# data[].attributes.body
https://www.forbes.com/sites/.../02/.../the-environmentalist-case-in-favor-of-gmo-food..

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Crop biotechnology has reduced agriculture's environmental impact and stimulated economic growth in the countries where the technology is used says a new report released today by PG Economics titled GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2015.

The report unveils the global socio-economic and environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops in the twenty years since they were first commercially planted on a significant area. It focuses on the farm level economic effects, the production effects, the environmental impact resulting from changes in the use of insecticides and herbicides, and the contribution towards reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Below are highlights from the report:

Crop biotechnology has reduced agriculture's environmental impact:

Crop biotechnology has significantly reduced agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions by helping farmers adopt more sustainable practices such as reduced tillage, which decreases the burning of fossil fuels and retains more carbon in the soil. Had biotech crops not been grown in 2015, for example, an additional 26.7 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide would have been emitted into the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of adding 11.9 million cars to the roads.

From 1996 to 2015, crop biotechnology reduced the spraying of crop protection products by 619 million kilograms, a global reduction of 8.1 per cent. This is equal to more than China's total crop protection product use each year3. As a result, farmers who grow biotech crops have reduced the environmental impact associated with their crop protection practices by 18.6 percent.

Crop biotechnology has reduced pressure to use new land in agriculture and contributed to global food security:

Biotech crops allow farmers to grow more without needing to use additional land. For example, if crop biotechnology had not been available to farmers in 2015, maintaining global production levels that year would have required the planting of an additional 8.4 million hectares (ha) of soybeans, 7.4 million ha of corn, 3 million ha of cotton and 0.7 million ha of canola. This is equivalent to needing an additional 11 percent of the arable land in the United States, or roughly 31 percent of the arable land in Brazil or 13 percent of the cropping area in China.

Crop biotechnology enables farmers to increase crop yield.

Insect resistant (IR) crop technology used in cotton and corn has consistently improved yields by reducing the damage caused by pests. From 1996 to 2015, across all users of this technology, yields have increased by an average of +13.1 percent for IR corn and +15 percent for IR cotton relative to conventional production systems. Farmers who grow IR soybeans commercially in South America have seen an average +9.6 per cent increase in yields since 2013.

In some countries, herbicide tolerant (HT) technology has improved yields through better weed control. For example, in Bolivia, HT soybeans increased yields by +15 percent. In Argentina, HT technology has helped farmers grow an additional soybean crop after wheat in the same growing season.

Biotech farmers in developing countries, many of whom are resource-poor and farm small plots of land, continue to see the highest yield gains from using the technology.

Over 20 years, crop biotechnology has been responsible for the additional production of 180.3 million tonnes of soybeans, 357.7 million tonnes of corn, 25.2 million tonnes of cotton lint and 10.6 million tonnes of canola.

Crop biotechnology supports improved livelihoods, especially for poor, smallholder farmers in developing countries:

By better controlling pests and weeds, crop biotechnology helps farmers increase their yields, which leads to higher incomes and better lives for themselves and their families. In 2015, the net farm level economic benefit was $15.5 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $90/hectare. From 1996 to 2015, the net global farm income benefit was $167.7 billion.

Crop biotechnology contributes to global economic success.

Crop biotechnology continues to be a good investment for millions of farmers. In 2015, for each extra dollar invested in biotech crop seeds globally, farmers netted an average $3.45.

In 2015, farmers in developing countries received $5.15 for each extra dollar invested in biotech crop seeds, whereas farmers in developed countries received $2.76 for each extra dollar invested in biotech crop seeds.

Read the full report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biotechnology Crops Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - The U.S. Sustainability Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Crop biotechnology has reduced agriculture's environmental impact and stimulated economic growth in the countries where the technology is used says a new report released today by PG Economics titled GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2015.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bioexplorer.net/disadvantages-of-genetically-modified-foods.html/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Interview with Dr. Peter Goldsbrough, Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology at Purdue University

The Many Uses of GMOs

When farmers plant their crops they generally worry about three things that could prevent a good yield: insects, weeds and weather. Most of the GM crops grown around the world today address problems caused by insects or weeds (although some GMOs are currently being tested for enhanced nutrition). When it comes to insects, there are genetically modified plants that can repel only the very particular type of insect that feeds on it. With some crops, this has significantly lowered the need to apply pesticides. Other GM plants have been developed to be resistant to certain herbicides thus making weed control more straightforward and less expensive.

Today, those who directly see the most benefits from GMOs are farmers and agricultural companies. As consumers, we probably don't perceive direct benefits to ourselves just by picking the product up off the shelf (this may change in the future if the nutritional properties of plants are enhanced). However, with many GM crops there are secondary benefits that shoppers are unlikely to be aware of by glancing at items in the aisle, such as: lower cost, less soil erosion (because tillage isn't as necessary for weed control), less pesticide application and others.

However, plants aren't the only type of GMO that we use. GMOs are also used to produce many medicines and vaccines that help treat or prevent diseases. Before GMOs, many common medicines had to be extracted from blood donors, animal parts, or even cadavers. These medicines had a number of problems including the risk of transmission of diseases, inconsistent quality and unreliable supply. GMO medicines are more consistent and don't carry the same contamination risk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purdue University's College of Agriculture leads globally in the science and business of agriculture, food, life, and natural resources, positively changing the world through our unwavering commitment to excellence in serving the land grant missions of learning, discovery, and engagement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Farmers and ranchers have many choices when it comes to growing crops as well as feed for animals. Growing conventional crops, Genetically modified (GM) crops, organic crops or a combination is the choice of a farmer. Many farmers plant GM seeds for specific reasons such as protecting their crops from adverse weather or enhancing yields. However, all methods of production contribute to meeting consumer demands for food products as well as producing healthy choices for everyone and protecting the environment.

Farmers use GM seeds for a number of reasons, including to reduce crop damage from weeds, diseases and insects as well as from adverse weather conditions such as drought or flooding. GM seeds often allow farmers to be more precise about their use of inputs like nutrients, pesticides and water needed to grow crops.

Safety and FDA Review
" FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. "

Since 1995, food from GM seeds has been commercially available and has been proven safe for human and animal consumption. No other crops have been more studied or subject to greater scientific review. GM seeds undergo testing for safety, health and nutritional value - and regulation is overseen by The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, there is no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between genetically engineered crops and conventionally bred crops. Research shows that the current commercial crops from GM seeds have the same nutritional properties as non-GM seed crops and are not harmful for humans and animals to consume. In the years that farmers have grown crops from GM seeds, there has not been a single instance of harm to human health.

For roughly 10,000 years, farmers have been genetically altering plants and seeds through selective breeding to improve characteristics such as yield, taste and nutrition. Today's GM seeds are part of this evolution - their development is sped up and more precise by inserting the genes from one plant into another in a laboratory setting.

Using Fewer Resources to Feed More People
As the world's population grows and agricultural production land resources stay the same or diminish, GM seeds can be a critical tool in feeding the world without depleting resources or harming the environment. GM seeds can contribute to a reduction in the amount of land, water and chemicals needed to produce more food. This can contribute greatly to conservation and environmental stewardship, in particular preserving our land and keeping soil healthy. Additionally, as seed companies and researchers continue to make new strides in developing crops with the use of genetic engineering, there are increased opportunities to enhance the nutritional profile of foods that are important in developing countries that need nutrient-rich food.

In fact, in June 2016, more than 100 Nobel laureates signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to GMOs, and halt its campaign to prevent potentially life saving options for the world's poor, including Golden Rice. Their campaign states "We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden Rice in particular."

As more and more people ask questions about how we as a society grow and raise our food, it is important for consumers to understand GM seeds. Farmers and ranchers have choices and ultimately they select the best practice that fits their business. In addition, consumers have the right to choose what foods they want. Food from GM seeds has the same nutritional characteristics as food from seeds produced through conventional breeding, including organic crops. It is inaccurate to categorize food from GM seeds as harmful to human health because it simply has not been proven. USFRA encourages all consumers to turn to trustworthy, scientifically valid sources of information.

Explore GMO Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs - Using Fewer Resources to Feed More People - Food Dialogues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Farmers and ranchers have many choices when it comes to growing crops as well as feed for animals. Growing conventional crops, Genetically modified (GM) crops, organic crops or a combination is the choice of a farmer. Many farmers plant GM ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

SAN FRANCISCO - Genetically engineered crops are safe for humans and animals to eat and have not caused increases in cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal illnesses, kidney disease, autism or allergies, an exhaustive report from the National Academies of Science released Tuesday found.

Work on the 388-page report began two years ago and was conducted by a committee of more than 50 scientists, researchers and agricultural and industry experts convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. It reviewed more than 900 studies and data covering the 20 years since genetically modified crops were first introduced.

Overall, genetically engineered (GE) crops saved farmers in the United States money but didn't appear to increase crop yields. They have lowered pest populations in some areas, especially in the Midwest but increased the number of herbicide-resistant weeds in others. There's also no evidence that GE crops have affected the population of monarch butterflies, the report said.

The review was thorough and systemic, assessing many of the issues that have been raised about genetically engineered crops over the years, said Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the non-profit watchdog group the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington D.C. The group was not involved in the report's creation.

The genetic material of GE plants is artificially manipulated to give them characteristics they would not otherwise have. The two most common are pest resistance and the ability to withstand certain herbicides. That allows farmers to spray fields with herbicide, killing weeds while not harming the crops. Drought tolerant traits are newer and also becoming popular.

The report, " Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects," was meant to be an objective overview of current research into the safety and environmental and social effects of these increasingly popular crops and the foods made from them.
Safe for humans
To gauge whether foods made from genetically modified crops were safe for human consumption, the committee compared disease reports from the United States and Canada, where such crops have been consumed since the mid-1990s, and those in the United Kingdom and western Europe, where they are not widely eaten.

No long-term pattern of increase in specific health problems after the introduction of GE foods in the 1990s in the United States and Canada was found.

There was no correlation between obesity or Type II diabetes and the consumption of GE foods. Celiac disease, which makes humans intolerant of gluten, increased in both populations. Patterns in the increase in autism spectrum disorder in children were similar in both the United Kingdom and the United States, the committee reported.

Overall the report concluded that there were no differences in terms of a higher risk to human health between foods made from GE crops and those made from conventionally-bred crops.
Critics: too much industry influence
Groups opposed to genetically engineered crops criticized the report for arriving at watered-down scientific conclusions due to agricultural industry influence.

Food & Water Watch, a government accountability group in Washington D.C., said the committee's ties to the biotech industry and other corporations create conflicts of interest and raise questions about the independence of its work.

"Critics have long been marginalized," said Wenonah Hauter, the group's executive director.
Economic and ecological effects
Overall, the report found that GE crops save farmers money in terms of time spent tilling and losses to weeds and insects, but can have both positive and negative effects on pests, farming practices and agricultural infrastructure.

Pest-resistant crops have resulted in lower pest populations overall in some areas of the midwest, especially European corn borer, the report found.

However the use of herbicides on GE crops in some areas has resulted in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds.

Despite claims by some proponents of GE crops, their adoption didn't appear to increase yields overall among U.S. farmers, the report found.

The report specifically addressed a commonly cited link between GE crops and falling populations of monarch butterflies.

As of March 2016, there was no evidence that the suppression of milkweed (the only food of the insect in its caterpillar state) by the use of herbicides caused declines in the monarch population, the committee found. In fact, the monarch population has seen a moderate increase in the past two years. Still, the report called for continued monitoring of the situation.
Mostly cotton, soy and corn
There are only 12 genetically modified (GM) crops grown commercially grown worldwide according to the report. The vast majority of GM acreage is concentrated in cotton, soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola.

In the United States, the list of commercially grown GM crops includes cotton, soy beans, corn, sugar beets, canola, alfalfa and papaya, in addition to small amounts of zucchini and yellow summer squash, apples and potatoes.

However four of them are extremely popular with farmers. In 2015, 99% of sugar beets, 94% of soybeans, 94% of cotton and 92% of feed corn grown in the United States were genetically engineered to either be herbicide or pest resistant, or in some cases both, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

Globally, 12% of all cropland is planted with genetically engineered plants, according to the report.

However there has been significant pushback against these crops, particularly in Europe.
GMO-free a selling point
A significant portion of American consumers are concerned about the safety or other effects of foods made with genetically modified crops, often called GMOs for genetically modified organisms.. A survey released last year by the NPD Group, a market research firm, found that 57% of Americans were concerned that genetically modified foods posed a health hazard.

The food industry has taken notice. In 2015, Progressive Grocer, a trade publication, reported that total U.S. sales of food and beverage products labeled "non-GMO" reached $10 billion during 2014.

Labeling foods as GMO-free has become a popular marketing and differentiation method for companies. The Non-GMO Project, a labeling program, has almost 35,000 verified products, according to its website.

Packaged Facts estimates that the global food and beverage market was worth more than $5 trillion in 2014 and that non-GMO products accounted for $550 billion of that. It projects that the global market for non-GMO foods and beverages will reach to $1 trillion by 2019.

The National Academies report will likely not sway these consumers, said Phil Lempert, a Los Angeles-based food industry analyst.

"It's an emotional issue, it's not a science issue," he said.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/27vMo2h

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Academies of Science finds GMOs not harmful to human health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE SAN FRANCISCO - Genetically engineered crops are safe for humans and animals to eat and have not caused increases in cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal illnesses, kidney disease, autism or allergies, an exhaustive report from the National Academies of Science released Tuesday found.

# 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.title
3 disease resistant GMOs could address climate change and save farmers billions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The next generation of genetically engineered crops--if technology skeptics do not have their way--will bring a range of benefits to consumers, and help farmers battle the encroaching impact of global warming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United Nations forecasts global population to rise to more than 9 billion people by 2050. Climate change may mean that the crops we depend on now may no longer be suited to the areas where they are currently cultivated and may increasingly be threatened by droughts, floods and the spread of plant diseases due to altered weather patterns. So feeding everyone in the coming decades will be a challenge - can genetically modified crops help us achieve this?

Two groups of genetically modified crops are widely grown. The first are altered so that they are not affected by the herbicide glyphosate, which means that farmers can eliminate weeds without harming their crop. Glyphosate-resistant crops can increase farming efficiency but, while helping to get rid of weeds, herbicide resistance has no direct effect on the quantity of food produced, so their contribution to food security is likely to be limited.

The second type produce a natural insecticide inside the parts of the plant that pests eat. This protects the yields of these crops against insect infestation, which is arguably more environmentally friendly than using sprays that could be toxic to other organisms. Crops of this type are likely to be useful, but we should increase the number of insecticide genes that we employ to prevent evolution of resistant pests.

Farmers have always faced crop diseases - think of the Irish potato famine of the 19th century - and some scientists predict that climate change may allow previously contained infections to spread into new areas and become more damaging. It may already have contributed to the devastating appearance of a fungal infection called wheat blast in Bangladesh, a disease that can cause nearly complete loss of this critical crop in infected fields.

Disease resistance

Genetic modification can certainly be used in the fight to make crops more disease resistant. Many plants are vulnerable to an infection because they cannot detect the invading organism. However, the proteins that identify an infection and activate a plant's defences can be moved between varieties or even species using genetic modification. This will enable previously vulnerable crops to turn on resistance mechanisms.

It is also becoming possible to rewrite the genes for these gatekeeper proteins so that they work for different diseases. A powerful and rapid method for editing genes called CRISPR-Cas9 has recently been developed and it is already being harnessed to produce genetically modified crops. For example, genes that make wheat vulnerable to powdery mildew have been changed to produce a resistant variety.

ibreakstock

Nor is gene editing limited to improving disease resistance. Tomatoes have been tweaked to be insensitive to changes in the number of hours of sunlight in a day. This causes them to produce fruit more quickly because they aren't waiting for the right time of year to start flowering.

Improving photosynthesis

Fundamentally, agriculture uses photosynthesis to convert light energy, water and carbon dioxide into food - so improving this process would increase how much food we produce. An obvious target is the step that captures carbon dioxide as it sometimes mistakes oxygen for carbon dioxide in a wasteful set of reactions called photorespiration.

As it happens, some plants already have a solution to this problem. They possess a system that pumps carbon dioxide into specialised parts of the leaf where most photosynthesis occurs, concentrating it there so that photorespiration doesn't happen. These species, known as C4 plants, can make more use of sunlight at higher temperatures and need less water because the pores that let carbon dioxide into their leaves don't have to open so much and therefore less water vapour escapes through them.

It has been estimated that transferring these mechanisms into other crop species such as rice could increase productivity by 50%. Unfortunately, progress towards this goal has been slow, partly because rice doesn't have the same leaf structure as C4 plants. A version of rice that can carry out a simple version of C4 photosynthesis has recently been produced but it will take at least ten years to optimise it.

Less ambitious approaches may provide benefits more quickly, such as a new type of wheat in which productivity has been increased by 15% to 20% by speeding up recycling of ribulose bisphosphate which is crucial for carbon dioxide capture.

Improving nutrition

Crops are not just being genetically modified to improve their quantity but also their nutritional quality. The most prominent of these is " golden rice ". Vitamin A deficiency causes 250,000 deaths per year and is common in populations whose diet is heavily dependent on rice. Golden rice is golden because it produces large quantities of yellow dietary carotenoids that our bodies can convert into vitamin A.

Jiang Hongyan

Other "biofortified" crops in development include potatoes with more protein and cooking bananas with increased carotenoids and iron.

Many people - and countries - are still sceptical about GM food. But people and animals have now been consuming GM crops for more than 20 years without apparent harm to their health. On the other hand, there is no question that starvation kills and that food insecurity is a major global threat. There are challenging times ahead. Can we afford to close the door on these powerful ways to protect our food supply?

_This article is part of a series by The Conversation on food security. Read other articles here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How GM crops can help us to feed a fast-growing world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United Nations forecasts global population to rise to more than 9 billion people by 2050. Climate change may mean that the crops we depend on now may no longer be suited to the areas where they are currently cultivated and may increasingly be threatened by droughts, floods and the spread of plant diseases due to altered weather patterns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Post written by

Kate Hall

Kate Hall is managing director of the Council for Biotechnology Information and GMO Answers spokesperson.

Tweet This

Share to facebook

Share to twitter

Share to linkedin

Innovations like biotechnology help us address our generation's most pressing issues, such as climate change, which affect the entire globe and will continue impacting generations to come.

While we continue to identify and create innovative ways to conserve our natural resources, one thing is clear: biotechnology can help.

GMOs are already helping farmers around the world reduce the environmental impact of agricultural production. Additionally, the usage of herbicide tolerant GM crops accompanied by farming practices, like conservation tillage, help to reduce carbon emissions on farms globally and plays an integral role in minimizing agriculture's carbon footprint.

Conservation tillage refers to a practice farmers can use to till the soil less often. Instead of tilling an entire field after harvest, farmers can leave the crop's residue (like corn stalks) in the field, and then plant seeds directly into that residue during the next planting season. The residue serves as a "mulch" for the next season's crop, also protecting the soil.

This results in improved crop production, improved soil health and water retention, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions.

Katie Pratt, a seventh generation farmer from Illinois says, "Long story short, biotechnology has given us the opportunities to conserve our soil, practice additional conservation tillage methods and lower our farm fuel costs...just because we aren't in the field that much."
In total, in 2014, GM crops reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions by 5.2 million pounds (2.4 billion kg) through conservation tillage and also decreased fuel use. This reduction is the equivalent to taking nearly 10 million cars off the road for one year.
Additionally, USDA found that adopting conservation tillage can save at least 3.5 gallons (13.2 liters) of fuel per acre for farmers.

Indiana farmer, Brian Scott, notes that "tillage is our most fuel intensive operation on the farm. Herbicide-resistant GM crops enable more farmers to adopt conservation tillage because they help farmers control weeds more effectively and at a lower cost compared to conventional cropping systems."

For example, if all of the corn (GM and non-GM) planted in the U.S. in 2015 was grown with conservation tillage methods, nearly 308 million gallons (1.2 billion liters) of fuel would be saved. Using conservation tillage in this way could prevent 6.9 billion pounds (3.1 billion kg) of carbon dioxide emissions from hitting the atmosphere. Globally, these benefits could be even greater.

Reducing the carbon footprint of agricultural production is an important step in combating climate change. While there is still a long way to go, advances in crop biotechnology are helping farmers all over the world reduce carbon emissions and make agricultural production more sustainable while meeting the needs of a growing global population.

GMO Answers is an initiative committed to responding to consumers' questions about GMOs and how our food is grown. Its goal is to make information about GMOs in food and...

Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Post written by Kate Hall Kate Hall is managing director of the Council for Biotechnology Information and GMO Answers spokesperson. Tweet This Share to facebook Share to twitter Share to linkedin Innovations like biotechnology help us address our generation's most pressing issues, such as climate change, which affect the entire globe and will continue impacting generations to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week, I spent three days in Mexico City to talk with NGOs the public and the press about U.S. industry/government proposals for exporting into NAFTA 2.0 its system for not regulating food and agriculture products of genetic engineering. For example, in a November 3, 2016 letter to Monsanto, the Food and Drug Administration declined to regulate Monsanto's corn modified to resist the Dicamba herbicide, since the modification "does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA." The formula of that letter is nearly identical to such letters sent twenty years ago to Monsanto and other agricultural biotechnology product developers.

In June, the U.S. Biotech Crops Alliance asked the U.S. Trade Representative to include a NAFTA 2.0 chapter on agricultural biotechnology. That chapter's proposed provision for a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) would require Mexico and Canada to accept as valid for importing and growing biotech products the FDA "no issues" letter and similarly non-regulatory decision letters from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In Mexico City, I also explained how the U.S. had decided not to regulate grain and horticulture crops engineered by new techniques. These unregulated crops too would be covered under the proposed MRA.

Did my presentation on the U.S. non-regulation of horticulture products (Table 1) engineered by new techniques, as well as old, come too late to be useful in Mexico? The Mexican government allows the import (but not cultivation) of U.S. yellow corn, most of it genetically engineered, even when that corn is dumped, i.e. the export price is below corn's full cost (farmer production costs, government support costs, handling and shipping costs). IATP estimated that globally U.S. agribusinesses exported corn at about 12 percent below its full cost in 2015. In the 2015-2016 marketing year, U.S. corn exports to Mexico amounted to about 13.3 million tons, worth about $2.5 billion. About 12 percent of that $2.5 billion -i.e. $300 million-is the result of a dumped price.

The Mexican equivalent of the National Corn Growers Association has accused its government of favoring yellow corn imports by denying its producers technical and loan assistance, and by making government corn policy according to the imported yellow corn price. (The benchmark price from which corn import prices are derived is set by the Chicago Board of Trade yellow corn contract.) The Mexican growers argued for a higher price for white corn, which they produce by a 10:1 ratio compared to yellow corn and which Mexican consumers greatly prefer. Some Mexican producer associations and social movements have called on the government to either exempt agriculture from NAFTA 2.0 or withdraw from the agreement altogether.

In September, a research team from the National Autonomous University of Mexico showed that about 90 percent tortillas in Mexico were contaminated with genetically engineered corn, about 30 percent of which contained residues of glyphosate. The study's lead author is concerned about the consumption of glyphosate residues, since about half of all calories and a third of proteins consumed by Mexicans come from corn. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, there was a five-fold increase in the amount of glyphosate in the urine collected in a 100 person cohort, comparing 1993-1996 samples with those collected in 2013-2016. Herbicide resistant (largely resistant to glyphosate) corn was first commercially available in 1996 in the United States and as of 2013 comprised 85 percent of all U.S. corn. As weeds became glyphosate resistant, most of the large increase in U.S. farmer glyphosate use since 1996 is ascribed to the planting of GE herbicide resistant crops.

Notwithstanding a Mexican court ruling in 2013 prohibiting the planting of GE corn in Mexico, Monsanto's Corporate Director for Latin American Affairs, told researcher Tim Wise, ""In order for the penetration of biotechnology crops to be successful, it will have to be for both white and yellow corn. If it was only yellow, we would not be investing." If Monsanto is successful in overcoming Mexican law, with the assistance of the U.S. State Department, it is likely that Mexicans will have no choice but to eat GE white corn and its glyphosate residues. The contamination of Mexican corn landraces, the global origin of hybrid vigor for farmer and public institutional corn varieties, will be systematic.

However, some Mexican agricultural leaders are not resigned to the fate of increasing food dependence on U.S. GE exports under NAFTA 2.0 rules. Mexican farm leader (and former IATP board member) Victor Suarez Carrera published an essay in Hagamos milpa (Let's make corn in our land) (Semillas de Vida: March 2017) with a well-described title, "How can we achieve food self-sufficiency?: a new technological revolution with farmers but without GMOs." (The essay updates a 2013 presentation he made to the National Association of Commercial Enterprises of Agricultural Producers, for which he serves as executive director.)

The essay begins "Our country's food dependence is intolerable." He outlines how governmental policies to support farmer knowledge and public academic science would contribute to making Mexico far less dependent on imports for basic grains, including corn and wheat. He writes that under current government policies and failure to invest in Mexican agriculture, imported food dependence had gone from 24 percent of consumption in 1982 to 46 percent in 2016. Under Business as Usual policies, including NAFTA, that import food dependency would increase to 80 percent by 2030, with the loss of millions of more family farmers.

Increasing food import dependency is a U.S. "Cold War" policy that continues, with new agricultural production technologies, to this day. In a 1997 IATP essay, I quoted a 1957 statement by Senator Hubert Humphrey: "I have heard here this morning that people may become dependent on us for food. I know that was not supposed to be good news, because before people will do anything, they have got to eat. And if you are really looking for a way to get people to lean on you and to be dependent on you, in terms of their cooperation with you, it seems to me that food dependence would be terrific." Food import dependency has long been a "soft power" tool in the arsenal of U.S. diplomacy.

However, the use of that tool can have very negative "blowback" effects for its user. Spikes in food export prices, together with climate change reduced domestic food production, were drivers of political and economic destabilization throughout Northern Africa from 2008-2011. The overthrow of those governments provided fertile ground for extremist militias, including members of Al Quaeda. Closer to home, according to the Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, unmanaged oversupply of U.S. agricultural production for export drives down crop prices for U.S. farmers and increases U.S. tax payer subsidies of U.S. agribusiness. Agricultural supply, if properly managed would help to mitigate the degradation of soil health and water quality, among other environmental costs kept off the USDA agricultural export balance sheet.

It is not too late for Mexico and the United States to avoid the economic and environmental damage to agriculture, farm families and rural communities that NAFTA 2.0 would lock in. The major risks for sustainable agriculture and rural communities in Mexico, are not only greater food import dependency and more forced migration of Mexican farm families. Additionally, Mexican food security would depend on genetically engineered mono-cultures that have developed widespread weed resistance in the United States. The application of the new genetic engineering techniques to horticulture and row crops are likely to incorporate "stacked traits," including crop resistance to proprietary herbicides and pesticides. In Mexico City, I outlined the damage caused by the drift of Dicamba herbicide to non-resistant soy (and even trees!) in 3.6 million acres. And Dicamba was the "solution" to glyphosate resistant Super-weeds!

U.S. farms benefit minimally from exporting ever more products to Mexico. The farmers must sell their corn and other agricultural raw materials to U.S. agribusiness at prices below the cost of production and hope that income from non-farm jobs and various government payment programs will compensate them enough to keep them from losing the farm. The $2.5 billion in corn sales to Mexico in 2015-2106 benefit the exporters. If the next Farm Bill incorporated supply management measures to increase prices paid to farmers and NAFTA 2.0 contained enforced measures to prevent dumping, both U.S. and Mexican agriculture would have a better price and policy environment to practice sustainable agriculture and be paid fairly for its products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do no harm?: NAFTA, non-regulation of GMOs and Mexican agriculture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, I spent three days in Mexico City to talk with NGOs the public and the press about U.S. industry/government proposals for exporting into NAFTA 2.0 its system for not regulating food and agriculture products of genetic engineering.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Questions about GMO crops and honey bees come up with many groups from consumers to experts on National Academy of Sciences panels. It's important for technology providers to consider these questions and provide data to answer them. This publication does just that. Looking across multiple studies across several years, the authors found that the proteins used to protect GMO crops from insect damage do not harm honey bees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs do not have negative effects on honey bees | Monsanto

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Questions about GMO crops and honey bees come up with many groups from consumers to experts on National Academy of Sciences panels. It's important for technology providers to consider these questions and provide data to answer them. This publication does just that.

# 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.title
How GMOs Can Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - The American Interest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists have genetically modified rice to boost crop yields while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How can greens reject this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO Crops Don't Harm Human Health, Report Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically engineered crops pose no additional risks to humans and the environment compared to conventional crops, according to a report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over half the people on the planet eat rice as a staple food. Growing rice emits methane, a potent greenhouse gas - to the tune of 25 million to 100 million metric tons of methane every year, a notable contribution to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

As the world's population grows and needs more food, the problem is likely to get worse, but genetic engineering could help, a new study reports. By transferring a barley gene into a rice plant, scientists have created a new variety of rice that produces less methane while still making highly starchy, productive seeds. The development of the new rice strain is described this week in the journal Nature.

Finding a way to boost rice production while reducing methane emissions has been a goal for many years, said Chuanxin Sun, a plant biologist at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and the lead author of the study. By engineering barley genes into the rice plant, "we demonstrated it's possible to get these two traits with this technology," he said.

When rice paddies are flooded, methane-producing bacteria thrive on the carbohydrates secreted by rice roots in the oxygen-free soils. The rice plant itself acts as a conduit, transmitting methane from the soil into the atmosphere.

Methane traps heat in the atmosphere with devastating efficiency: Over 20 years, it is 84 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, according to the most recent assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Sun and his team transferred barley genes that cause high-starch production in rice grains and stems. Based on previous research that proposed that rice plants with smaller root systems could produce less methane, the researchers hoped that the genetic transfer would cause their rice plants to allocate less energy toward growing roots and more toward making robust grains.

Then they planted a handful of their genetically engineered rice plants alongside conventionally grown Nipponbare rice in the laboratory and in two field settings in China.

Near the end of the growing season, in summer and fall, the researchers measured how much methane each plant emitted by covering it with a sealed plastic cylinder and using a syringe to extract the accumulated gasses in the trapped air. They also measured how much starch the plants allocated to their seeds, stems and roots, and how many methane-producing bacteria lived around the plant roots.

As they suspected, the genetically engineered rice grew smaller root systems and starchier grains than conventional rice. Far fewer methane-producing bacteria hugged the roots of the new rice. And the new rice variety emitted less than 10% of the methane of conventional rice, they reported.

The genetically modified rice variety provides "a tremendous opportunity for more-sustainable rice cultivation," Paul Bodelier, a microbial ecologist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, wrote in an essay that accompanied that research article.

Previous techniques for reducing methane emissions from rice paddies involve alternating flooding with dry periods, said Bruce Linquist, a plant scientist at UC Davis who specializes in rice cultivation and was not involved in the study. Although these techniques can cut methane emissions in half, they also can reduce the plants' productivity. Additionally, in a lot of places where rice is grown, you can't control when rice paddies are wet or dry because irrigation is based on seasonal rains and floods, he said.

The research is too preliminary to make solid conclusions about methane emissions from the genetically engineered rice, Linquist added. More research about how much methane whole rice paddies (and not just individual plants) emit over the entire growing season is necessary, he said. In addition, the new rice plants' smaller root systems could make it difficult for the crop to uptake nutrients.

"It needs to be tested more in the field," he said.

Even if the new rice variety does prove to reduce methane emissions on a larger scale, there are still barriers to it being grown and sold. Genetically engineered rice isn't commercially cultivated anywhere in the world, in part because of ethical and biological concerns about the spread of engineered rice pollen, experts said.

"There's not a market for it," Linquist said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO rice could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over half the people on the planet eat rice as a staple food. Growing rice emits methane, a potent greenhouse gas - to the tune of 25 million to 100 million metric tons of methane every year, a notable contribution to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the ferocious, sprawling brawl over genetically modified crops, one particular question seems like it should have a simple factual answer: Did those crops lead to more use of pesticides, or less?

Sadly, there's no simple answer.

Pesticides include both insecticides and herbicides. Backers of GMOs point to the example of crops containing new genes that fight off insect pests, so farmers don't have to spray insecticides. Biotech critics point to the example of crops that have been altered to tolerate specific weedkillers, like glyphosate, thus encouraging farmers to rely more heavily on those herbicides.

This week, scientists at Iowa State made a fresh attempt to answer this question. It's based on the most detailed data ever assembled to examine the issue. Those data came from a private company, which gathered information about the farm practices of 5,000 randomly selected farmers who grew corn and soybeans, the two most widely planted crops in the country. That information allowed detailed comparisons of pesticide use on fields planted with GMO corn and soybeans, compared to non-GMO fields.

Unfortunately, this study probably won't settle the debate. It's that complicated.

One of the study's conclusions is straightforward and difficult to dispute. Genetically modified, insect-protected corn has allowed farmers to reduce their use of insecticides to fight the corn rootworm and the European corn borer. There is, however, concern that this effect won't last. Corn rootworms have evolved resistance to one of the genes that has been deployed against them.

When it comes to weedkillers, though, the picture gets more murky. For one thing, the effect of GMOs has been different in corn than in soybeans. Farmers who switched to glyphosate-tolerant corn also switched herbicides, and used less total herbicide than farmers did on conventional corn - for a while. In the years since 2007, however, glyphosate-tolerant corn got sprayed with more weedkillers, as measured in kilograms per acre, than corn without that GMO trait.

Farmers who are growing genetically modified, glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, meanwhile, have been using more weedkillers than their non-GMO neighbors. In fact, that gap has been widening in recent years.

Edward Perry of Kansas State University, a co-author of the new study, which appears in the journal Science Advances, says farmers may be using more herbicides on glyphosate-tolerant crops in recent years because they have to fight off an increasing number of weeds that have evolved to become resistant to glyphosate.

Complicating the picture, however, is the fact that the war on weeds involves many different herbicides, and they vary tremendously in their environmental effects.

The new study tries to account for that by comparing the "environmental impact quotient," or EIQ, of the herbicides sprayed on each field, in addition to their weight.

But Andrew Kniss, a weed scientist at the University of Wyoming, says the EIQ falls woefully short as a measure of real environmental impact. "Toxicity can vary by a factor of 10 or a hundred," he says. The EIQ doesn't come anywhere close to capturing those large differences among chemicals, he says.

Much better, he says, is a "risk quotient" measure that's used by the Environmental Protection Agency. "It is, frankly, disappointing to see continued use of the EIQ in the peer-reviewed literature," Kniss wrote in an email to The Salt.

Kniss says the EIQ is such a crude measure that this study can't convincingly show whether GMO crops have been helpful or harmful to the environment.

So the debate continues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How GMOs Cut The Use Of Pesticides - And Perhaps Boosted It Again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the ferocious, sprawling brawl over genetically modified crops, one particular question seems like it should have a simple factual answer: Did those crops lead to more use of pesticides, or less? Sadly, there's no simple answer. Pesticides include both insecticides and herbicides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pesticides

How GMO Farming makes it possible to spray less often using fewer pesticides.

Vegan, gluten-free, paleo - there are a million ways people eat these days. What we all share is that everyone wants their food to be nutritious, delicious and above all safe.

Nearly 70 percent of Americans are worried about pesticides in their food and prefer food grown with fewer pesticides. So it's no surprise that a lot of people still have questions about GMO Farming and pesticide use. The fact is, GMO Farming methods let growers spray less often, and actually use fewer pesticides than other types of farming. But when even one story gets the facts wrong about GMO Farming, people get concerned - and understandably so.

That's why we're sorting facts from fear, so you can make smart, informed choices for yourself and your family. Take a look:

It's the secret almost no one but farmers know - all types of farming use pesticides to one degree or another, even organic. So what sets GMO Farming methods apart? Farmers using these techniques can grow crops that are pest-resistant on their own.

All plants can develop their own defenses against the insects that like to eat them. Using these natural pesticides as a spray is one of the ways organic farmers fend off pests. GMO Farming simply lets farmers grow plants with more of that natural resistance. Because it's something that already occurs in nature, it's completely safe for people and the insects we want around - like lady bugs and pollinators.

And with crops that have their own natural defenses, farmers can cut back dramatically on pesticide use. How much? https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=45182 By 2010, only 9 percent of corn farmers still used insecticides at all - in large part because of increased GMO Farming. ⁶

But bugs aren't the only pests that affect crops - what about weeds? One reason farmers have embraced GMO Farming methods is that they allow for milder and more effective herbicides, making it possible to spray less often but with more targeted precision. Because these improved herbicides break down in the soil more quickly, they have far less impact on the environment.

But let's be honest. Most people aren't just worried about the natural world; they're wondering if there's pesticide residue on their produce. The truth is, over 99 percent of any pesticide residue on a plant is made organically by the plant itself. It's a natural defense. And the fraction of a percent left? The research shows it's safe.

Of course, if we use any weed-control method too much, for too long, weeds can adapt. So many farmers go out of their way to make sure weeds don't get the chance. Smart stewardship practices, like crop rotation, ensure GMO Farming will remain sustainable for years to come.

When it comes to pesticides, all types of farming use them. GMO Farming just lets farmers use fewer, safer pesticides to protect their crops, and apply them less.

No matter what you eat, or what you've heard about GMOs, the real story is simple: GMO Farming is a smarter way to make healthy food more affordable and sustainable. For more information on what GMO Farming means for our food and environment, check out the resources linked below.

Share This Page

Comments or Questions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO Farming and Pesticides: What You Need To Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pesticides Vegan, gluten-free, paleo - there are a million ways people eat these days. What we all share is that everyone wants their food to be nutritious, delicious and above all safe. Nearly 70 percent of Americans are worried about pesticides in their food and prefer food grown with fewer pesticides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Interview with Dr. Christian Krupke, Professor of Entomology at Purdue University

Beetles, Butterflies, Bees and More: The Relationship Between Bugs and GMOs

There are thousands of insects out there. Beetles, caterpillars, honeybees and many, many more. The average farmer's field is home to a lot of those insects. Some of them are actually good for the crop, yet a few can be harmful; these are called pests. The good insects are generally those that eat the pests, break down crop residues in the soil or, in the case of the bee, help pollinate many types of fruits and vegetables.

Pests can really damage a crop. In rare cases, they can even ruin an entire field's produce by eating the crop or killing the plant itself. To combat this, farmers have used a variety of approaches, including the use of pesticides. Pesticides are chemicals that will prevent pests from damaging the plants, either by killing the insect outright or forming a toxic barrier around the plant so that the insect cannot feed on it.

Pesticides have some negative consequences. They add chemicals to the field that can kill beneficial organisms, they're costly to the farmer and they can be dangerous to certain animals as well as the workers who are applying them. These are some of the reasons why scientists developed genetically modified crops that are pest-resistant. Making the plant itself pest-resistant eliminated or greatly diminished the need for pesticide application on many crops.

How do you make a crop pest-resistant? Scientists were able to modify the plant's protein manufacturing system so that it now makes a protein that wasn't previously present. This carefully selected protein is one that is toxic to certain insects. Basically, they eat it and their stomach ruptures. This protein is so specifically targeted towards certain pests that it doesn't affect other insects, animals or humans that eat it. In fact, it is so specific that it doesn't even impact "good" bugs, like bees or butterflies.

GM crops don't harm honeybees or monarch butterflies. On the contrary, they may reduce the need for pesticides that do harm them. Insects that eat genetically modified crops can, in some cases, start to develop a resistance to the protein that usually kills them. This is something to keep an eye on in the future as some GM technologies that work great today will become less effective as certain insects evolve resistance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purdue University's College of Agriculture leads globally in the science and business of agriculture, food, life, and natural resources, positively changing the world through our unwavering commitment to excellence in serving the land grant missions of learning, discovery, and engagement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate over GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) rages on with ballot initiatives this election year addressing the issue of proper labeling on food pro...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic engineering of foods to reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer. - PubMed - NCBI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than one million people in the United States get cancer each year and many people have questions about whether consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or the foods derived from them is associated with increased risk.

To help address these important questions, we consulted Dr. Kevin Folta, a professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who replied that "the short answer is no, there is absolutely zero reputable evidence that GMO foods cause cancer."

Some of the confusion surrounding GMO crops and cancer comes from reports where the natural Bt ( bacillus thuringiensis) protein, incorporated into insect resistant plants, or glyphosate, the herbicide used on some GM crops, is applied to cell lines in a petri dish. Dr. Folta explained that under those conditions, some cells show changes associated with stress that sometimes include abnormal growth, but it is important to remember that cells in a petri dish do not behave like cells in the body. According to Dr. Folta, there is no reliable evidence that consumption of foods derived from GM crops could cause the same changes in a living organism.

He also explained that years of careful evaluation show that there is nothing about the Bt protein, glyphosate, the EPSPS enzyme which confers herbicide tolerance by substituting for the natural enzyme in the plant, or the process of genetic engineering that would cause cellular changes in human cells that would lead to cancer.

That said, a number of consumers have questions about glyphosate and are concerned about a study by Thongprakaisang et al., which reported that glyphosate induces the growth of human breast cancer cells via an estrogen receptor-mediated signaling pathway. We take these concerns very seriously and while we encourage anyone interested in the topic to read John Swarthout's full response on GMO Answers, it is worth clarifying a few things here as well.

The Thongprakaisang study was performed in a laboratory setting with human breast cells that were already cancerous and the results in no way implicate glyphosate as inducing human breast cancer.

In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies glyphosate as a compound that shows no evidence of carcinogenicity for humans. A review of epidemiologic studies on glyphosate and cancer by Mink et al. also concluded that there is "no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate."

Part of the reason that there are so many questions about glyphosate, despite its low toxicity and safety profile, and about GMO crops more generally, is that many people don't know about the extensive health and safety testing that GMOs undergo. A prime example is the comparative safety assessment process used to evaluate differences between newly developed GMO crops and their conventional counterparts to fully understand the implications of genetic modification on DNA, RNA and resulting proteins and plant composition. This process is used in all international crop biotechnology guidelines and every single GMO product goes through this assessment.

We tapped Dr. Dan Goldstein, a pediatrician and clinical toxicologist who serves as a senior science fellow and lead of Medical Sciences and Outreach at Company to help unpack what this assessment process tells us about cancer risk. He described three key factors for consumers to keep in mind:

First of all, is the fact that DNA and RNA from food, whether derived from GMOs or organic crops, do not enter the human genome - period. Secondly, while proteins in GMO crops are digestible, "there are hundreds of digestible proteins in the human diet and no examples of a digestible dietary protein increasing cancer risk." The third factor to consider is plant composition. According to Dr. Goldstein, "studies have shown clearly that variability in composition of conventional plants, due to genetic differences among varieties and due to environmental factors, is considerably greater than the effects of inserting transgenes."

Cancer is a scary and complex group of diseases with many possible causes, but GMOs are not one of them. In fact, future GMO plants may even play a role in prevention through traits engineered to produce nutrients that help fight cancer or eliminate naturally occurring compounds that increase cancer risk.

According to Dr. Folta, one such product is close to commercialization. "Potatoes produce a small amount of acrylamide, a potential carcinogen, when heated to high temperatures," said Dr. Folta, explaining that "a potato has been engineered to not produce that compound, and that leads to safer food."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cancer is a scary and complex group of diseases with many possible causes, but GMOs are not one of them. To help address questions about GMOs and cancer, we consulted experts who weighed in and provided the latest evidence that GMOs don't cause cancer.