Comments on: Can Genetically Engineered Crops Help Feed the World?

By: Mohammed Shomam

Mohammed Shomam — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:26:54 +0000

I guess my main worry is that the seeds GM food will be patented, and companies like ADM or Monsanto will force all who grow a given crop to pay for their seeds, whether they used them, or they blew in on the wind and just happened to end up on a tract of land where they weren’t intentionally planted. I’ve already heard of such horror stories, where ADM (I think) found that some farmer’s field had “their” genes in it, and sued for patent royalties (I hope I’m remembering this correctly, it was a while ago). http://methoo.com

By: Leslie Jenkins

Leslie Jenkins — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:41:42 +0000

“How are farmers to protect themselves from infestation of a crop by the wind, carrying OPV pollens designed by GMO companies? These pollens can be carried by insects, birds, or clothes and shoes. If GMO continues to gain “success” in the eyes of big business, let us at least have truth in labeling and full disclosure in the mapping of locales world-wide where farmers of seed will need to have lab conditions to grow: http://www.pollen.com/allergy-weather-forecast.asp…”

the closest thing i could find to answer this quesiton for ourselves and our customers was this: http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/

our customers are demanding how they know available foods are not tainted with GMO. We have no good answer for them. Our market is already crushed. GMO does not help.

By: Lisa Weasel

Lisa Weasel — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:14:32 +0000

Our discussion is coming to an end, and some obvious themes have emerged. To expand on the call for public domain genetic research in agriculture, I’ll end with a few lessons from the Green Revolution of the 1970s.
1. Genetics is powerful. Whether via conventional or molecular breeding, genetics makes a huge contribution to traits and productivity.
2. Without infrastructure, genes are nothing. Yield increases in the GR occurred only where inputs like water and fertilizer were available.
3. Soil fertility is a huge issue, and needs more research. The harm of the GR in terms of sustainable soil fertility is now emerging, and we need new solutions.
4. Participatory research approaches are key. There is too much emphasis on convincing farmers to use GMOs, and too little on farmers’ own needs.

By: Lisa Weasel

Lisa Weasel — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:57:55 +0000

The argument against planting GM varieties in centers of origin (CO)/centers of diversity (CD)is to prevent spread of transgenes into wild and native species, potentially compromising biodiversity.
It has recently been confirmed that even with a moratorium on GM corn in place in Mexico, 5% of corn seed stocks there were contaminated with GM proteins by 2002, and that a number of different routes, including possible spread from the US and/or farmer seed saving practices, played a role.
As argued in the post above (and in my book Food Fray), more public research is needed to take big-picture and long-term ecological impacts into account, before forging forward in these areas. It is possible that there may be ‘middle ground’ approaches that both increase yield and protect biodiversity.

By: Lisa Weasel

Lisa Weasel — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:16:44 +0000

Yes, as I say at the end of my book Food Fray, “Real progress towards shifting the balance of food insecurity in poor nations will not be made until the techniques of agricultural biotechnology are given their just public due…”
Were this the case, I think that there would be greater public acceptance, because 1)the outcomes would have greater public benefits and 2)there would be less focus on single-gene transgenics, and more on using a spectrum of molecular tools to expand conventional breeding.
Sub-1 rice is a great example; using marker assisted breeding, an endogenous (ie, naturally occurring) rice gene allele was introgressed (ie, bred) into local rice strains, enabling them to overcome flooding. The Sub1-A1 tolerant allele differs from intolerant alleles by just one amino acid!

By: Duncan Tonatiuh

Duncan Tonatiuh — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:16:58 +0000

Hi,

I’ve read that genetically engineered corn was recently allowed to be grown in Mexico. But for many activist and the such this is of great concern. Many varieties of corn come from Mexico and they are worried that the genetically engineered corn will contaminate these varieties. Do you know much on that debate and what is your opinion on it? Thanks, Duncan

By: Rhitu Chatterjee

Rhitu Chatterjee — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:04:58 +0000

Hi again Lisa,

I’d like to go beyond the question of GM crops and big corporations. What about GM technology in the public sector? Many scientists believe that this technology will be crucial especially in the face of climate change. For example, I know that scientists at the International Rice Research Institute have developed at least one waterproof rice variety using a submergence-resistant gene that can help farmers in countries like Bangladesh, which experiences floods ever year. (See this story from NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15032263) Scientists think that similar drought resistant varieties will need to be developed for many countries that are likely to experience more heat waves.

Surely this technology has a vital role to play outside of the private sector?

Thanks, Rhitu

By: Sara S

Sara S — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 +0000

If “We the People” want a more unbiased approval process from FDA/EPA on the approval of crops/pesticides/drug, the “we the people” need to fork over the money to adequately fund these agencies and demand from our legislators that this gets done. The reason these agencies have to rely on data from the companies is they do not have the money to do the studies themselves. But since everyone is tax adverse, we get the system we are willing to pay for.

By: Lisa Weasel

Lisa Weasel — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:43:30 +0000

Right now we are seeing a debate on what constitutes “good” and “unbiased” science in the realm of climate change.
It’s a little shocking to see the standards that are applied to climate change science, when we allow food products to be approved based solely on research and safety testing done by the companies that stand to profit from them, and when there is what has been referred to as a “revolving door” between industry and government regulators in the realm of biotechnology and agriculture.
Keep in mind, though, that it is the mandate of corporations to maximize profits for their shareholders, so legally and according to our definition of corporations, these companies are only doing what they are charged with. The problem arises when the line between industry and regulators gets blurry

By: Lisa Weasel

Lisa Weasel — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:38:15 +0000

Definitely, the fact that large companies patent and control genetic material and seeds, especially from food plants, is troubling to many (a landmark 1980 case, Diamond v Chakrabarty, established that lifeforms can be patented), both on general moral grounds relating to ownership of life, and as a practical matter, as you refer, of survival for farmers and citizens.
Is access to food a universal human right? The FAO’s World Summit on Food held in November declared:
“We affirm the right of everyone to have access to safe, sufficient and nutritious food, consistent with the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security.” http://www.fao.org/righttofood/news38_en.htm
We need more debate on how GM food and patents will impact this goal.