# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do GM crops damage the environment? | Royal Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Crops do not damage the environment because they are GM. Some practices have been shown to harm the environment but these problems exist for non-GM and GM crops.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You don't have to look hard to find genetically modified food on supermarket shelves: More than 85 percent of the corn and soy grown in the United States comes from seeds whose DNA has been rejiggered (to increase yields), and those two crops play starring roles in countless processed foods, from soda to salad dressing to bread. Advocates say genetically modified (GM) foods allow farmers to produce more with fewer chemicals-which means a cleaner environment and cheaper groceries for us all. But the question remains: What impact do GM foods have on our health?

The answer is, no one really knows. GM foods have been on the market only since 1994, and research on their long-term effects on humans is scarce. To date most of the studies have been done on animals; worryingly, though, some of those studies link GM foods to altered metabolism, inflammation, kidney and liver malfunction, and reduced fertility. In one experiment, multiple generations of hamsters were fed a diet of GM soy; by the third generation, they were losing the ability to produce offspring, producing about half as many pups as the non-GM soy group.

In addition, allergy sufferers worry that, as genes are transferred between plants, allergenic proteins (from, say, peanuts or wheat) will pop up in unexpected places (like soy or sugar). Richard Goodman, PhD, a professor of food science and technology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a former scientist for Monsanto, says that seed companies run sophisticated tests to prevent that kind of mistake from happening. But inserting new genes into a seed's delicately constructed genome is always a gamble because scientists can't predict all the consequences. There is, for example, the possibility of creating brand-new allergens.

Despite the potential health implications, more GM foods appear each year. In 2011 the USDA approved the planting of genetically enhanced sugar beets (sucrose) and alfalfa (hay for livestock). The FDA is expected to okay a fast-growing salmon in the near future. And possibly on the horizon: pigs designed to produce omega-3s.

Yet because GM foods are not required to be labeled as such, it's impossible for consumers to tell them apart from regular foods. Gary Hirshberg, chairman and cofounder of Stonyfield, the organic yogurt company, thinks that's not right. Last October he partnered with Just Label It, a national coalition of nearly 450 organizations that's currently petitioning the FDA to give consumers a choice. More than 600,000 people have already signed. (To add your name, go to justlabelit.org.)

"The status quo is innocent until proven guilty," says Ashley Koff, a registered dietitian who studies GM foods, "as it was for trans fats, DDT, and countless other harmful chemicals. A labeling requirement would motivate seed companies to prove to consumers that their products are safe, to protect their sales." Nearly 50 other countries-including China, Brazil, and most European nations-have mandated that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be marked, and in an MSNBC online poll, 96 percent of more than 45,000 respondents said that they should be labeled. At press time, 18 states had introduced legislation to promote GMO labeling.

Hirshberg, for one, remains impatient. "I'm 57," he says. "I don't want to wait another 30 years to see what the science says. At this point, I want to decide for myself."

Read more: http://www.oprah.com/health/Genetically-Modified-Foods-Affect-Health-and-Body#ixzz2W2II3K8l

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Do Genetically Modified Foods Affect Your Health? | Just Label It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Studies show that more than 90% of Americans support mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GMO) foods. Yet for twenty years we have been denied that right. Join the Just Label It campaign to urge Congress and the FDA to implement national GMO labeling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Medical News Bulletin | Health News and Medical Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Researchers from Duke University in North Carolina produced pathogen-resistant crops without compromising the plant's yield and fitness.

Plants are commonly attacked by microbial, viral or fungal pathogens. Improving crop production involves the applications of pesticides. In recent years, genetically modified pathogen-resistant crops that express a high level of immune proteins have been produced. One of the key regulators of a plant's immune response is the gene NPR1. However, disease-resistant strains overexpressing NPR1, display weaker fitness, making them undesirable agriculture products. Much like the human condition of elevated immunity is problematic, NPR1 overexpression results in a resistant but less healthy plant. In other words, a gain in resistance was balanced by a penalty in fitness. To resolve this problem researchers attempted to create strains able to transiently activate immune responses only at the time of infection.

Two back-to-back papers published last month in Nature by Xinnian Dong and colleagues from Duke University in North Caroline report a successful implementation of the transient immune response. It is well understood that infection with pathogens triggers activation of the plant immune response at the transcriptional level, providing a pool of messengers that would be translated into immune-defense related proteins. Interestingly, in a recent study, Dong and colleagues identify that alongside with changes in gene expression, there are modifications in the translation efficacy. Alterations of translational machinery allows priority translation for messengers encoding protein products crucial for immune response. Researchers identified the sequence responsible for the induction of rapid translation, and found that when it was transferred to the gene of interest translational efficiency was accelerated. Then, the translation-enhancing element was fused to NPR1 gene to enable rapid translation of the NPR1 transcript. In order to create a gene which would be transcribed only at the time of infection, researchers also added pathogen-responsive elements to the sequence.

The researchers created genetically modified pathogen-resistant plants, able to elicit immune defense at the time of infection and fight the pathogen, but short enough to keep plants healthy. The immune-boost approach was demonstrated on genetically-modified strains of rice and Arabidopsis and provided protection against bacterial and fungal infections.

Pathogen-resistant strains of rice is of major importance in agriculture, where farmers frequently lose fields with crops due to infections. Especially, it's important for developing countries, where farmers can always afford application of pesticides.

Research experts are optimistic about the possible applications of these findings. A next step is to test more pathogens on various crops with the boosted-immunity system. Hopefully, in 50 years, the use of chemicals in agriculture will be history and genetics will be used to control disease in plants.

Written By: Bella Groisman, PhD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disease-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops - Medical News Bulletin | Health News and Medical Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers from Duke University in North Carolina produced pathogen-resistant crops without compromising the plant's yield and fitness. Plants are commonly attacked by microbial, viral or fungal pathogens. Improving crop production involves the applications of pesticides. In recent years, genetically modified pathogen-resistant crops that express a high level of immune proteins have been produced.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Glyphosate-based herbicides are among the most widely-used crop protection products in modern agriculture, so it's understandable that people have questions about their safety, the impact they have on our food supply and our health.

All crop protection products, including glyphosate, are subject to rigorous testing and oversight by regulatory agencies. Glyphosate, given its effectiveness and wide adaptation, is one of the most studied herbicides in the world.

There is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and Bayer's glyphosate-based herbicides, including more than 800 rigorous studies submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and European and other regulators in connection with the registration process, which confirms these products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

More information on glyphosate's safety profile is included in the sections below:

Human Health Research

There is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and Bayer's glyphosate-based herbicides, including more than 800 rigorous studies submitted to the EPA, and European and other worldwide regulators in connection with the registration process, that confirms that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Over 160 countries approve the use of glyphosate-based products.

What the Experts Say:

The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The Agency's assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label. The Agency's scientific findings are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by a number of other countries as well as the 2017 National Institutes of Health Agricultural Health Survey."

Glyphosate use was not associated with overall cancer risk

EFSA - in line with the scientific opinion of 27 out of 28 Member State experts - concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans.

No pesticide regulatory authority in the world currently considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.

Glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

Data also indicates that glyphosate does not put people at risk of cancer via food. In May 2016, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) ⁵ concluded that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet."

The largest and most recent epidemiologic study - the independent 2018 National Cancer Institute-supported Agricultural Health Study that followed over 50,000 licensed pesticide applicators for more than 20 years and was published after the IARC monograph - found no association between glyphosate-based herbicides and cancer. ⁶

Glyphosate's Classification by IARC

One non-regulatory organization presented a classification of glyphosate that was inconsistent with experts and regulatory authorities around the world - this organization was the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a sub-agency of the World Health Organization (WHO). In March 2015, IARC gave glyphosate a classification of "Category 2A: probably carcinogenic" despite evidence to the contrary. IARC is one of four programs within the WHO that has reviewed glyphosate, and the only one to have made such a finding.

IARC is not a regulatory authority and conducted no independent studies. IARC is the same organization that determined beer, meat, cell phones and hot beverages cause cancer or are likely to cause cancer.

IARC's opinion is inconsistent with the overwhelming consensus of regulatory authorities and other experts around the world, who have assessed all the studies examined by IARC - and many more - and found that glyphosate presents no carcinogenic risk. Since IARC classified glyphosate in March 2015, regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe, Canada, Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia have publicly reaffirmed that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk.

Safety Research on Herbicide Residues

Before crop protection products like glyphosate can be approved for use, scientific evaluations are conducted to determine potential risk of residues. If the risk is too high, the product never makes it to market.

For products that pass scientific evaluation, the next step is to submit the studies to government regulators who review them and establish their own safe levels of residues, and then constantly monitor harvests to ensure those levels are not exceeded.

Understanding Residues

All crops will contain trace amounts of elements that are used or present in the environment in which they are grown. Thanks to incredible advances in technology, experts are now able to detect certain substances in units as small as one billionth of a gram. For context, one billionth of a gram would be the equivalent of one drop of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool. These advances give scientists great confidence in their ability to ensure that food is safe.

When it comes to pesticide residues, regulatory authorities have strict rules. In fact, the EPA and the EFSA set daily exposure limits at least 100 times below levels shown to have no negative effect in safety studies. 7,8

The levels sometimes found in food are incredibly small and nowhere near any level of concern. Furthermore, on Oct. 2, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published results of its annual residue testing program and concluded that the "levels of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are well below established safety standards." The FDA was clear that the glyphosate levels "were below the tolerance levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

The Basics: Acceptable Daily Intake and Maximum Residue Limits

Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) are established thresholds to help assess any potential risks that could arise from consuming food with residues from certain substances.

The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) value represents the amount of residue that, if ingested daily over a person's lifetime, is considered to be without significant health risk.

The Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) value reflects the enforceable maximum level of pesticide residues that are permitted in food or feed based on recommended use.

Safety Research on Toxicity

Any real danger from a potentially toxic substance depends on the dose or the levels at which the substance is present in our environment. While some chemicals, like botulin, are poisonous in small doses; others, like caffeine, are only dangerous at higher doses. Just because a chemical is present does not mean that it is harmful. For example, apple seeds, pears, potatoes and courgettes/zucchini all contain natural chemicals that are potentially toxic to humans. In each of these cases, however, they are usually present in amounts that are far below harmful toxicity levels.

Given the sophisticated technology available, glyphosate has been detected in incredibly small amounts in some foods - at levels approximately 100 times below the safety thresholds set by the U.S. EPA and EFSA. Based on the miniscule amounts in which glyphosate is sometimes found in food, a person would have to consume an incredible amount to get anywhere close to a potentially hazardous level.

You could eat 450 boxes of cereal every 24 hours for the rest of your life and still be at a level of glyphosate exposure considered safe by the European Food Safety Agency. ⁹

Have more questions about glyphosate and our food supply? Keep reading.

Impact on Farmer Health

For farmers working regularly with glyphosate in the field, it's important to know exactly what impact - if any - this will have on their health.

25-Year Study Follows 50,000 Pesticide Applicators

For more than 20 years, the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) ⁹ has continuously monitored over 50,000 pesticide applicators. The study on glyphosate was conducted by independent researchers in academia and/or the U.S. government, and was publicly funded by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, among others - all governmental bodies in the United States.

This particular study was commissioned by the United States government in order to determine the impact of agricultural practices, lifestyle and genetic factors on the health of farmers and their families. In the long-term study, researchers found no association between glyphosate use and cancer. ²

Some additional facts about glyphosate safety testing:

Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, which have been on the market around the world for more than 40 years, are among the most rigorously studied products of their kind.

In addition to the rigorous registration that it has gone through in the U.S. and the EU, glyphosate is approved for use in more than 160 countries.

Other resources on this topic:

We want to explain the benefits that science and innovation can deliver in agriculture while championing what's important to people: safe, healthy and affordable food that is produced in an environmentally sustainable manner. Improving access to the science behind our products is a key part of our Transparency Initiative.

7

https://www.epa.gov/iris/reference-dose-rfd-description-and-use-health-risk-assessments
[Retrieved February 12, 2019]

Latest News

December 7, 2018

Bayer committed to transparency:
Posts more than 300 glyphosate safety study summaries online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Glyphosate Facts: Impact on Human Health and Safety - Bayer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Glyphosate-based herbicides are among the most widely-used crop protection products in modern agriculture, so it's understandable that people have questions about their safety, the impact they have on our food supply and our health. All crop protection products, including glyphosate, are subject to rigorous testing and oversight by regulatory agencies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This year, GMO Answers has placed a special focus on how GMOs can benefit our environment. We've released six infographics throughout the year addressing some of the most common environmental issues, and explained how GMO technology can actually help allay negative environmental impacts.

Back in June, we launched the first in the series, an infographic showing the impact of GMOs on maximizing current land use. Contrary to myths about GMOs hurting the environment, GMOs allow farmers to preserve the land while doing more with less resources.

The second in this series was released in July, highlighting the positive impact GMOs can have on preserving habitats and ecosystems. GM crops increase productivity on the world's 3.7 billion acres of arable land, which helps to prevent deforestation and conserve biodiversity.

Our third infographic, released in August, focuses on water conservation. Advancements in biotechnology such as drought-tolerant crops are one solution helping farmers use less water and reduce irrigation needs.

September's air quality infographic was the fourth in our series on how GMOs can help the environment. Advances in crop biotechnology are helping farmers reduce carbon emissions and make agricultural production more sustainable.

Producing enough food to meet the needs of a growing global population, while limiting our impact on the environment is undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges of our time. November's infographic, Reducing Food Loss and Waste, illustrates how GMOs can be a critical part of the solution to reducing the amount of food sent to landfills and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

This month, we released our sixth and final infographic of the year, GMOs Help Improve Soil Health. Healthy soil is fundamental for crop growth and food production. Herbicide-tolerant GM crops enable farmers to till - or turn over and break up the soil - less often, preserving topsoil and helping to prevent erosion.

These infographics, and all our educational resources, are available on the GMO Answers website.

Filed under: Farmer Gene, Food And Agriculture, agriculture, Benefits of biotech crops, biotechnology, climate change, environment, food loss, Food waste, global food crisis, GMO Answers, GMOs, gmos and the environment, Plant biotechnology, soil health, Sustainability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This year, GMO Answers has placed a special focus on how GMOs can benefit our environment. We've released six infographics throughout the year addressing some of the most common environmental issues, and explained how GMO technology can actually help allay negative environmental impacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminate―forever.
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president. He's now the US Food Safety Czar.

6. The biotech industry uses "tobacco science" to claim product safety.
Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a "large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge." Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

8. GMOs harm the environment.
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America's dairies.

NOTE: As an additional motivation to avoid GMOs, you may wish to take a lesson from the animals. Eyewitness reports from around the world describe several situations where animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically modified food. These include cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, raccoons, mice, rats, squirrels, chicken, and buffalo. We're pretty sure the animals didn't read the above 10 reasons.

The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMOs much easier.
Please choose healthier non-GMO brands, tell others about GMOs so they can do the same, and join the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network. Together we can quickly reclaim a non-GMO food supply.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs - Institute for Responsible Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1. GMOs are unhealthy. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For more than decade, we have seen an upward trend in both the cost of food and in the volatility of food prices - a trend that has put a spotlight on farming and food production and left some wondering whether the development of GMOs is in some way responsible.

It is important to recognize that the real price of food and feed products has fallen consistently during the last 50 years. This is not "out of the blue" but from enormous improvements in productivity by producers. These productivity improvements have arisen from the adoption of new technologies and techniques.

While many factors have impacted the global food economy in the past 20 years, (climate change, a globalizing economy, changing consumer demands, and changes in the political landscape) you may be surprised to learn that GMOs have actually contributed to reducing the real cost of food and play an important role in keeping prices as low as possible.

In fact, an analysis of the production and price impacts of biotech crops by Graham Brookes et al., estimated that corn-based products would be priced 6 percent higher and soybean-based products would be 10 percent higher if it weren't for GM crops.

GMO Answers reached out to an author of the study, Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist at PG Economics Ltd., U.K., to learn more about the study and asked to him explain the complicated factors driving food costs and the role GMOs play in the global food economy.
Increased Productivity
According to Brookes, the main reason why GM crops contribute to reducing the cost of food worldwide has to do with the very nature of the biotechnology involved, which helps farmers increase production thanks to herbicide and pesticide resistant crops.

In terms of productivity, Brookes says that new biotechnology has generated the equivalent of "an extra 122 million tons of soybeans, 237 million tons of corn, 18 million tons of cotton lint and 6.6 million tons of canola" between 1996 and 2012. Meanwhile, the increase in productivity goes hand in hand with savings on pesticides and fuel compared to conventional methods.

According to Brookes, these savings have more than offset the additional cost farmers incur for buying GM seeds, so much so that, "when added to the extra income arising from higher yields, the net farm income benefit from using GM technology has been equal to $116.6 billion" during that same period.
Environmental Sustainability & the Potential for Nutritionally-Fortified Foods
Looking forward, the global food system will face unprecedented challenges over the next 40 years. On the demand side, global population size will increase from 7.4 billion today to 8.5 billion by 2030, and probably to over 9.7 billion by 2050. Many people are likely to be wealthier, creating demand for a more varied, high-quality diet requiring additional resources to produce. And the poor will continue to grow poorer, as the gap between the rich and the poor continues to expand, creating challenges of its own: production, transportation, access, and environmental issues.

On the production side, competition for land, water and energy will intensify, while the effects of climate change will become more and more apparent. The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate will become imperative. Over this period globalization will continue, exposing the food system to new economic and political pressure.

As for the cost of food, it is important to remember that GM crops are part of the solution and not the problem. The cost of food is not just how much you pay at the grocery store. The price of food also includes the cost to the environment and the ability to have access to nutritious meals on a global scale.

Ultimately, GMO crops, through their environmental sustainability, potential for nutritionally-fortified foods, and increased productivity, actually play a key role in keeping the cost of food down, now and in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What role do GMOs play in the price of food? You may be surprised to learn that GMOs have actually contributed to reducing the real cost of food. Through improved productivity, environmental sustainability and even by nutritionally-fortifying foods - GMOs have not only reduced what you pay at the grocery store, but they have also reduced production costs for farmers and allow more people to have access to nutritious meals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Feeding The World Without GMOs from Gringo Starr Productions on Vimeo.

One of the most often touted benefits of genetically engineered (GE) crops [more commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs)] is that they are essential to feed the world's growing population. There are currently over 7.5 billion people on this planet and expected to rise to 9.5 billion by 2050. If consumption trends continue, in order to feed that many people, we would need to grow one-third more food. First, let's look at this argument from an agricultural perspective.

The vast majority of GE crop production does not go towards direct food consumption; rather, it is used for the production of animal feed and ethanol. These are crops engineered to withstand, work in partnership with, and self-generate pesticides. They are not engineered to increase yield or face climate-related challenges to growth, such as drought tolerance. There is one variety of corn has been bred for drought resistance, but it is likely to only be effective in 15 percent of US corn fields and is not effective in severe or extreme drought, which we are expected to have more of in the coming years.

Industrial agriculture isn't the answer.

Increases in yield from GE crops are a result of a decrease in yield lost to pests from Bt crops, pesticides, and an increase in fertilizer use (made from petroleum, defeating the purpose of ethanol). Unfortunately, growing weed and pest resistance is already decreasing their effectiveness, requiring much more dangerous pesticides and making useless one of the most used organic pesticides, Bt. These minimal increases in yield have come with major externalities, including but not limited to water pollution, pollinator loss, and soil degradation, that put future food security at risk. After decades of attempts, Big Biotech has not been successful in breeding GE seeds that increase yield or reduce water use. Conventional breeding outperforms genetic engineering when it comes to nitrogen use efficiency (the ability for crops to pull nitrogen out of soil, developing a more efficient use of fertilizer, ultimately decreasing the demand for fertilizers) and water use efficiency (WUE).

Overall, conventional breeding is responsible for most of the successful advances in yield. It also happens on a much shorter timeline at a much lower cost. Industry studies show that it takes a minimum of ten years to develop a GE crop and nearly $150 million; whereas conventional crops take only $1 million to develop, improvements WUE and drought resistance naturally occur at an estimated 1 percent each year. While Big Biotech develop GE crops in a lab, farmers are improving traditional crops in the field. Due to this drag rate by the time GE crops are finally released they are actually behind their conventional counterparts.

Conventional crops could also be more effectively bred to work in partnership with the cultural food needs and geographical climate and soil challenges unique to specific regions. Forcing GE crops into developing countries with higher existing biodiversity puts that biodiversity and future food supplies at risk by threatening native species and practices. There are an abundance of types of crop varieties (both already in use and wild) accessible to breeders and growers. It is important that we tap into this vast resource to expand nutrient diversity and accessibility.

The Solution: Agroecology

Considering the changing climate and increasing pressures on and demand for our scarce resources, expanding the industrialized system of agricultural is not the answer. Agriculture is already one of the largest contributors to climate change. In order to sustainability produce the food we will need, we must support a transition to more regenerative, agroecological methods of farming. Agroecology as a "science is the 'application of ecological science to the study, design, and management of sustainable agroecosystems.' As a set of agricultural practices, agroecology seeks ways to enhance agricultural systems by mimicking natural processes, thus creating beneficial biological interactions and synergies among the components of the agroecosystem."

It is essential to look at the entire system and how plants work with one another and their surrounding climates. Regenerative agriculture works to rebuild soil health and biodiversity; sequestering carbon, preventing soil erosion, protecting water sources, and reducing harmful pesticide and fertilizer runoff in the process. Agroecology is also a much better system of management for small holders and provides a more balanced diet with more nutrient dense crops. Smallholders already produce 70 percent of the world's food on only 25 percent of the land. More diversified planting is better for soil health and biodiversity and will better handle the challenges presented by climate change and the damage we have already done to our resources.

Lack of Equity + Poverty = Hunger

Hunger is not an issue of agriculture or food quantity, but one of poverty and equity. There is currently enough food in the world to feed 10 billion people. That means that we actually have an excess of food.

Despite that, there is still a shocking number of people who are hungry, 791 million (the majority of which live in developing nations). More than anything, hunger is a result of poverty. The World Bank estimates that there are over 1 billion poor people in developing countries. Continued hunger leads to continued poverty as those suffering from chronic hunger are unable to perform manual labor (the most common source of income in developing countries) and increase their standard of living. Much of this poverty and hunger is caused by existing economic inequity as a result of current political systems that favor those with higher incomes. The current industrial food system emphasizes the need for countries (regardless of size) to export food crops despite the local demand for basic nutrients. If poverty and livelihoods are not improved it will not matter how much food is produced if the poorest, and in turn hungriest, do not have the financial ability to access it.

At the same time that there is great hunger there is also excessive food waste throughout the world. It is even worse in the western hemisphere; the US alone wastes 40 percent of its food. In western countries, grocery stores throw out a lot of food and will not purchase unattractive produce. Food is wasted simply because it is visually unappealing or goes uneaten. In developing nations food waste is a result of a lack of infrastructure, capital investment, and basic necessities. Lack of access to road ways, storage facilities, and basic refrigeration prevents food access and increases spoilage rates. With proper investment and support these problems could be remedied.

Despite the hunger epidemic we also have an obesity epidemic as a result of poor nutrition, high meat consumption, and increased processed food consumption. Worldwide, most of the expected demand for an increase in food is not based on a baseline need for nutrients, but rather the growing trend of developing countries to adopt the western diet of meat consumption. It takes substantially more calories to produce meat and ultimately results in a number of health challenges. Not only does this require a higher production of animal feed crops, the raising of animals for meat puts a number of stresses on the environment due to the current system of large concentrated and confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Hunger is an issue of politics and justice.

It is a choice that we make as a nation and as group of developed countries. In order to tackle these problems of access we need to drastically change our food system. We need an international system of agriculture that supports food sovereignty, regenerative agroecological farming practices, and food security on a regional and local level. GMOs are not the answer.

If GMOs are not feeding the world, then what do we do to decrease worldwide hunger? Find out here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Feeding The World Without GMOs from Gringo Starr Productions on Vimeo. One of the most often touted benefits of genetically engineered (GE) crops [more commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs)] is that they are essential to feed the world's growing population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Farmers choose what seeds to grow based on what is best for their farms, market demand and local growing environments. Farmers also look for ways to grow crops using resources more efficiently and with less impact on the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 70 percent of Americans say they don't want GMOs in their food, according to a recent Consumer Reports National Research Center survey of 1,000 American adults. The trouble is, it's hard to avoid them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs in Your Food: What You Don't Know | Consumer Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transgenic bananas appear to successfully resist a bacterial wilting disease and pest species that are devastating the critical food crop in tropical regions across the planet, according to a newly published scientific paper.

The research has tremendous implications for Africa, which produces about a third of the 145 million tons of banana grown globally each year and 72 percent of the plantains. Banana production is an important source of income and food security for small-holder farmers, who have experienced significant crop losses due to disease, especially in East Africa.

Researchers turned to genetic engineering for a solution because development of nematodes or banana Xanthomonas wilt (BXW)-resistant cultivars by traditional crosspollination techniques is hampered by the sterility of the polyploid genomes of cultivated banana and plantains, stated the paper, which was published March 29 in Food and Energy Security.

Transgenic banana grown in both glasshouses and confined field trials demonstrated 100 percent resistance to BXW. Disease resistance was achieved by transferring two resistance genes from sweet pepper into banana, both singly and as stacked traits. These genes have provided disease resistance in other plants, including tobacco, tomato, orchids, calla lily, and rice. Researchers also have identified several other potential transgenes that could confer resistance to BXW.

Several transgenic defenses against nematodes are in different stages of development, according to the paper. Confined field trials using cystatin and peptide defenses show strong potential for nematode resistance research that also could have positive implications for other crops affected by the destructive pest worms.

Currently, nematodes are controlled in commercial plantations by environmentally damaging pesticides that are not normally available to or suitable for small-holders in Africa, the paper stated. Small-holder farmers do not have sufficient land to rotate their crops.

The paper also reported that there is no risk of gene flow from transgenic banana plants to either wild or cultivated plants because most edible cultivars are sterile and therefore cannot cross-pollinate because they produce no seeds or pollen.

Leena Tripathi, a plant biotechnologist at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Nairobi, wrote the paper with assistance from Howard Atkinson, Hugh Roderick, Jerome Kubiriba and Jaindra N. Tripathi.

The research was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the Department for International Development (DFID) and the CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB).

Categories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO banana offers hope for disease and pest resistance - Alliance for Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new scientific paper reports promising results for banana genetically engineered to resist two serious crop threats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Let’s Discuss GMO Effects on the Environment | GMO Answers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Which is cheaper to produce - GMO or organic?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beyond Pesticides offers the latest information on the hazards of pesticides and least-toxic alternatives, as well as ongoing projects including children's health, pollinators and pesticides, organic food and agriculture, mosquito control and organic lawn care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is it more or less expensive to use gmo technology for crops? | GMO Answers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is it more or less expensive to use gmo technology for crops?