GMO SAFETY – Page 3 – All you want to know about GMO food and the health risks of genetically modified foods

Analysis

Issues associated with GMO plants

Editorial Posted On May 23, 2016

Introduction
It is within the mission set for 2017 that genetically modified crops have negative impacts on the ecosystem and the entire biodiversity. However, it is quite sad that most of the multinational organizations such as Monsanto do not have the best interests of humankind at heart. It is important to take note that other bodies such as the FDA ensure that the safety of the GM plants and the foods produced from them are safe for human consumption. This means that the foods that are generated from GMO plants have to possess a high standard of safety equal or greater than that we obtain from plants that are bred using the traditional techniques. However, despite all these efforts that have been put in place by safety bodies, there are still concerns involving GMO plants. These include:

– Contamination of farmlands and natural habitats
Genetically engineered plants have been reported to play a crucial role in threatening contamination of the surrounding farming areas as well as natural plant home. This is the central reason why there is low biodiversity among crops that are bred for food as well as the reason for monoculture. Genetically engineered plants often have the ability to adapt better to the environmental conditions and thus increasing their capacity to outcompete plants that occur naturally. The central mandate is not to contribute to loss but rather offer significant support to guided land and climate analysis to ensure that GMO plants are prevented with buffer zones across fields.

– Seed patenting
The issue of seed patenting of genetically modified plants is a growing problem in research as well as agriculture as a whole. This is because when a given formula is obtained for GMO plants, it is the multinational companies that patent and make this commercial. For example, when the strain of Bacillus thuringiensis cotton was produced, Monsanto patented this, and they had control over 95 % of the cotton marketed in India. This sort of monopoly has contributed to the dramatic increase in the prices of cotton leaving the farmers in debt and thus unsustainability of their livelihoods.

– Cross-contamination
This patenting and commercialization of the GMO plants has been the main reason for cross contamination of seeds and thus this problem is passed on to the farmers by selling those contaminated seeds. This means that if the farmer has the GMO plant in their possession and has not planted it but for some reason their field is contaminated, then the lawsuit will be on those that have the patent. However, in case the farmer steals the GMO crop patented, then they are subject to facing a lawsuit. This means that farmers have to be sensitized on aspects that relate to the cross-contamination of GMO plants. However, the current problem is that the multinational companies that are marketing the seeds ensure that the farmers do not keep the seeds for the following year, and this renders the farmers in debt. This is because they have to constantly increase their yield to afford the seeds for planting. A case study in India reveals that most farmers each year find themselves taking loans to provide the seeds that are sold at exorbitantly high prices.

– Destruction of seeds that once existed
The fact that most of the laws have illegalized farmers having seeds from their companies through the seed patenting and commercialization aspect, there is a significant issue of gradual destruction of the naturally occurring seeds. This is through the competition and cross-contamination of GM plants sold by the multinational companies. This is based on the fact that in case the crops that are of one genetic makeup are subjected to failure in a given agricultural year, then the yield goes down, and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers is threatened.

– Political and economic structures
The issues that I have discussed above concerning the GM plants are often influenced by political and economic problems that are linked to the creation, production and distribution of GM plants. Today, genetically engineered plants have not been very useful to small holder farmers. This is because the pressure that is exerted by biotechnological companies, as well as agribusinesses, is quickly killing the existence of small farms. This is because there is a threat that small farms produce more foods than large farms. Additionally, it is the small farms that have the ability of successfully introducing sustainable practices as opposed to the case of industrial farms. This is the reason why the mission set for 2017 is in support of biotech downscaling. This is geared towards encouraging the production as well as the distribution of a wide range of GMO plants that meets the needs of farmers across different ecosystems.

Conclusion
We require a healthy agricultural system that integrates GM plants, and laws have to be streamlined by the government to regulate the activities that are carried out by biotechnological companies. It is these regulations that serve as the hope hindering monopolies and abuse of farmers that are not to blame for issues of cross contaminations. Additionally, there is a need to alter legislations that are in support of industrial farming. For example, the New Deal made in the 1930s gave rise to a set of programs in the US that guaranteed fair pricing of corn instead of permitting free market pricing. This means that the poor farmers that have labored in the farm for their produce did not have the continually increase their yield to stay out of debt like the case today. This means that the system made sure that there was fairness in the pricing of their crops to encourage small farmers as well as promote biodiversity. If this political and economic structure were to be adopted today, then farmers would be encouraged to increase crop biodiversity. This will prevent farming practices that promote planting of a single strain of GMO plants in a huge truck of land. It is these policies that promise to benefit developing countries that rely on agriculture for the most parts of their economy and livelihoods.

1 Views

Scientific debate

The Importance of GMO Labeling

Editorial Posted On May 16, 2016

The products that have been genetically modified are vastly superior, scientists say. They benefit all levels of production and it is clear why they might be more profitable than the others. But of course, there is a certain percentage of consumers that oppose these positive aspects and claim that genetically modified organisms are dangerous to both people and the environment.

If we take a look at the broader picture, it is obvious that the advances in GMO technologies are extremely important and we are learning more and more every day on how to perfect them. But there is still so much we need to learn. However, we are not entirely clear on the issue of GMO food’s long term influence on people. There are plenty of researches we need to conduct and they should be done over a longer time period in order to get the most accurate results. The researchers from University Kebangsaan in Malaysia tackled the issue of GMO labeling in that country since the data that is currently available is simply not enough. Surely, this is an extensive research and the results so far have been partial.

The scientists who are advocating the positive sides of GMO products are certain that the biotechnology used in producing these foods are harmless and that the end result of the effect it has on humans is the same as in the non-GMO foods. However, having in mind the very size of GMO industry and the amount of money involved, not everyone is convinced. Many opponents of GMO technology are entirely sure that the scientists who claim that GMO products are safe for consumption are corrupted. Further research is required and we will not know the final outcome for quite some time.

Consumers should be aware of both positive and negative sides of this argument and be able to decide for themselves whether they want to consume genetically modified foods and products, or not. But until we have concrete proof on the negative effects genetically modified organisms can pose on humans, animals, an environment, it is hard to say that these products are safe or unsafe. But what we can say is that the researchers are doing their best to reach that result and they think that putting labels on GMO products is the best approach we can take at the moment.

GMO labeling might add some extra costs to food production, but the researchers from University Kebangsaan in Malaysia are claiming that it is simply necessary at the given time, especially in that country. Educating the consumers is a must and putting a clear label on a GMO product can prevent the unwanted results in the future. Therefore, Malaysia’s strict labeling law is completely justified.

The safety of the consumers should be the primary goal and given the lack of evidence that will persuade us in either way, the labels should be obligatory. The research team at the Kebangsaan University has done an excellent job so far and they dived deep into all the documentation available from Europe, North America, and Asia. They covered the majority of important points such as regulations and general labeling laws that are enforced in various countries.

The conclusion is obvious – the labeling law in Malaysia is reasonable and can only benefit the consumers. Until we get the results from the long term researches that will finally put an end to the debate about the safety of GMO foods, putting a warning label and letting the consumer make a decision is the best approach we have available at the moment. Surely, we will see more and more advances in the field of biotechnology in the years to come and educating people about them is definitely a must.

1 Views

News

Nestlé Removes GMO Ingredients from Their Ice Cream

Editorial Posted On May 16, 2016

The food manufacturing giants have recently announced that they will be removing GMO ingredients from a couple of their ice cream flavors. Nestlé are one of the biggest companies in the world today and the fact that they are actually listening to the demands of their customers who oppose GMO technology is a watershed moment for those who are putting an effort into removing GMO from the best-selling and well known food products.

A large number of consumers have contacted Nestlé demanding the removal of GMO ingredients from six ice cream products. Even though it has taken Nestlé some time to make a final decision, eventually they did reach the verdict and in order to keep their customers satisfied, GMO ingredients will be taken out of all of the requested products.

They released an official statement in which they pointed out that Nestlé Dreyer’s Ice Cream will be updating the ingredients of the following flavors: Edy’s 1, Häagen-Dazs, Outshine, Skinny Cow, Nestlé Ice Cream and Nestlé Drumstick. The focus will be on maintaining the well-known flavors with all new non-GMO ingredients. Therefore, the consumers will remain happy and get the healthiest possible version of their favorite ice cream product.

Nestlé will also closely examine a number of other products in order to determine if they need any modifications when it comes to ingredients. Their scientists will be inspecting over one hundred products and make a decision whether they need updates in terms of removing both GMO ingredients or artificial flavors and colors.

Their efforts should be praised because not many food manufacturers are ready to plunge into this so readily. They mostly ignore the critics and continue to use untested ingredients in their products anyway. Of course, there are plenty of research we need to complete in order to know exactly how GMO products influence our bodies and environment. But there are already so many people who oppose GMO technology and request that the big companies at least put a GMO label on their products.

As a matter of fact, other huge companies such as Kellogg’s and Mars made the announcements in March that they will be following Campbell’s’ steps and start putting GMO warning labels on the products that contain GMO ingredients. This seemed like a huge deal when it first came out, but Nestlé took it to a whole new level with the actual removal of GMO ingredients from their ice creams.

The labels appeared in April of 2016 all around the United States and that decision was rushed after a new GMO law was accepted in Vermont. The manufacturers have decided that it will be impossible to put the labels on their products in Vermont only, so they went big and nationwide and updated both the labels and the packaging of their products in all of the fifty states.

The bar was raised by Nestlé and we are eager to see what the other manufacturers will do in the future regarding the labels. The food production business is obviously very huge and they simply have to listen to the demands of their customers in order to keep them satisfied. If there is a request that an ingredient needs to be closely examined and revised, the large companies take the criticism very seriously and do their best to make further inquiry as soon as possible.

Knowing the ingredients that are in the food you consume is very important and we applaud Nestlé for listening to their customers. It is a big victory for the people who are not fans of GMO and we are sure that there will be more developments with this story in the future.

1 Views

News

The latest revelation: Vitamin C in Supplements Is Made From GMO Corn

Editorial Posted On May 13, 2016

Having in mind that the modern life is fast and that we are definitely not getting enough vitamins and nutrients from the foods we consume, taking different supplements became a common occurrence. Yes, it is great that you are taking care of yourself and thinking about your health, but are you really aware of the origin of the substances you are consuming? If the answer is no, you will be very surprised.

The majority of companies that manufacture supplements are very loud when it comes to advertising and they are prone to making sensational claims. Mike Adams, a notable scientist and an author of the book called Food Forensics told Natural News that not all supplements are created equal and the fact that the word “pure” or “natural” is printed on the packaging does not guarantee that you will be getting an organic and healthy supplement that is ridden of all chemicals or toxins.

He was particularly vocal about vitamin C supplements you can buy in stores all around the country and made a revelation that the said vitamin C is derived from GMO corn. Vitamin C is extracted from ascorbic acid and it is in almost every case obtained from the genetically modified corn. If you want to purchase completely organic vitamin C supplement, you will need to do so from Europe because their GMO laws are very strict and the supplements go through plenty of tests before they are approved for mass production and distribution.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the genetically modified corn is toxic or dangerous. However, if the manufacturers of the said supplement are advertising it as an immunity booster that will help you fight or prevent the common cold, you will have more luck if you go for the supplement that extracts the vitamin C from a pure and natural source. Natural vitamin C has a lot more benefits than the synthetic one because you will be getting additional enzymes that will help your body use vitamin C in the best possible way.

Sure enough, there are plenty of scientists who oppose this finding and their main argument is that vitamin C is simply a chemical and that it doesn’t matter where it comes from as long as it does its work and achieve the same final result. As we have previously mentioned, GMO corn seems to be completely safe for human consumption and there are no recorded complications, but of course, we cannot say that for certain until we have some scientific results that examined the long term effect on humans. We simply need more solid scientific proof.

The production of organic and clean vitamin C in the US is demanding and there are not many manufacturers who want to get into it. It costs a lot of money and requires a number of regulations and permits. However, there are a couple of companies who are trying to launch their own productions at the moment.

All in all, it is impossible to tell if vitamin C derived from GMO corn is completely different from the organic vitamin C without extensive long term research. Luckily, there are plenty of ongoing trials right now that will very likely give us more information about the effects of genetically modified foods and plants in the near future.

Food production technology is constantly evolving. As a consumer, you should definitely be more involved into knowing exactly what you consume because not everything is very transparent. Check the labels and ingredients regularly, especially on the store bought supplements. The fine print is there for a reason and you should always keep that in mind.

1 Views

News

Bill Nye and the Changing Opinions on GMO Products

Editorial Posted On May 11, 2016

Bill Nye, the science guy is a well-known face all around the globe and he is the most famous tv researcher who made his career through educating generations and generations of children through his tv show. He wrote numerous books and still appears on television and various talk shows. As a matter of fact, he made his new startling revelation on Bill Maher’s HBO show.

The science guy was very vocal on criticizing GMO and Monsanto in both his written works and tv appearances. However, he told Bill Maher that he has completely changed his views on this issue. After visiting Monsanto and their research facilities, Bill was extremely impressed by the amount of care with which the scientists approach this field of study and now he claims that GMO foods are completely safe for consumption.

He even told Bill Maher that he will revise all of the chapters in his books that criticize GMO and update and rewrite them using his newly acquired knowledge on the topic. Nye spent a lot of time with the researchers at Monsanto laboratories and he absolutely loved what he saw there. He is certain that GMO foods are the future for the mankind and that the rest of the world will see the benefits very soon.

However, recent polls have discovered that the opinions on the safety of GMO foods vary in terms of the education. We are already familiar with the information that around 88% of world’s scientists say that GMO foods are not harmful to human bodies or the environment and that they can only benefit the population.

That certainly can be true because we have already encountered plenty of obstacles in the organic production of various foods, and using GMO seeds vastly improves the production rates and the quality of the crops. The newest data shows that people who are more educated are less likely to have a sense of distrust when it comes to GMO products. The general opinion is changing and we are showing more and more support towards the GMO research and production.

Just like Bill Nye, the people are seeing why it is a good thing and why we need to invest our knowledge and resources into developing GMO foods even further. The fact that we are capable of modifying a living plant tells a lot about the level of technological advancement we have reached so far and even though we have to test the effects further, it is already a huge step forward in the food production.

The criticism of GMO and claims that the effects it has on humans are severe and dangerous mostly come from the people who are not well versed in the science, or haven’t attended college or post graduate programs. Perhaps their beliefs come from the lack of information or they are simply conservative and not ready to accept new technologies.

Having in mind that Bill Nye was skeptical about GMO but managed to change his mind completely and rethink his previous claims shows that we are taking a huge step forward when it comes to GMO and biotechnology. Sure, we still need various GMO laws and guidelines until we can say for sure that GMO production is not harming humans, animals, or the environment. But until then, we have to keep an open mind and allow the research to be done.

Monsanto’s scientists are doing their best to explore and test the GMO products they are working on. Bill Nye is most certainly convinced by their efforts. We simply need to give them some space and time to further improve their discoveries.

1 Views

Research / Scientific debate

Papaya and the Use of Genetic Viral Protection

Editorial Posted On May 6, 2016

The Papaya plant may seem exotic to most mainlanders, but it is actually a very important fruit grown in the islands of Hawaii. While a large part of agricultural life on the island, Hawaiians faced a growing threat to their livelihood in the form of a devastating virus known as Papaya Ringspot Virus. Gmocompass describes the effects of prv in its article “Papayas” as stunting to the trees, causing them to take on an unhealthy, naked look as they are shorter than regular papaya trees and have less leaves covering their tops (2016).

The process undertaken to protect the papaya trees is highly reminiscent of the way immunities are developed in humans through vaccinations. The article describes how certain types of viral proteins are inserted into the genes of the papayas which causes the papaya to fight back and develop a more powerful immune response to the viruses of that type. This results in the papaya plants getting total protection from the papaya ringspot virus, as they are better equipped to fight off the affliction with their genes. This development has allowed cultivators in Hawaii to plant the gm papayas in widespread locations and have them thrive even while prv is running rampant around their crops. There are actually pictures of natural and modified papaya trees planted parallel to each other, showing how the prv in the area is devastating the natural trees, while the modified papaya trees are as strong and healthy as if there were no viruses around whatsoever.

The modified papayas first appeared in 1999 but have over time become the dominant form of papaya grown in Hawaii. The total cultivated space covers 3/4ths the entire papaya crop area with little sign of the adoption rates changing. As far as world acceptance, there is growing research and development into the process used to combat the papaya ringspot virus by other Asian countries who want to alter the crop themselves to combat the viral strains it would face being grown in their local areas. Both the United States and Canada have approved the consumption of GM papaya in their territories and serve as the largest customers of the crop.

Meanwhile, the European Union has not approved the consumption or import of gm papaya, and because there have been no proposals to the EU for approval, it may be a while before their status gets reviewed. For now, it is illegal to import and market the modified papayas in any of the member states of the EU.

While many genetic modifications of plants tend to increase resistance to herbicide and pesticide use, and maintain the aesthetic appeal of the crop by eliminating brown spots from bruising and cutting, the modification of papayas presents a unique appeal of modification that cannot as of yet be managed by anything else. There are no pills or medicines that can be given to plants that are already sick, and so genetic modifications of the plant so as to provide it a defense against debilitating pathogens have proved to be one of the best ways to preserve yields and growth of successful fields. However, for many people the dangers of genetic modification still outweighs the benefits of it, and even the rarity of overcoming the problem through other means still doesn’t provide enough of a justification to promote the acceptance and use of gm plants. For the papaya there are hopeful signs with the widespread adoption already seen in North America, but the approval of the EU on using the crop will be integral to seeing a more widespread acceptance of what the technology offers.

Source: Gmocompass. (2016). Papayas. Gmo-compass.

1 Views

News

Will Engineering Make Bananas a Super Food?

Editorial Posted On May 6, 2016

Vitamin A is one of the most important nutrients the body requires. While it is easy in developed countries to get enough Vitamin A each day from different sources, in many developing countries like Uganda the toll from Vitamin A deficiency is frighteningly high. As “Genetically Engineered Bananas: Frankenfruit or Life-Saving Miracle?” from Shape magazine states, the numbers equal out to about 2 million deaths each year, and 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness. The article laments the numbers because Vitamin A deficiency is actually easily avoided with a simple supplement each day, but the challenge of developing countries is they cannot manufacture and distribute those supplements to their people. That’s where the idea of the enriched banana comes in.

The goal of the enriched banana project was one much akin to the goal undertaken with golden rice, another staple crop that feeds billions in poorer parts of the world. By increasing the amount of Vitamin A available in bananas, the hope is that the crop can be planted in places like Uganda where it will grow well and thrive, providing an easy means of giving the necessary Vitamin A to the people to protect them from the dangers of Vitamin A deficiency. The article states that only about one banana is needed each day to give that protection, and for billions of people in these areas it can make a life changing impact.

The creators of the enriched banana acknowledge though that while they have beneficial goals, they have a hard fight ahead of them to bring the plan to fruition. People are afraid of genetic modification of food, although the Shape article points out that it would be more correct to label the banana a genetically engineered organism, rather than a gmo. This is because the enriching of the bananas isn’t achieved from inserting a gene into the banana that isn’t naturally there- it’s actually using the existing genetic structure of the banana and just changing how it operates. Some hope the naming difference of geo and gmo might be enough to dodge the controversy that often stalls or outright shuts down the implementation of such foods. The scientists aren’t so sure, and are already prepared for activists to against the video porno gratis, the article points out.

The controversy, while time consuming in developed countries, can pose a bigger danger to people in developed countries. The article reports that golden rice, though also fought against, has managed to save upwards of one million children’s lives per day, and the hope is that the bananas can achieve something similar. Also like the golden rice, the bananas look just a little physically different from regular bananas- whereas regular bananas often look green or yellow on their peels, the enriched bananas have a more orange tinge to their skins.

For now, the enriched banana is set to go through a series of clinical trials so as to see if it meets the rigorous testing standards for toxicity, allergens, side effects, and other categories as set forth by the FDA and other regulatory government bodies. It is hoped that, if the bananas can pass such trials, and if they can survive the scrutiny and protesting that follows the food approval process that they can begin to be distributed around the world by 2020. From there time will tell if the enrichment process of the genetically enriched organism is enough to save the millions in need of Vitamin A each year, or if the project itself wasn’t quite as super as everyone else had believe it was.

Source:
Anderson, C.H. (2016). Genetically Engineered Bananas: Frankenfruit or Life-Saving Miracle? Shape. Retrieved on May 5, 2016 from http://www.shape.com/blogs/fit-foodies/genetically-engineered-bananas-frankenfruit-or-life-saving-miracle

1 Views

Research

The Legacy of the GMO movement- the Flavr Savr tomato

Editorial Posted On May 6, 2016

Each movement has its mascots and icons that are emblazoned in the minds of the public as being representative of the whole. For cloning animals it had been Dolly the sheep, for transgenic animals it had been the goats who had spider silk producing genes implanted in them to make their milk into spider silk fibers, and for the genetically modified plant movement the Flavr Savr tomato by Monsanto had become the face of what some worried was the future of their gardens.

What the Flavr Savr tomato had hoped to accomplish in the early days would be seen as tame by the ambitions set forth by modified plants today. As the name suggests, the only alteration to the tomato had been to allow the tomato to ripen for longer on the vine, which would have hopefully resulted in a longer shelf life and a better, more full taste. This was accomplished through the deactivating of one of its processes. As the article “Tomatoes” on gmo-compass explained, the process to create the tomato was called the Antisense approach and it occurred by the deactivating of the creation of an enzyme, called polygalacturonase, that was in charge of the fruit softening.

What ended up happening was much different, though. Though the Flavr Savr tomatoes had passed the legislation necessary to be on market back in the day, they had turned out to be a market failure, not recouping the cost of their creation and distribution. In addition to that, modified tomatoes have had a lengthy battle in the European Union, where they had trouble being passed as safe for consumption. The same article on gmo-compass states that tomato puree had been very popular in Great Britain, but that nearly all other states could not decide whether they had wanted to legalize the sale and consumption of the plant, and whether they had deemed it safe, which eventually led to the removal of all pending applications by modified crop producers. There are no modified tomatoes for sale in any markets in the EU now.

This doesn’t mean that the tomato was a total loss. There are plenty of scientists today who are trying to figure out ways to alter the tomatoes to give them more traits like better herbicide and pesticide resistance, or a natural defense against pesticides. With the strides made in the modifying of other fruits and vegetables, there are always more options to apply to tomatoes before they are sent for approval to the market again.

But in a young biotech industry the fact was that what captured the imagination of the public about the possibilities had been a small red tomato called the Flavr Savr. For some it was the opportunity at technology making a better life for people once again, preserving taste and serving as a gateway to a future of even better traits and possibilities for what crops could be for people around the world. The tomato had also served as a scary beacon of the overreach of science, with a new technology that was too young to be fully studied in the biological ramifications it caused to consumers and to a crossing of the natural boundaries where we weren’t meant to tread.

The Flavr Savor became a casualty of a culture war over genetic modification the world over, but for both good and bad it cemented itself as the progenitor of what would become one of the most contested and transformative scientific movements the world had ever seen.

Source:
Gmocompass. (2016). Tomatoes. Gmo-compass. Retrieved on May 5, 2016 from http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/fruit_vegetables/15.genetically_modified_tomatoes.html

1 Views

News

Sugar Beets- The Cautionary Tale of GMO Acceptance

Editorial Posted On May 6, 2016

Sugar beets seem to be an innocuous crop, not spoken of as much as other modified plants. However, the story of the rise and fall of the modified sugar beet gives a possible outlook to how the mass adoption of genetically modified foods can backfire when the public perceptions and political forces change to go against such adoptions.

According to the Reuters article “GMO backlash threatens beet farmers as foodmakers swap sugars”, the problem occurred when all American beet growers, located in agrarian states like Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho, had all switched their crop production to genetically modified variants. The farmers had done this in an effort to stay competitive in the world sugar marketplace where importation of sugars such as cane sugar had begun to eat into American market share. The hope was that the genetically modified various would benefit farmers two-fold, giving American producers an increased yield as well as a decreased cost in maintaining the seed and growth. Uniquely among any other farming segment in America, while there is contention between growers and their switch from all natural to gmo crops (and the unintentional spread of gmo seeds during pollination to non-gmo farms), the seeming success of the beet crop had a 100% conversion rate. Soon all American beet farmers were growing only the genetically modified versions of the crop.

However, this success couldn’t last forever. Eventually the sentiments against the gmo community grew to a fever pitch and both consumers and distributors stopped buying the modified crop. With this boycott also came the rising imports of cane sugar from abroad. These two factors led to disastrous result for the beet growing community- the U.S. of beets in satisfying the sugar demands of the American public fell to just 41%, the Reuters article reported, which was a record low.

One of the biggest economic blows that effects gmo growers is when large, established businesses refuse to use the modified ingredients in their products. Beet producers felt the sting of this type of decision when the Hershey Corporation announced that it would stop using the modified sugar crops in the production of its popular chocolates. Hershey announced this move was to better connect with the target market of health conscious millennials. But what are they afraid of?

Again, the article gives some clues. It states that some of the biggest worries regarding genetically modified plants was whether the use of gmo seed has led to a greater industrialization of the farming sector, where it has becoming harder for mom and pop farms to keep operating amongst billion dollar companies. While the loss of one of the oldest types of American dream is hard to deal with, the other problem is that many contend that there isn’t enough research yet to prove that genetically modified crops are safe for the ecosystem or consumption. Both arguments are ones that are used often in the controversy surrounding the gmo movement, and there are voices on both sides.

But the modified beet farmers are holding tough, because many can’t afford to go back to non-altered seed given the investment they’ve already made into the modified variety. So instead they are trying numerous efforts, from lobbying the government and surviving off of federal quota systems that pay the difference of a shortfall crop year to social media campaigns where they are trying to promote the idea of using beet sugar as beneficial to the modern consumer. In an uncertain economy, beet growers are doing all they can to keep their genetically modified businesses running.

Source:
Prentice, C. (2015). GMO backlash threatens beet farmers as foodmakers swap sugars. Reuters. Retrieved on May 5, 2015 from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sugar-gmo-insight-idUSKCN0SN0C720151029

1 Views

News

Bt Cotton and the promise of Toxic Pest Protection

Editorial Posted On May 6, 2016

One of the biggest threats to a growing, successful farm of any kind of crop is the unstoppable hunger of pests. In biblical days this was represented by locusts devastating entire fields of crops, leaving thousands hungry. The article “Cotton” on “GMO compass” states that in the modern day, cotton- an especially valuable crop due to its varied uses in textiles, animal feed, and processed food ingredients- struggles against destruction from pest populations, including a few types of caterpillar that bore into the bolls of the cotton ruining quality of harvest and reducing the yields of that harvest. One answer that farmers had been using to deal with the insect threats had been the use of pesticide poisons to try and eradicate the populations as they came, but the introduction of bt cotton offers another line of defense for the crop: the cotton itself.

The way bt cotton works is similar to other types of genetically modified plants that protect themselves from insects. A gene was inserted into the cotton that allows the plant to produce a toxin that kills the attackers. When the insects (in this case most often the caterpillars mentioned) start to nibble into the plant, the toxin enters the insects causing an enzyme reaction in them that halts the attack and ends in their death. Now, this inborn defense is very important because one of the largest producers of cotton in the world is China, and before the modified bt cotton was introduced into their agricultural system, the main way they combatted their pest problems was through heavy use of pesticides. While spraying tons of poisons over the plants can have a few questionable consequences- such as killing helpful insects in the vicinity, and the thought of poisons dripping all over food that is to be eaten- the biggest problem of this method of cultivation was that the way evolution worked it resulted in the flourishing of resistant pests. Because they could withstand the normal amounts of pesticides being sprayed, the farmers would have to spend more money on spraying even more pesticides, which would still result in more resistant pests down the line.

But, as the “cotton” article states, now more than 68% of cotton grown in China is of the genetically modified variant, and because of this Chinese farmers have been able to reduce their use of pesticides on their crop drastically. With the successful use of the crop shown in China, there is hope that the bt cotton will be used in many more places too- it already accounts for most cotton growth in other countries such as India, the U.S., Chile, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa.

However, while bt cotton is grown in many places, there are still a number of countries that refuse to grow the crop. The chief holdout is the European Union, where many applications have been submitted for review but the process and decision is still pending. However, there is hope on the horizon as the EU does allow for lines of genetically modified cotton to be imported into their territory for use as food and feed. Given the expansive list of uses for cotton other than in textiles, including as cooking oil, food additives, animal feeds and milks, and even margarine, there are a lot of reasons for the EU to seriously consider bt cotton into their farming community as another alternative to using greater amounts of pesticides to protect their yields of crops. As with any genetically modified crop there are stigmas to be overcome, and time will only tell.

Source:
Gmo-compass. (2016). Cotton. Gmo-compass. Retrieved on May 5, 2016 from http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/161.genetically_modified_cotton.html

1 Views

Newer Posts Older Posts