By Gene Hall
I have been encouraged in recent weeks that good, old-fashioned, provable science has been making a comeback in the debate over biotech foods and the food supply of the human race. The idea that science cannot be ignored in the race to feed our ever-increasing population may be catching on.
Altering genes to benefit humans is nothing new. It happens routinely in medicine with scarcely a notice. It’s been done since 1996 in our food supply with no ill effects. However, the comparison bogs down here with sometimes shrill and mostly wrong complaints about a biotech food supply.
First, in California of all places, Proposition 37 was handily defeated. This would have required all food using biotechnology to be labeled. This was a bad idea, because it would have affected every state. You can’t really have a labeling system for one state, and it would have raised food prices considerably.
It also would create a negative connotation of GMO in foods that it does not deserve. That part was on purpose. The issue was not about labeling as much as imposing bad PR on biotechnology. Someone is going to reply here that agribusiness ponied up $40 million to defeat the measure, which is true. However, agriculture was forced to buy advertising because a sometimes lazy and often biased news media in California did a lousy job of covering both sides of the issue.
Mark Lynas is a leading environmentalist, an obviously responsible one who could no longer ignore the considerable environmental benefits of GMOs. Read about his change of heart.
The anti-GMO controversy was contrived in the mid-1990s as a fundraising mechanism by major environmental groups. It still serves that purpose, though it’s getting increasingly difficult to ignore the lack of evidence and empty claims of impending catastrophe. It’s just a fact that with biotech you use a lot less in the way of pesticides and fossil fuels. Now and in the future, farmers who plant GMOs across the globe will use less water.
For an even-handed debate on both sides of the biotech controversy, watch this video segment from The Food Dialogues.
Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.texasfarmbureau.org.
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.
24 Responses to “Biotech foods: Science makes a comeback?”
American Farm Bureau Federation
Texas Farm Bureau
Texas Table Top
The benefit of GMO is cheaper food. The potential (and unproven) cost is bad health or disease. Cheaper food is a great thing, however, it’s worth little compared to health. With health potentially at stake, can we really wait for consensus from the science community, or government?
Bad health is on the rise… Obesity, diabetes, alzheimers, and much more. Why? Lot of shoulder shrugging at that question. Also, how many people over the age of 50 take pharmaceutical pills daily? Most all I know. Could it be to treat the symptoms of the bad food we eat (allergies, cholesterol, blood/heart)? I don’t know, but I’ll pay a few bucks more to eat food that’s never been in a laboratory because much is at stake.
Howdy Clay – welcome back. The universally acknowledged cause of obesity is eating too much and exercising too little, and obesity causes a lot of other problems. Biotech will yield cheaper food and also more food, which is pretty important too. Biotech is selecting for traits. There is no more risk of allergy or anything else – than from the same food produced by conventional cross breeding. We have 17 years of data that say what we’ve been doing is safe. I’m sure some would not concede safety with 117 years of proven data, but – it’s time to move on. Read Lynas’ link, he’s been on both sides. Watch the video, its a good and even debate. Feeding the world is a big job. It’s time to move on and figure it out.
Ya think Altzheimers case increases – I take your word for it – are increasing because people are living longer because of better care and food? I’m thinking that could be it. Also, my two grandfathers almost certainly had Altzheimers. They lived to 75 and 101. It was not diagnosed. Today, they would be classified as such, I’m sure.
You are delusional if you think altering DNA of anything we put in our bodies is a good idea. Have you ever heard an engineer describe exactly how our fruits and veggies are altered? It’s sick like most Americans. There are a lot of starving people HERE in America and yet we are obese!? How is this possible? Also, why don’t engineers release their files to the public? What could they be hiding? I’ve also heard that there are country’s who will not allow trading of our products with dairy, certain grains and vegetables. Why? I get pretty freaked when my friends from other countries come over and tell me that the tomato that I’m eating is not really a tomato and doesn’t taste remotely the way it’s suppose to. Biotech foods a good idea?! No. And how can any opposition be tested when most people not only don’t know what they’re ingesting, but are told it’s “good for them”? People who mess with our food, water, and air need to die by their own creation before they kill the rest of us. Throughout history there has and always been a ballance of hunger and abundance.
Annie, “altering DNA” sounds really scary until you recognize that humans have been doing that for centuries. Every hybrid, every cross breeding technique, whether conventional or biotech, alters DNA. Your friends have succumbed to the hysteria and hyperbole that has dominated this discussion for too long. There is no GMO tomato on the market today…none. The ranting about fish genes and the like in tomatoes has never been true. The Calgene Flvr Saver tomato was one that had a longer shelf life, and passed all the the government safety tests. But it is not on the market now. This argument is science vs. hyperbole. If one looks at the science with an open mind, you invariably arrive at the same place Mark Lynas did. This is not the mythical science of Frankenstein. It is the science of Pastuer and Borlaug…real, beneficial and productive.
Hybridization and selective breeding are not in any way related to genetically modifying seeds. They are not even close to being the same thing. And Mark Lynas is a self-appointed supposed scientific spokesman who thinks he started the anti-GMO movement in the 90′s. His statements all sound exactly what I have been hearing in Biotech propaganda for a long time. Nothing new there. Even if GMOs were perfectly safe (and no one has proven that) the fact that pollen from GMO crops contaminates non-GMO crops with no consequences to GMO farmers and Biotech companies, is enough reason to ban GMOs from the world forever. You cannot remove the foreign DNA from non-GMO crops, ever. And organic crops contaminated with GMOs are ruined. When Biotech takes responsibility for its dangerous release of foreign DNA into the food supply I will start listening to what they have to say. In the meantime it is all big profits with no concern at all about safety and feeding the hungry. No one is fooled by that rhetoric.
They are actually very,very close to being the same thing Michelle. In terms of the product, anyway. I know you don’t trust anyone whose actually worked with this technology, but, here’s another http://bit.ly/Uo51R9 Mark Lynas opinion is just as valid now as when he agreed with you. Perhaps more, since he’s now actually applied the scientific method. Using tomatoes (doesn’t the “fish genes” thing make you chuckle just a little?) as an example when there has not been a GMO tomato on the market in a decade is a perfect example of propaganda. Or, it can just be something with which you diagree.
This has been fun. I’ll give you the last word. Thanks for the reminder that sometimes, science and evidence is not enough.
Gene, It’s obvious that Monsanto has taught you well and brainwashed you into believing them. Bio Food causes cancer. It’s been proven and you cannot deny it. You keep eating it though to prove your point. I am reversing cancer by NOT eating food made by scientists. Only God can make real food. I am NOT some freak from some cult. I am an educated farmers daughter.
Li – I respect your viewpoint. I seldom talk to Monsanto. Took a tour there once but that does not mean they influence me. Of course, I deny it (biotech causes cancer), because it’s not true. Read Lynas’ link if you have not. Watch the video. If you are having health problems I wish you well. There is a lot of Internet lore out there, but all the evidence and science goes the other way. What cannot be denied is the enviro benefits of using biotech. The words “freak” and “cult” are not in my blog. You claim the high ground of education and accuse me of being brainwashed because I disagree. I’ve studied this a bit too. Everything Lynas refuted is just rock solid. It can be yelled about and you can call people names, but the facts remain.
Lynas’ position sounded just like the Biotech propaganda I have seen in the news since Prop 37 threatened GMO crops, their subsidies and Biotech profits.
I want to ask what independent long-term safety studies have been conducted on any GM crops? And if so, what did they conclude?
The majority of Americans want GMOs labeled. Why would farmers and biotech oppose such a thing? Because GMOs are hidden (which makes me think someone is ashamed of them) I have had to switch to an organic diet. As a single mom on a very limited budget this has been extremely challenging for me. If GMOs were labeled I might be able to purchase some non-organic foods but not now. More and more people are becoming aware of the potential dangers of GMOs (again, no independent long-term studies have been conducted).
Proposition 37 was just the beginning. Most of the people in my circle are now aware of GMOs and looking for ways to avoid them. Farmers might want to read the writing on the wall and consider growing non-GMO crops in the future.
I think, Michele, that my explanation of the complcated nightmare of trying to label all such product and the significant increases in expense for the entire nation is still pretty valid. At this point, we are not sure it’s even possible. But – again – every seed planted in the last 17 years is a kind of test. The process is different in some respects, but the product is not. I don’t know how to answer the question about independent studies since most opponents simply reject those with which they don’t agree. There have, of course, been many. The science of this is pretty much settled. There are many conversations we still need to have though.
One more thought. The writing on the wall that farmers understand all too well is the serious dent in the world food supply caused by the droughts of the last two years. Without the production capacity of modern ag, including biotech, we’d be in much more trouble than we are.
The idea that the discussion on GM crops is settled is far from true. The idea that GM crops are the answer to drought is far from true. The idea that GM crops will feed the world is far from true. What is happening right now is that people are learning about GMOs and working hard to avoid them in their foods. Yes, many people don’t care what they eat. But many more are facing unexplained chronic illnesses, general lack of good health, and rise in diseases even after following the USDA prescribed low-fat diets full of chemicals and natural-food substitutes. Most of these supposedly healthy foods contain GMOs. In my family, although it has been a great hardship, because GMOs are not labeled I just don’t buy mainstream foods anymore. I bake all of our bread or buy organic. We snack on non-GMO potato chips, organic popcorn, organic crackers and homemade cookies made with non-GMO ingredients. I am not alone in caring about what is in my food. And we have the final objection to GM crops: crop contamination. GM crops contaminate non-GM crops, including organic crops. This is unacceptable. And no one faces liability for this contamination except the farmer whose crops have been contaminated. This is so backwards and unjust. I now grow my own food as much as possible and will start raising some of my own meat. I have no choice. The argument is far from settled. The tide is turning away from GM crops. I bet if Texas cattle ranchers began sourcing non-GMO feed and advertised their meat as such they could make a fortune. I would buy such meat in a heartbeat. Just a thought.
I did not say the argument or the discussion was over. I said the science was pretty much settled – and it is. Drought resistance, too, is a fact and an ongoing miracle that will be developed even more. It is also a fact that technology, including biotech, increased yields in some areas that reduced the overall impact of the worst two years of drought in our history. Another fact – anyone who is worried about the impact of fossil fuels is going to be a friend of biotech sooner or later. This is how Mark Lynas finally opened his mind to the subject. You and your family should of course make choices with which you are comfortable. – But, you seem, Michele, to be very concerned that someone might be making money off growing food and especially biotech. Does it bother you at all that the mainline enviiro groups first ran this “misdirection play” depend on this and other imagined crisis – financially – for their very existence? Oh well, I’m very busy this week. I hope your week is enjoyable and safe
Gene, the Lynas article is amazing. Someone of his background coming to new conclusions via science will no doubt bring many people to also question their “scienceless” viewpoints. Your comment “It’s just a fact that with biotech you use a lot less in the way of pesticides and fossil fuels” rings very true on our operation as my latest blog on kissedafarmer.blogspot.com points out. We used zero insecticide this year thanks to a genetic trait in our cotton. That makes me and all the beneficial insects in my field very happy!
Thanks for that “boots in the cotton patch” perspective Suzie.
You mention that you used zero pesticides on your cotton crops. That would mean that you grew Bt cotton. But I am curious how much RoundUp you used?
We put one spraying of Round Up in the early spring, then we only put one other spot application of Round Up where the weed infestetion was the worst. Then we plow the other acres if necessary. If we used non-GM cottonseed, we would have still sprayed the early spring Round Up, but then we would have applied a pre-emergent herbicide to all acres. By have the GM cotton, we actually have acres that we use less herbicide on because we can be very specific about where we use it. Hope this answers your question Michele.
Gene you’re right on target.if the world population is going to be fed it will be because producers are able to use all the tools available to produce a save abundant.product.
Mr. Hall, I have always wondered why the men and women involved in production agriculture are to blame by some individuals for disease and poor health. Is it because Corn, Wheat, Soybean, etc. are the only words they can actually pronounce listed in the ingredients of the food that they eat? In addition, I would be willing to bet that these same individuals wear clothing made of synthetic fiber (chemically produced) and not made of the natural fiber of Cotton.
Don’t wonder. These people just haven’t realized they are not wearing natural fiber. They havn’t made the connection…yet. It’s only a matter of time before they join that group of people as well.
If you wear any cotton items at all it is almost certain they are products of biotechnology. This means cotton that was grown in places it could not be before, at a lower cost and with the use of less pesticides and fewer trips across the field – meaning far less consumption of fossil fuels. And of course, it is completely indistinguishable from a non GMO T-shirt, even if you could find one.
I object to cotton not so much on the issue of wearing something that was grown from a genetically engineered seed but the fact that cottonseed oil is used in foods and is not labeled. I have heard a lot of claims about higher yields, reduced pesticide use, and so on, but I have not seen statistical comparisons between non-GMO and GMO crops. I completely understand the attraction of growing Bt cotton having grown up in the south and hearing the horror stories of crops destroyed by insects. It seems like a great solution to just genetically engineer the seeds to grow crops that contain Bt. The only problem is that there is no proof that Bt is absent by the time it enters the food system. And the unknown factors of genetic engineering, of transgenics, are just too many. There is much still to learn and research, true independent safety testing to be conducted under standardized criteria. At this point there is too much Big Ag and Biotech money being poured into universities to trust that they would conduct truly unbiased studies. Any independent studies conducted outside of the United States are immediately attacked with the intention of discrediting the scientist. There is no openness in the realm of genetically engineered crops. Until there is, there will be mistrust.
If anyone mentioned this previously, I apologize for missing it but I am curious as to your thoughts, Mr. Hall and others, to this study showing a decided difference in so-called conventional farming and organic farming. Does this study not count as science? Is it not scientific enough because of its singularity? Is it considered a “one- off,” as it were, and therefore not to be trifled with?
http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/10/05/30-year-study-proves-it-organic-farming-best