Blog author: bwalker
Tuesday, November 25, 2014

yamsLet’s face it – if not for genetically modified organisms, many of us wouldn’t be celebrating Thanksgiving in the traditional sense. Instead of turkey, cranberries and sweet potatoes, we’d be reduced to something far less appealing such as, say, Beans-and-Franksgiving.

Unfortunately, some shareholder activists – including those affiliated with As You Sow – work long hours to ensure GMOs are eliminated as a dinner option. According to the AYS website:

The genetic modification or engineering of plants and animals has become a significant economic and environmental issue. As investor advocates, we are concerned that many companies are exposed to material financial risk from the environmental, food security, and public health issues associated with GMOs.

Currently, 85% of corn, 93% of soybeans, and 82% of cotton in the U.S. is genetically engineered. It is estimated that 75% of processed foods in supermarkets contain GMOs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency do not conduct or require long-term safety studies on the environmental or health impacts of GMOs. Independent researchers, however, have documented the increasing environmental impacts and negligible benefits of genetically modified crops, and the significant and growing consumer preference to avoid them.

This, quite frankly, is absurd and more than disingenuous. In truth, GMOs are making tremendous strides when it comes to feeding the world not only on a day set aside for acknowledging our thanks for our food, but as well the remaining 364 days of the year. Take, for example, the recent GMO advancements related to the Innate brand potatoes. According to the Hoover Institution’s Henry I. Miller, M.D., the recently U.S. Department of Agriculture-approved potato shows great promise for assisting in feeding the world cheaply:

They are bruise resistant and contain 50%-70% less asparagine, a chemical that is converted to acrylamide, a carcinogen, when heated to high temperatures. The advantage of lower levels of acrylamide is obvious, but the bruise resistance is important to sustainability because of the potential to decrease waste.

Moreover, Simplot is performing advanced field testing of second-generation Innate potatoes that will contain an additional trait: resistance to the destructive fungus called late blight, which caused the Irish potato famine of the mid-19th century and is still with us. Potatoes that are resistant to bruising and late blight represent major advances in sustainability, because every serving of French fries or mashed potatoes made from them represents less farmland and water consumption.

This is all well and fine, readers might ponder, but what of pesticides? This, from the American Council on Science and Health:

Despite a plethora of studies over the past two decades providing evidence that GMO (also known as genetically-engineered or biotech) foods are just as safe as conventional foods, along with confirmation from American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency that GM technology does not pose a human health threat, anti-GMO groups still try to look for any reason to reject this life-saving technology. One common argument is that GMOs are causing pesticide inputs to increase. We’ve stated before that GMOs actually reduce pesticide use—and now a new meta-analysis of GM crop impacts provides more evidence to support this fact.

The meta-analysis was conducted by PhD student Wilhelm Klümper and Dr. Matin Qaim of the Georg-August-University of Goettingen in Germany, in order to examine the effects of GM crops at a global scale. In the analysis, published this week in PLOS ONE, Klümper and Dr. Qaim included 147 original studies from all over the world that report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. The authors found that crop yields increased by 22 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. They also found that GM technology has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent. It was found that yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than developed countries, though both net yield and economic impacts were still positive for developed countries.

Perhaps this overall good will extend further into the holiday season. Remember the first line from Mel Torme’s “The Christmas Song”? When was the last time readers enjoyed chestnuts roasting on an open fire? Blight decimated the once common holiday staple, but it’s possible it’s making a comeback:

The American chestnut was once a major feature of the Appalachian forests, with its range covering the entire East Coast. But it fell victim to an invasive species: a fungal blight has pretty much wiped out the species in its native range. A few nearly dead trees sporadically send out shoots, and some survivors outside its normal range are the only reasons we’re still able to grow any American chestnuts.

Efforts to restore the tree initially focused on interbreeding with an Asian chestnut that’s resistant to the fungus. But resistance turned out to be complex, conveyed by a mix of seven different genes. That’s made it much harder to produce something that’s both resistant and primarily carries the American chestnut genome. The long generation time for trees has made matters worse.

Researchers at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, however, thought it might be easier to engineer resistance. The fungus (Cryphonectria parasitica) that infects the trees causes many of its lethal effects through a chemical called oxalic acid. Many plants carry genes that break oxalic acid down to simpler chemicals. Why not simply insert one of these genes into the American chestnut?

The use of GMO crops is likely to continue to expand—a recent analysis of global data suggests that GMO crops raise yields, lower pesticide use, and increase farmers’ income.

The increasing capability of GMOs to feed the world – safely, cost-effectively and environmentally sound – is something to be truly thankful for. Let’s hope the religious investors of AYS recognize this before all of us face a holiday season without potatoes and chestnuts.

Beyond Self Interest

Beyond Self Interest

This book presents the methodological and theoretical foundations for economic personalism through a detailed investigation of human action from two different, yet complementary perspectives.

  • Lucy7

    I believe you are confusing hybridization/ traditional breeding with genetic engineering. We have always had turkey, cranberries and sweet potatoes well before the mid 90’s when genetic engineering was first introduced into our food supply.

  • Debbie Owen

    Oh, if only we could go back to the Thanksgivings before GMOs were snuck into our food supply in 1996. Why should we be thankful for GMOs which have been genetically engineered to withstand repeated applications of herbicides (roundup ready) or to produce it’s own pesticide? Does anyone really want GMO Bt corn, for instance, which is registered as a pesticide with the EPA, on their Thanksgiving table? Not me. GMOs have greatly increased the use of herbicides which is harmful to us and the environment, just say no to GMO!

  • Anne Roshkind Temple

    I just love it when it is posted that we should be grateful to have GMOs when NO human studies have been done (not even SHORT term) and any credible long-term studies on rats have been withdrawn by pressure from the biotech industry. Less herbicides are being used? No. More and more is being used. Not to mention that we now have 24-D added into the mix. Why would the biotech giants being petitioning the EPA to increase the limit on these toxic chemicals. I am sorry, but I wish you people would get your head out of the ground — this is not something that us anti-GMO people want to WIN (like apparently you Pro-GM people). This is not a contest. if this is not stopped now, the end result is going to hurt EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

  • Rob Bright

    Another sorely misinformed article repeating Monsanto’s myth that we need GMOs to feed the world. And again, the misconception that selective breeding is the same thing as genetic engineering. Please do at least a LITTLE research if you expect to be taken as credible…

  • SusanStop

    This article is so far from the truth it belongs in the twilight zone so rather than correcting all of the AgriChemical Cartel lies I will simply wish everyone a very Happy GMO free Thanksgiving. Mine is 100% organic so I have nothing to be thankful to Monsanto for! You are losing little by little and your day of Karma is coming.

  • Carson Y.

    Another misinformed writer who can’t think outside a cereal box. He thinks we’re eating the same food our ancestors ate 100 years ago. In fact, we’re not even eating the same food 20 years ago! The food our ancestors ate were wholesome and nutritious. Genetically engineered foods are nothing more than cheap, industrialized, pesticide-laden, insecticide-producing foods.

    • Rob Bright

      Absolutely right, Carson! I just don’t understand how some people think they can continue to spout such ridiculous pseudoscience and misinformation and still be taken seriously. How this writer STILL doesn’t understand the difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding is just bizarre to me. People with such little knowledge about genetic engineering REALLY need to either stop writing about it, of do the research required to at least have a minimal understanding of what they are talking about.