GMOs Are a Necessity—for Farmers and the Environment
This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on October 3, 2016
Genetically modified crops, which have generated both controversy and widespread adoption, are hitting 20-year milestones. Perhaps the anniversary slipped your mind, but 1997 was a dark one for the European corn worm. That was the year Bt corn, the first to bear its own protection against the larvae of the rapacious corn worm, was commercially introduced.
The European corn worm had long ago invaded the U.S. and by the mid-1990s was causing more than $1 billion in annual damage. But now no insecticide was needed, thank you, because Bt corn had been genetically modified to pack its own. It produced a protein toxic to the corn worm and some of its fellow travelers, while benign to most other insects.
The first genetically modified row crops of any kind—herbicide-resistant soybeans and cotton protected against the bollworm and other pests—were introduced only in 1995. Twenty years on, these crops have proved their worth: Last year GMOs were planted on 444 million acres, an area larger than Alaska. That’s 12% of all global cropland.
What have been the effects of this technology? In May a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine completed a two-year review, “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.” The committee, which examined about 900 studies, painted a highly positive picture.
The academies’ report found “no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health from eating GE foods than from eating their non-GE counterparts.” It also “found little evidence to connect GE crops and their associated technologies with adverse agronomic or environmental problems.” In some cases, the review said, “planting Bt crops has tended to result in higher insect biodiversity,” by reducing pesticide use.
The report supported genetic modification in a fundamental way: It called for “strategic public investment in emerging genetic-engineering technologies and other approaches to address food security and other challenges.”
These conclusions could not have surprised anyone who follows the issue. They’re consistent with the findings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and other highly respected groups. Thousands of independent researchers have consistently found that GMOs benefit not only farmers and the public, but also biodiversity, soil quality, water quality, carbon sequestration—in short, the environment.
In 2014, for example, two German researchers at the University of G?ttingen, Wilhelm Klumper and Matin Qaim, consolidated the findings of 147 studies dating to 1996. They found that GMOs increased crop yields by an average of 21% world-wide and reduced the use of pesticides by 37%. Farmers who adopted GMOs increased their profits by 69% on average, with the gains going disproportionately to the developing world.
This year Peter Barfoot and Graham Brookes, two British researchers at PG Economics, an agricultural consulting firm, calculated the environmental benefit from not having to run tractors to spray pesticides on GMO crops. The effect in 2014, they wrote, was “equivalent to removing nearly 10 million cars from the roads.” That amounts to about 4% of the passenger vehicles in the U.S.
Then there are the benefits when high yields from GMOs curtail the conversion of forest or grassland to agriculture. To keep current production without the gains from GMO crops, more than 97,000 additional square miles—an area larger than Ohio and Indiana combined—would have to be cultivated globally. Instead the carbon in all that land, which would be released to the air during tilling, stayed in the dirt.
The industry could have listened better to the public’s concerns about GMOs and addressed them. But even if resistance to the technology continues, which I hope will not be the case, here’s what I see happening in the next 20 years:
Genetic modification will be extended to many more crops. It will be used to enhance the nutritional value of rice—such as with Golden Rice, which is fortified to provide vitamin A—as well as cassava, two major staples. Insect resistance will be conferred on more crops and widened to protect against more pests, reducing food waste and spoilage, especially in the developing world. The strides that GMO crops have already made against drought and heat stress will accelerate. Yields and yield stability will increase for plantation crops like palm, coffee, cocoa and trees for paper.
Exciting gains are also on the horizon against plant diseases caused by fungi, bacteria and nematodes, the microscopic worms that feed on roots. One result will be bigger yields. Another will be less use of chemical fungicides. The fungus that now threatens bananas will be foiled as well.
The rapidly growing global population and warming climate will make agricultural innovations a necessity, not a luxury. In my view, the next two decades will bring even more innovations than the past two.
If you've ever wondered how new GMO seeds come to market, give it a minute:
Engineer
8 年NT!
Retired Associate, Risk Mitigation Management
8 年How many species of Insects are terminated with the BT corn protein? We know the target is the corn worm, but your article suggest other insects fall victim. Insects that could be a source of life for other species, birds, bats etc. I would love to read an article by you that didn't skim over the fact that you ARE terminating non-targeted pests and what at Monsanto is being done to eliminate this issue. As your intention is to target a specific pest, but are killing others in the process suggests that your science is not perfect. And given that, could humans unknowingly be suffering as a nontargeted species as well?
Benefit Advocate at UnitedHealth Group
8 年The Earth's eco-system is delicately balanced because they are interdependent. Invasive species such as zebra muscles infecting the Great Lakes and Asian Carp exist for a reason. I will have to disagree with GMOs being beneficial and this link substantiates the reason. https://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/health-risks/
Mortgage Loan Officer NMLS# 2000449 (Lendexa Mortgage LLC) & Online Business Manager (Wishup)
8 年Every time I hear someone bash the use of GMOs in agriculture, I always tell them that I am open to any suggestions that they have for feeding a steadily increasing global population with less land available for crops and food animal production. Not one has been able to provide an idea that is feasible on the large scale that our demand requires. People are living longer and in more places than ever before, and they need to be fed. GMOs allow crops to grow in places and seasons they never could before. Organic farming requires far more inputs (including land) and still utilizes a ton of pesticides in order to achieve the same yields that genetically modified organisms can provide. Many farmers would go out of business without the assistance of hardier GMO crops and animals because they'd lose a larger percent of their yields every year. We killed off nature's natural processes years ago by innovating in health care and medicine to allow humans to overpopulate and remain healthy for longer periods of time. Simply leaving it to nature would cause higher mortality rates than we see now in plants, animals, and humans alike. This isn't the world it used to be, and agriculture had to evolve to accommodate it.
Retired Associate, Risk Mitigation Management
8 年Kill off nature's natural process and you create a domino affect that impacts all life.