Opinion: Genetically modified crops have a place in sustainable agriculture
Written by Daniel Sprockett Monday, 21 February 2011 18:03
Daniel Sprockett
Daniel Sprockett is a researcher in the KSU Department of Anthropology and a columnist at the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
However, one commonly misunderstood issue that she brought up was the role of genetically modified organisms in sustainable agriculture.
Truth be told, humans have been altering the genetic makeup of food for thousands of years. Our modern molecular tools are quite a bit more advanced than those of our ancestors, but the end result is the same.
The first farmers of the Neolithic Revolution began cultivating plants and keeping animals around 10,000 years ago. Over time they learned to selectively breed plants and animals based on desirable characteristics like size, growth rate, mating patterns and taste. Controlling which organisms continue swimming in the gene pool allowed them to alter species in dramatic and profound ways.
Take corn, for example. Lofgren suggests that around 40 percent of the United States’ corn is genetically engineered. However, all corn consumed in the U.S. today has been engineered by artificial selection.
Corn is a grass. In its non-domesticated state, corn looks more like wheat than the sweet golden kernels that we’re used to eating at picnics. Corn’s wild ancestor, teosinte, is still found in parts of Central America. Modern corn grows straight and tall, and yields many plump ears packed with juicy yellow kernels. Teosinte, on the other hand, grows as a short bush, with many stems branching off the central stalk. Hard seedpods house a single row of a dozen or so kernels. Visually, it is almost unidentifiable as the precursors to modern corn.
Its genetics, however, tell the tale. We now know that teosinte and corn are extremely similar genetically. Using the tools of artificial selection, early farmers we able to radically alter the tough seeds of teosinte into the sweet, soft corn we know today.
If early farmers used an axe to rough-hew the genetics of our crops, modern crop scientists use a scalpel. Today’s food engineers are able to utilize millions of years of evolutionary research and development by transferring genes between organisms. A common example of this type of genetic modification is Bt-corn.
Bt-corn produces a bacterial protein that selectively kills pests like the European corn borer. Without Bt-corn, these voracious caterpillars could decimate corn crops and cause the price of corn to spiral out of control. The alternative is using high concentrations of indiscriminate pesticides, which, as Lofgren pointed out, has many negative side effects. In fact, a recent study shows Bt-cotton helped farmers in Arizona reduce pesticide use by 70 percent.
It is important to remember, however, that genetically modified organisms have a role to play in sustainable agriculture only when paired with thoughtful and well-regulated management and regulatory practices. GMOs are a tool, not a management strategy. The world’s population will hit 7 billion this year, and advances in food sciences and crop genetics are our only hope for feeding them. We shouldn’t oppose the use of GMOs because of ignorance-based fear.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 712
Comments (4)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Doubts, February 23, 2011
Nutrition is only one part of the equation. Yes, they may be nutritionally the same as far as we can tell, but there's also the issue of ethics, ecology, legal implications, and others. Don't make complex decisions on one thing alone.
-
- +0
-
-
written by curtains, February 23, 2011
Monsanto is a bunch of shady dude, who also happened to create agent orange, but lets not confuse their business ethics with the end product. There is no evidence that GMO or 'frankenfoods' are any less nutritious then traditional crops.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Doubts, February 23, 2011
A few things to note from this article:
1) I would hardly equate artificial selection with manipulated horizontal gene flow, which is what most GMOs are created using.
2) You ignore the issues of labeling and consumer choice, which currently doesn't exist.
3) You also ignore the very real threat of decreased crop diversity; we currently rely on one species of corn with many strains that have evolved for a particular climate (especially in poor areas where saving seeds is common practice), GMO crops would limit that to only a few strains across large swaths of land. Oddly enough Bourlag made many of his advances by increasing diversity. Seed saving is essential from an economic stand point for many farmers in the developing world, where food is most scarce.
4) Concomitant with diversity and seed saving is the issue of patents. Monsanto especially has a record for suing farmers whose crops are contaminated with GMO pollen, when the farmer is trying to avoid GMO crops. This not only endangers the farmers' right to choose what they grow (and sometimes their organic certification, if they have that), but also puts control of the food supply in the hands of few companies who have the power to gain even more by going after small farmers- decreasing our food supplier diversity.
5) We currently produce more than enough food for the world- it's waste and distribution that are the problems. In the US alone, we toss out 25% of our food supply before it hits the table through spoilage and other mechanisms.
6) The finality of GMOs. Once theses genes are "out there" in the ecosystem (and they are showing up in invasive and native weed plants), we can't take those genes back, and instead have to deal with the consequences of Roundup Ready weeds. The GMO side seems to forget that non-crop plants evolve, too.
I do agree that GMOs can reduce herbicide and are a tool which can have a part to play, but currently the regulation is lagging behind the science, as it typically does in the US.
1) I would hardly equate artificial selection with manipulated horizontal gene flow, which is what most GMOs are created using.
2) You ignore the issues of labeling and consumer choice, which currently doesn't exist.
3) You also ignore the very real threat of decreased crop diversity; we currently rely on one species of corn with many strains that have evolved for a particular climate (especially in poor areas where saving seeds is common practice), GMO crops would limit that to only a few strains across large swaths of land. Oddly enough Bourlag made many of his advances by increasing diversity. Seed saving is essential from an economic stand point for many farmers in the developing world, where food is most scarce.
4) Concomitant with diversity and seed saving is the issue of patents. Monsanto especially has a record for suing farmers whose crops are contaminated with GMO pollen, when the farmer is trying to avoid GMO crops. This not only endangers the farmers' right to choose what they grow (and sometimes their organic certification, if they have that), but also puts control of the food supply in the hands of few companies who have the power to gain even more by going after small farmers- decreasing our food supplier diversity.
5) We currently produce more than enough food for the world- it's waste and distribution that are the problems. In the US alone, we toss out 25% of our food supply before it hits the table through spoilage and other mechanisms.
6) The finality of GMOs. Once theses genes are "out there" in the ecosystem (and they are showing up in invasive and native weed plants), we can't take those genes back, and instead have to deal with the consequences of Roundup Ready weeds. The GMO side seems to forget that non-crop plants evolve, too.
I do agree that GMOs can reduce herbicide and are a tool which can have a part to play, but currently the regulation is lagging behind the science, as it typically does in the US.
-
- +1
-
-
written by mrigotti, February 21, 2011
It also saves lives! One man from Iowa is credited with saving over ONE BILLION lives with his engineered plants. Norman Borlaug may not be a household name but this man won a Nobel Peace Prize for his highly respected work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
