Johnson in Grist: Despite drawbacks, GE key tool in strengthening global food security

field of corn
Image via Shutterstock

Genetic engineering is useful to farmers, but some say that the money and resources used to develop genetically engineered plants could “accomplish a greater public good, cheaper,” writes Nathanael Johnson, at Grist. Still, the usefulness of genetic engineering outweighs its potential costs.

Jonathon Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, says that the way to “feed ourselves responsibly” is to eat less meat, waste less food and make irrigation and fertilization more available to farmers.

Doug Gurian-Sherman at the Union of Concerned Scientists is concerned about how much it costs to develop GE crops. While funding from biotech companies allows scientists to pursue research they might not have been able to afford otherwise, it also tends to create incentives for scientists to produce results that can be marketed. However, Johnson stresses, this is not a problem with genetic engineering itself–but with the lack of public funding for biotechnology research.

With genetic engineering, scientists can introduce traits into plants that would never evolve naturally and are beneficial to farmers, like disease or pest resistance. Traits like these and others, like drought-resistance, increase yields, lower prices and result in more food. There are also GE plants like Golden Rice, which has been bred to contain the molecular precursor to vitamin A and is advertised as a way to combat vitamin A deficiencies.

Related article:  California bill would curb open records requests used to harass biotech, public health researchers

Alexander J Stein, an agricultural economist at the International Food Policy Research Institute, agrees that in some cases, GE is not cost effective. He tells Johnson that instead of asking, “Should we use genetic engineering?” the question should be which projects are cost-effective.

It’s clear that genetic engineering can provide a huge monetary return on investment, Johnson writes, but “[t]he success of commercial biotech hints that the technology also could provide return on investment for the environment, and for humanity, if we pursued the right avenues. We don’t need GMOs to save the world. But they could probably help.”

Read the full, original story here: Is genetic engineering a doomed effort to reinvent nature’s wheel?

Additional Resources:

Outbreak
Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
Infographic: The evolutionary history of the COVID-19 coronavirus

Infographic: The evolutionary history of the COVID-19 coronavirus

Reuters analysed over 185,000 genome samples from the Global Initiative on Sharing All influenza Data (GISAID), the largest database of ...
favicon

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend