In Hawaii there is considerable anti-GMO sentiment largely occasioned by lack of accurate information. The opposition to GMOs has become confounded with opposition to the use of chemical pesticides. At a recent special meeting on pesticides on the North Shore of the island of Oahu, a local anti-GMO activist, Hector Valenzuela, made the statement that the use of GMO crops represented a “pesticide centered technology.”
This is a totally false statement; nothing could be further from the truth!
One of the main characteristics of GMO crops is that they are resistant to insects. This is because they contain a minute amount of a protein that prevents destructive caterpillars and beetles from feeding. This protein, known as Bt, is derived from a bacterium that is widely used by organic growers to kill caterpillars. As a result, these insect-resistant crops can be grown with much less insecticide use, resulting in less insecticide exposure to both the farm workers and consumers. Worldwide, these Bt crops have resulted in a 37-86 percent reduction in insecticide use (for Bt cotton or Bt corn respectively).
Dr. Roger Beachy, a prominent leader in this field, tells the true story: “I got into biotech because I wanted to reduce the use of pesticides”. Dan Steiner, an independent crop consultant in northeastern Nebraska pointed out on NPR’s Morning Edition (7/9/2014): “We used to get sick [from the chemicals].” But then the insect-resistant crops arrived, seriously cutting insecticide use. “Ever since then, we feel good every spring!” says Steiner.
Scientific studies have shown that there is an increase of non-pest insects in crops in contrast to conventional agriculture. In addition, rivers in areas where biotech crops are grown have less chemical residues in the water and a healthier aquatic environment.
The other main biotech character imparted to GMO crops is herbicide tolerance. Herbicide-tolerant crops enable the use of more benign herbicides that have much less environmental impact. Glyphosate (Roundup) only affects plants and not humans, animals or bees. Moreover, glyphosate is rapidly broken down in the soil. Roundup can be found in any garden center for general home use because it is regarded as safe.
Other crops, such as genetically-engineered papaya, possess resistance to disease using a process akin to vaccination in humans.
Genetically engineered crops are safe to grow and eat. Humans have modified plants for centuries, the science is known and understood, and genetically engineered are the most studied crops and foods in history. GMO crops have been consumed for over 17 years with no ill effects; there is not a single documented case of illness or allergy caused by GMO crops.
Valenzuela also claimed that GMO crops are rejected by scientists, which is not the case. Such claims refer to a fringe group of scientists, not the main scientific establishment. This is akin to the 3 percent of scientists who deny the existence of climate change. GMO crops have been extensively examined by every major science and food safety authority in the U.S. and abroad, including the European Union. These authorities, which include the National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science and American Medical Association, have declared them to be as safe as non-biotech crops of the same species, both for food and for the environment.
Consumers should be embracing GMO crops as safer for them and safer for the environment.
Peter J. Davies, International Professor of Plant Sciences at Cornell University, currently resides in Hawaii.
This is a totally false statement; nothing could be further from the truth!
That’s it. Let’s be objective. Thanks for the exclamation mark.
“There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.” European National Academies of Science 2013 report-Planting the Future.
If you really want to see the devastation what they can do just go on Google and see how we have lost star fishes in just last 6 months. New overactive viruses which have formed out of double enhancement of camv35s pramotor are responsible for such irreversible mass kills. Do not forget to find out regarding oysters , whales, crabs, fishes.
Gmo’s are really good if they do not produce the side effects. This responsibility was never fixed on them who are using this technology. I
mention few of them. They use antibiotic resistant gene which can transfer horizontally to bugs, creating superbugs. Secondly the genes from the viral premotor which they have used to trigger the of interest can make the existing viruses more overactive. such recombinant new plant viruses are killing the pines ,chestnut, banion and many more fishes like star fish, crabs, Oysters. Even we are losing the algae from sea, which converts back co2.This is misinterpreted as algae boom. But it is absolutely wrong.
Put your pants back on and start talking out of your mouth!
The plants have only innate immunity so mass kill of forest is irreversible. And it’s definitely not because of the pine betel or fugues. they are just befouling the masses saying that climate change is killing them. They have used genetic engg only to have monopoly on seeds by using technologies like terminator. They have the patents to put off the immune of plant. Why? Just to increase the sale of insecticides ? If any one wants a detailed information do contact on my mail [email protected]
The author was cruising along just fine, then he had to ruin it by uttering this canard: “This is akin to the 3 percent of scientists who deny the existence of climate change.” That piece of agitprop was debunked long ago. Stay with what you know, Dr. Davies!
I hardly think the comparison with climate change skeptics in the scientific ranks is “agitprop.” The point of the comparison is that in the same way that most scientific experts are persuaded that climate change is occurring as a result of human activity, it is also true that most scientific experts are persuaded that genetic modification of crops is a safe and responsible use of technology, as statements and polls from organizations like the AAAS indicate. Those who use agitprop misrepresent facts in media to divert popular support to their own position for political gain.
“…in the same way that most scientific experts are persuaded that climate change is occurring as a result of human activity….” My point is, I do not think that this oft-made statement is backed up by reliable facts. If there is any proof underlying it, I have yet to see such proof. Changing “is occurring” to “could occur” would be more accurate. In hindsight, “agitprop” may have been too strong – I will agree to delete the “agit” and leave just the “prop.”
I agree with Mr Hoffman, there is no evidence that proves we are changing the climate. When “Global Warming” was first posited, they described how CO2 would raise the earth’s temperature, which would in turn release more CO2 from the forests, oceans etc., causing a “vicious circle”.
Now call me a cynic but what if something else was to start the temperature rising, and that caused CO2 to be released, wouldn’t we be in the same position?
What if the lack of an ozone layer for example (yes I know that was our doing too) caused extreme temperatures, hotter summers as more radiation got through, and colder winters as more heat escaped, wouldn’t that fit our current weather better than the greenhouse gas model?
Perhaps all that ozone (smog) over LA is the answer not part of the problem! :o)
I don’t know who this user called “shririam” is, but he/she is spouting pure nonsense. If there were a button here to flag posts as non-sequiturs, I would push it. This is the Genetic Literacy (not Illiteracy) blog, please act accordingly.
Do help protect Oregon farmers right to choose GM crops !
http://protectoregonfarmers.com/
I’ve made a donation myself.
” GMO crops have been consumed for over 17 years with no ill effects; there is not a single documented case of illness or allergy caused by GMO crops.” First clause–pure speculation. Second clause-utterly false. It may be true that the existing documentation is not definitive–but, at the least, it is highly suggestive, in some cases. The go go GMOers persist in making unjustified statements–and then they love to claim that their critics are not reality based. A very poor combination.