant Products Division, Plant Industry Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.

14. Crawley, MJ, SL Brown, RS Hails, DD Kohn and M Rees. 2001. Biotechnology: transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature, 409:682-683.

15. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Bt biopesticides registration action document preliminary risks and benefits sections Bacillus thuringiensis plant-pesticides.http://www.epa.gov.scipoly/sap

16. Sear, M, RL Helmich, DE Stanley-Horn, KS Obenhauser, JM Pleasants, HR Matilla, BD Siegfried and GP Dively. 2001. Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly. PNAS 98(21):11937-11942

17. Yorobe, JM, CB Quicoy, EP Alcantara and BR Sumayao. 2006. Impact assessment of Bt corn in the Philippines. The Philippine Agricultural Scientist 89(3): 258-267.

18. Ammann, K. 2004. The impact of agricultural biotechnology on biodiversity. Botanic Gardens, University of Bern

*Updated October 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GM Crops and the Environment | ISAAA.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate over the environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops is growing increasingly complex, intense, and extremely emotional. It is further complicated as new research is published. Are GM crops safe for the environment? Assessing the environmental impact of GM crops is often difficult as many factors are considered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you want to know more about GMO regulatory policies in the United States? From my experience, many people have quite a bit of confusion about how it works, which is understandable since it's a complicated process. Despite that confusion, GMOs go through a rigorous regulatory process to ensure they're safe to go to market. In fact, the regulatory review process alone can take more than three years to grant approval of a new GM crop product, and overall it typically takes over 13 years for a new trait to go from an idea to the field.
Research and testing: The first steps in the regulatory process for GM crops
But let's start at the beginning: Long before developers submit genetically modified (GM) crops to U.S. regulatory agencies and other global agencies for review, they conduct many years of research and testing, regulated field trials and internal reviews of these crops.

Developers conduct extensive tests to make sure the GM crop contains the same components and levels of nutrients as its conventional varieties. Specifically, the GM crop is analyzed to make sure that, compared to conventional crops, it has similar levels of protein, carbohydrates, fat, amino acids, fiber and vitamins, as well as a variety of other components.

Any gene that is added to the GM crop is thoroughly studied and characterized. Scientists examine how the gene works, conduct environmental and ecological assessments in the lab and field, and confirm that there are no health concerns posed by the gene and/or the protein produced by the gene. This includes thorough testing to verify that any such proteins do not introduce a new food allergen. Because existing food crops are recognized as safe, the tests on the GM crop must demonstrate that it is not substantially altered from the non-GM crop in terms of its use as food or feed, or in terms of its environmental safety. This is referred to as "substantial equivalence."
The review process: The EPA, FDA and USDA evaluate GM crop safety
Next, GM products are examined by regulatory agencies around the world. In fact, the U.S. framework for regulation has been in place since 1986 when the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) established the " Coordinated Framework ". This policy document established the roles and responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and articulated how they would use existing laws related to food and feed safety, crop introduction and pesticides to regulate GMOs.

Under the Framework, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, the FDA evaluates whether the food derived from GM plants are safe to eat, and the EPA evaluates certain GM plants that are resistant to pests for environmental safety. Collectively these three agencies regulate all stages of the development of GM plants from initial field trials through commercialization. In addition to the safety assessments conducted by U.S. regulators, similar reviews are conducted by over a hundred regulators around the world. Only after this process is complete are farmers allowed to grow a new GM crop product in the United States.

The Coordinated Framework lays out these general principles and responsibilities for each agency:

1. USDA regulates the importation, movement and confined field trials of GMOs via permitting and notification processes. Once adequate data has been collected the product developer can petition the USDA to deregulate a particular GM product.

2. FDA has authority over the safety of all food, food ingredients and animal feeds. The FDA has a consultation process to assure that GM food and feed products are as safe as their conventional counterparts that are already on the market. While the consultation process with the FDA is voluntary, all of the GM products on the market have gone through this process. In addition, the FDA has the authority to recall any food or ingredient it finds is not safe for consumption.

3. EPA has regulations that require evaluation and registration of all pesticidal products including GM crops, like Bt crops, that are used to repel or kill pests.

A regulatory process that evolves alongside science and government policy
At the time that the Framework was established, regulators acknowledged that it should be "expected to evolve in accord with the experiences of the industry and the agencies, and, thus, modifications may need to be made." Since then, numerous modifications and updates have been made to reflect the increased experience and familiarity with GM crops as they are grown by farmers on millions of acres. Just earlier this year, OSTP issued a call to the regulatory agencies to once again look at their policies and regulations, and with input from the public, recommend what changes might help the Framework continue to function smoothly in the coming decades.

This regulatory process continues to evolve and has proven to be effective in assessing the safety of the many GM crop products that are now available to farmers. In the nearly 20 years that these products have been on the market, they have delivered numerous benefits to growers and the environment and have not had a single documented instance of harm to human or animal health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Think GMOs Aren't Regulated? Think Again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you think GMOs are untested and unsafe, this glimpse into the regulatory process may convince you otherwise. GM crops undergo more testing and oversight than any other agricultural products. The rigorous safety testing has been proven to be effective - there have been zero documented safety issues since the first GMO came to market in 1996.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, Italian researchers published a review of studies concluding planting genetically modified (GM) maize (corn) over the past 20 years has increased the agricultural yield of this popular and important staple food. In this context, it is important to remember one of the most popular myths perpetuated about GM crops: that they aren't boosting yields. In fact, in 2016 the media mentioned this point when the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (NAS) published an extensive review of about 1,000 studies about the safety of GM crops. Apart from concluding that GMOs are as safe as conventional crops, the review mentioned that "there was no evidence that transgenic crops had changed the rate of increase in yields."

That phrase was enough for many journalists to erroneously publish news mentioning that GM crops "were useless to increase agricultural yield." New York Times reporter Danny Hakim even published a controversial article around that claim, which was widely criticized by academics and researchers. While this point about "no change in yield" is real, it was omitted that GM crops currently harvested at the commercial level haven't been modified to directly increase agricultural yield, such as increasing the number of grains, pods, fruits or size of the plant. The GM crops that have been commercialized since 1996 were designed for two main traits: resistance to insects (or diseases) and/or tolerance to herbicides. In recent years, new traits such as drought-tolerance and non-browning have been commercially approved.

Insect-resistant Bt crops, and those that confer virus-resistance, like the Hawaiian papaya, reduce crop losses and require fewer phytosanitary products compared to conventional susceptible crops. In the case of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, they allow a better control of problematic weeds and facilitate the adoption of more environmentally friendly phytosanitary products, as well as sustainable no-till farming practices. The reduction of losses by pests, viruses and weeds that compete for soil nutrients, together with savings in phytosanitary products and fuel, indirectly increase the final yield when compared with conventional crops.

These advantages were previously documented in two major academic reviews by agricultural economists. The first, which was published in 2014 and included the review of 147 studies, concluded that GM crops have allowed an average increase in agricultural yield by 22 percent and increased farmers' profits by 68 percent, with profit margins even larger in developing countries.

The second review is a study published annually covering the data of the global GM crops production. The last version, published in 2017, indicates that between 1996 and 2015, GM crops increased global production by 357.7 million tons of corn, 180.3 million tons of soybean, 25.2 million tons of cotton fiber, 10.6 million tons of canola and about a ton of sugar beet. In addition, the report mentions that GM crops significantly reduced the use of agricultural land due to this higher productivity. In 2015 alone they prevented almost 20 million hectares from being used for agricultural purposes, thus reducing the environmental impact cultivating forests or wild lands. This is a great environmental benefit derived from the higher agricultural yield.

Apart from these two major revisions, there is the new one referenced at the start of this post: a paper that was published a couple of days ago by Italian researchers, who reviewed more than 6,000 studies over 20 years of GM corn harvest. They concluded that GM crops allowed an increase in yield of 6 percent to 25 percent, depending on the country, with the additional benefit of reducing mycotoxin levels by one-third. These toxins contributed to major economic losses and cause serious health problems.

If GM crops didn't provide a significant yield benefit to farmers, they would simply choose to use conventional seeds. However, the amount of arable land planted with GM crops has multiplied 100-fold in the last decade, from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 185.1 million hectares in 2016. These crops were planted by 18 million farmers in 26 countries, making GM the fastest adopted crop technology worldwide in recent times. This impressive increase in the adoption rate speaks for itself, in terms of its sustainability, resilience, extra income and the significant yield benefits available to both small and big farmers.
Genes for better yield
The only GM crop designed for higher yield that has received commercial approval is a GM eucalyptus developed in Brazil, which was approved in 2015. A gene from the model plant Arabipdopsis thaliana was inserted into the eucalyptus, which produced 20 percent more wood and reduced the time to maturity from 7 to 5.5 years.

Outside the forestry sector, although there are still no commercially available GM plants specifically designed to maximize yield (in terms of, for example, grain production or plant biomass), there are already several developments at the experimental or regulation stage.

A very promising example is the so-called "C4 rice" developed by scientists from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, with collaboration from researcher groups all over the world. Because rice has C3 photosynthesis (3-carbon pathway), which is much less efficient than the C4 photosynthesis (4-carbon pathway) of crops such as corn or sugar cane, scientists work on inserting genes to express the metabolic pathway of C4 photosynthesis in rice plants. This accelerates plant growth by capturing carbon dioxide and concentrating it in specialized cells in the leaves, allowing the process of photosynthesis to work much more efficiently.

The technology that is being applied experimentally in rice and wheat - two crops that have already reached their peak of yield and feed the majority of the world's population - would increase yield by 50 percent. In addition, it would be possible to use much less water and fertilizer to produce the same amount of food. This project has already had its first positive results.

Another project is the Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE), an international research effort that is also engineering plants to photosynthesize more efficiently to increase crop yields. They have already succeeded increasing yields with model plants such as tobacco and Arabidopsis, and they are now transferring the technology to crops important in developing countries, such as cassava, rice and beans.

There are other projects under way that address the optimization of the photosynthesis process. For example, a University of Illinois initiative achieved a 20 percent higher yield in tobacco by overexpressing three genes protecting damage at times when more light is obtained. Other research managed to increase the yield of soy under conditions that emulate the higher temperatures and carbon dioxide levels expected in the year 2050.

There are also various GM crops in the experimental stage that can directly maximize the yield trait. These include a wheat with 20 percent higher yield, developed by Rothamsted Research in the United Kingdom, and another GM wheat with larger grains developed by the Austral University in Chile; a soybean with 36 percent more grain developed by Washington State University; a mustard with 25 to 34 percent more seeds developed by the University of Delhi in India; a corn with 50 percent larger kernels and an increased number of grains developed by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) in the United States; and a rice with a 54 percent higher yield developed by public sector researchers from the United Kingdom and China.
Other GM traits and gene editing
Additionally, a series of GM crops have modified to express traits like an efficient use of soil nitrogen, which directly increases agricultural yield while reducing the use of fertilizers, and the new generation of diverse drought-tolerant, heat-tolerant and salinity-tolerant crops, which will increase the final yield in soils that face water scarcity, warm climates or high salt levels.

And we can't leave aside the new breeding techniques (NBTs), which also offer tools for improving yield. In fact, at the end of last year a review was published that analyzed 52 studies using the gene editing technology known as CRISPR from 2014 to mid-2017. The results showed that 15 crops were studied for the application of CRISPR. The most studied crop has been rice, followed by tobacco, Arabidopsis and corn. The majority of CRISPR applications were to improve crop yields, followed by improved nutrient content (biofortification) and tolerance to biotic/abiotic stresses.

An example of these developments is the modification of the structure of the plant, the size of the frui, and the architecture of ramification in tomato through CRISPR by CSHL scientists.

All of these crops deliver benefits not only for farmers, but also for the environment by reducing land use and general environmental impact, and for consumers by supporting global food security. It's estimated that to feed a growing population, we will need to increase the food supply by 60 to 70 percent by 2050, which is why we need to use all possible technologies to boost agricultural production while reducing the environmental impact. However, the ability of society as a whole to enjoy the benefits of this technology depends in large part on decision makers, governments and the regulatory frameworks of each country. Let's hope they don't react too late, since it requires at least a decade and a lot of investment to take GM crops from the laboratory into the field, and the goal to significantly expand global food production is just around the corner.

Categories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO crops have been increasing yield for 20 years, with more progress ahead - Alliance for Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, Italian researchers published a review of studies concluding planting genetically modified (GM) maize (corn) over the past 20 years has increased the agricultural yield of this popular and important staple food. In this context, it is important to remember one of the most popular myths perpetuated about GM crops: that they aren't boosting yields.

# 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
Today's GMO crops are developed with specific benefits in mind, both for the farmers who grow them and the consumers who purchase them. Some of those benefits include:

Fewer inputs (like water or pesticides) needed to grow food, on less land than ever before. Drought resistant GMO crops and Bt crops (which allow farmers to use fewer to no pesticides) are two examples of how GE technology can be used by farmers to farm more sustainably, in ways that positively impact their communities.

Crops that are genetically engineered to fight diseases are saving not only the foods we love, but the industries that grow them. Genetic engineering was used to save the Hawaiian Rainbow papaya from a deadly virus which threatened to wipe out the crop, and the industry. Today, the Florida citrus industry faces the same threat, and GMOs may be able to help.

Herbicide tolerant crops allow farmers to use less or no-till farming methods. These methods of farming reduce nutrient runoff and soil erosion, which helps our rivers, and requires less irrigation because it retains additional soil moisture, all while maintaining the crops' yield, safety and nutritional value.

GMOs are taking on food waste. New potatoes that are genetically engineered to resist bruising during shipping and handling are coming onto the market, and new apples that resist browning when sliced will reduce food waste in the market and kitchen!

Foods with enhanced nutritional profiles, both in the US and abroad. Today we have GMO soybean seeds that produce healthier soybean oils, eliminating trans fats and containing increased levels of Omega 3. Tomorrow we hope to have bananas in Uganda that have up to six times as much Vitamin A, or Golden rice (rice that produces and accumulate Vitamin A) available to the millions of children who suffer from Vitamin A deficiency globally every year.

And there are more potential benefits on the horizon. Scientists around the world are working on a number of GM seed varieties that could deliver several benefits in the future. For example, GE technology has the potential to create a hypoallergenic peanut.

These benefits and traits illustrate that biotechnology, conducted in a scientifically sound way, has the potential to provide more healthy and plentiful food for a growing world population.
Check out this infographic for more information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are the benefits of GMOs, Both Today and in the Future? - Food Dialogues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's GMO crops are developed with specific benefits in mind, both for the farmers who grow them and the consumers who purchase them. Some of those benefits include: Fewer inputs (like water or pesticides) needed to grow food, on less land than ever before.

# data[].attributes.body
yeah so is pedophila but that still happens and affects children today lol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetically modified organisms are great. That's not necessarily a popular opinion, but it's true. GM apples and potatoes were recently approved in the US and Canada, but with some pushback from companies due to consumer demand. A very large percentage of the population is either skeptical or outright afraid of GM food. There are some legitimate concerns around the business/legal realm of GM crops, but in terms of human safety and nutrition, the consensus is in and GM crops are safe.

Obviously each new crop that is developed needs to be tested and properly regulated. However, any concerns about the actual methods of genetic modification are highly unwarranted. Any plant or animal product is full of DNA that our body readily digests, messing with one or two genes isn't going to impact human health. The only way GM food could affect human health is if the modification somehow produce a protein product that was actively toxic to humans. Say what you want about corporate greed, but a big biotech company would never do that because that would cost them a lot of money in the lawsuits down the road.

Yes many current GM crops make a lot of money for big companies, but they're also useful to farmers. These companies wouldn't be able to make a lot of money if they didn't have a superior product to their competitor. Herbicide tolerance has unfortunately led to an increase use of herbicides. But other current crops are actually reducing pesticide usage and increasing yields for farmers. One example is plants engineered to produce BT endotoxin, which is only harmful to insects and will only kill pests that try to feed on the crops. This protects other insects in the environment that may be useful, because farmers no longer have to spray and pesticide, it's built into the plants.

In an attempt to counteract negative press, a new generation of GM crops is attempting to build in health benefits, as reported on Physorg. The US has already approved the import of genetically engineered pink pineapples that contain the tomato-based pigment lycopene, which is a antioxidant that might help prevent cancer. Similarly, the purple pigment/antioxidant from blueberries is being engineered into tomatoes.

Even if those crops are approved for consumption, it'll take some time to actually confirm any medical benefits, but that's not the point. While slight anticancer benefits are great, there are bigger issues that GM technology can tackle. Increasing yields, resisting disease, drought, and heea resistance. All of these factors will become more important as the population grows and the climate changes. Other groups are also attempting to enhance the primary nutrition of foods, and not just trace compounds. Proteins, minerals, vitamins precursors, all factors that could help alleviate malnutrition in developing countries.

Yes these seeds are modified in a lab, but why is that a bad thing? Even with updated technology, conventional hybridization and breeding practices are slower and less efficient than direct modification. Plus the fact that many of these modifications would be impossible to make with conventional breeding. Transgenic plant technology offers scientists incredible precision and control over what they are making. This accuracy and understanding arguably makes GM crops safer than some other methods. It's not the only solution to world hunger and nutrition issues, but it's certainly helpful. So stop worrying, and eat the weird colored fruit.

©2017 ScienceTimes.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission. The window to the world of science times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified organisms are great. That's not necessarily a popular opinion, but it's true. GM apples and potatoes were recently approved in the US and Canada, but with some pushback from companies due to consumer demand. A very large percentage of the population is either skeptical or outright afraid of GM food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week, to celebrate National Ag Day, GMO Answers posted a column to its Medium.com blog explaining how GMOs help to make agriculture more environmentally friendly. Contrary to common myths, GMOs and the sustainable farming practices often used with them, significantly help to reduce our environmental footprint and preserve our natural resources. Today, through advances in crop biotechnology, GMOs like drought-tolerant corn can help farmers minimize losses associated with extreme weather events. Thanks to biotech advancements, GM apples have been approved for consumption, which are non-browning, eliminating the superficial issues that often cause people to throw them away. We also have GM potatoes that are less prone to browning, bruising and black spots, meaning fewer will end up in landfills.

While biotechnology is already helping to address major challenges across the world, like crops threatened by drought and diseases, here are six additional ways biotechnology is helping to make farming and agriculture even more sustainable:

1. Growing more while using less

2. Enhancing biodiversity

3. Improving soil health

4. Conserving our water

5. Helping to mitigate nutrient pollution

6. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions

Crop biotechnology and GMOs have significantly contributed to mitigating the environmental effects of agriculture while preserving our natural resources. They are one solution to combating climate change and addressing the world's most pressing environmental challenges.

To read the entire post, please visit the GMO Answers Medium.com page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Ways GMOs Make Agriculture More Environmentally Friendly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, to celebrate National Ag Day, GMO Answers posted a column to its Medium.com blog explaining how GMOs help to make agriculture more environmentally friendly. Contrary to common myths, GMOs and the sustainable farming practices often used with them, significantly help to reduce our environmental footprint and preserve our natural resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
GMOs - we've read about them in the news, have researched their ancient roots and continue to have discussions with our family and friends about them. GMOs, genetically modified organisms, or even 'frankenfood,' as they have been called have been eaten by consumers for many years.

What are the health risks of eating GMO foods? Are GMO foods less nutritious? Do they cause allergies? What foods are GMOs? To address our reader's concerns, we put these questions before a panel of experts:
Are GMO fruits and vegetables less nutritious than non-GMO or organic fruits and vegetables?
Dr. Lemaux: "That's a good question! Foods that have been genetically modified undergo testing for safety, health and nutrient value. The nutritional value of GMO foods is tested and compared against non-GMO foods. Numerous studies have shown no nutritional differences between commercially available GMO and non-GMO foods. In fact, genetic modification can improve the nutritional content of some foods, for example, low linoleic acid canola oil that can reduce trans-fat content. In these cases, the foods must be labeled to show the nutritional differences according to FDA policy."

Dr. Parrott: "Before any GMO can come to market, it must undergo extensive testing to ensure that the content of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients is not inadvertently altered during the final process. For every study that finds nutritional superiority in organic produce, another finds it in GMO produce. The bottom line is to make sure you eat as many fresh fruits and vegetables as you can, regardless of whether they are organic or GMO."

Dr. Chassy: "Recent reviews have concluded that there is no difference in nutrient quality between organic and non-organic produce. Some disagree because they believe (not based on science, but rather, personal beliefs) that organic matter derived from living organisms provides a vital life force to crops that cannot be supplied by inorganic chemical fertilizers. This is just not the case when we look at this based on research. This thinking has transitioned into a belief by some that organic is more nutritious, which has simply not been proven."
Do GMOs cause allergies?
Dr. Lemaux: "GM foods that are in the grocery stores (commercially available) are not likely to cause allergic reactions any more so than non-GM foods. Food allergies are nothing new, and under the FDA's biotechnology food policy, GMO foods must be labeled as such if the genetic information comes from one of the eight most common allergy-causing foods, unless the new food is shown to be allergy-free. Those foods are dairy, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, soybeans, and peanuts. All GMO foods undergo food safety testing that focuses on the source of the gene or protein product that has been introduced into the food. Even so, no food product can be deemed 100% safe, whether it be conventional (non-GMO), GMO or organic. For example, peanuts can cause severe allergies regardless of how they're grown - so they would be considered unsafe for some people."

Dr. Chassy: "Food allergies dramatically change the lives of people who have them. Fortunately, only a very small percentage of people are allergic to any one food. This is because food allergy is almost always caused by specific proteins present in the offending food, but the great majority of proteins (>99.9999+%) that we consume do not cause allergies. It is important to stress that there is no a prior reason to believe that GM foods might cause allergies, and to date, none has."

Dr. Newell-McGloughlin: "No. In fact, the work that is being done in GMO research can, in fact, reduce allergies. There are very specific sets of indicators that determine whether a specific protein in GMOs would cause an allergic response. Those proteins that are difficult to digest cause an allergic response, causing the body to create antibodies to them. This can happen with a number of proteins, but there is nothing inherent about biotech products that would cause allergies."
Are there health risks associated with consuming GMOs?
Dr. Newell-McGloughlin: "No. GMOs are more thoroughly tested than any product produced in the history of agriculture. We use many methods to introduce desired traits - to try to get specific characteristics into our crops. With GMOs, they are thoroughly tested before any product is released into the marketplace. In all the risk assessments in over 15 years of field research and 30 years of laboratory research, there hasn't been a single instance where there was a health risk associated with a GMO product."
Science Magazine: U.S expert panel says genetically modified crops are safe to eat Some believe that the FDA's research on GMOs' impacts on health is flawed. What are your thoughts on that?
Dr. Newell-McGloughlin: "In the U.S., GMOs are more highly regulated than any other methods to introduce traits into crops today, by three different agencies:

Food and Drug Administration

United States Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

Environmental Protection Agency

The primary body that regulates the commercialization of GMOs is USDA-APHIS. This is a lengthy process which, for most regulation, takes several years to determine whether approval will be granted. No other product or system that is used to introduce desired traits undergoes the same level of scrutiny as do the products of modern biotechnology."

Dr. Parrott: "Although there is no indication that the FDA has made a wrong call on any GM product, the point remains that we are in a global economy. Thus, it is not just FDA who approves these foods, but also FoodCanada, the European Food Safety Authority, the Food Standards for Australia and New Zealand, and various agencies in Japan and Korea, among others. It is one thing to say that FDA's procedures might be flawed; it is another to say every major food safety agency is flawed. Thus far, I am not aware of any situation whereby one agency gave a GM product a clean bill of health and another failed to do so."

Dr. Chassy: "There was never any scientific reason to believe that foods produced using biotechnology present any new, different or special hazards. From a scientific perspective, they pose even fewer hazards than the conventionally bred crops that we have been eating safely for millennia. The pre-market regulatory review is intended to ensure the consumer that GM foods have been checked for safety before they go to market. In the heat of the argument, we often lose sight of the fact that every expert analysis of the safety of GM crops has concluded that they are as safe as any other crop."
In summary, GMO foods are just as safe to consume as conventional, organic, or non-GMO foods.
For additional resources:
GMO Answers Genetic Literacy Project Originally published Aug. 8, 2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs and Human Health | BestFoodFacts.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GMOs - we've read about them in the news, have researched their ancient roots and continue to have discussions with our family and friends about them. GMOs, genetically modified organisms, or even 'frankenfood,' as they have been called have been eaten by consumers for many years.