http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5722/688
This article was written to show how farmers using GM crops in China have done compared to farmers who are not using the technology. China is very close to commercializing GM rice and this article focuses on two of the four types that have been developed and are being tested in farms. The insect-resistant strains have shown to be successful in creating higher yields and reducing pesticide usage. This is one of the first forays into producing a commercialized food crop rather than an industrial one such as cotton.
The results of the pre-production trials of the rice crops were positive. The farms using the new rice showed about a ten percent increase in crop yield and eighty percent decrease in pesticide use. This decrease in pesticide use also eliminated many of the health problems among farmers that using the chemicals causes.
The data gathered indicated that food crops can also be genetically modified effectively. We have seen industrial crops undergo modification and be used, but now China is likely going to commercialize GM rice. This process will prompt response in the worldwide industry and probably increase the number of farmers using biotechnology in other countries as well.
This article is relevant to healthcare due to the increased food production and because the experiment showed that farmers using GM crops got less exposure to pesticides and experienced fewer of the problems that the toxins in pesticides cause. This will improve health at the local and international level.
I enjoyed this article because many of the articles I have posted here in the past have dealt with genetic engineering being done on industrial plants like cotton. China is considering doing the same with a major food crop. This is a crucial step in improving gene technology in plants and encouraging the acceptance of GM foods across the world. The policies described the article show readers that GM foods are being tested and are successful. This could cause farmers and those in the agricultural industries in stuggling countries to try and seek access to the technology.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Genetically Modified Crops and the Environment
http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/4/797
This articleby Joanne E. Barton and Miles Dracup aims to provide a balanced assessment of the environmental impact of GM crops. The growing use of genetically modified crops has prompted many to claim that they can have adverse effects on the environment as well as human health. These crops could have numerous unknown effects on non-human organisms, the genes could be transferred, or the crops could become weeds in the industry.
There are also benefits that this article brings up. The environment would benefit from the lowered insecticide use that GM crops could cause and the yield increase could also be beneficial. There are numerous applications of GM crops and genetic modification could be used in different ways to benefit the environment.
This article does not stress a particular point of view. It aims to educate readers about the good and bad outcomes of widespread use of GM crops. This increase in public knowledge will lead to more informed policies and better management of distribution and implementation of gene technology in foods.
This article is extremely relevant to health care. It brings up the point that the GM crops could have much more impact that most people believe. Current debate focuses on the whether the crops are effective and safe for consumption. Most people do not realize the effect modified genes could have on the environment. The transference of these genes of further mutation could have impacts that are almost impossible to accurately predict. We could cause the extinction of wild type plants and animals or the destruction of certain niche organisms. We are part of the world environment, so these possible changes would affect our lifestyle and health.
I found this article very helpful. It caused me to consider many possible ramifications that I had not considered before. I feel more thought should be put how a certain modified crop will impact the environment into which it is placed. The article has convinced me that GM crops must be developed with specific regions and farmers in mind to minimize the environmental impact they have in addition to boosting food output and safety.
This article
There are also benefits that this article brings up. The environment would benefit from the lowered insecticide use that GM crops could cause and the yield increase could also be beneficial. There are numerous applications of GM crops and genetic modification could be used in different ways to benefit the environment.
This article does not stress a particular point of view. It aims to educate readers about the good and bad outcomes of widespread use of GM crops. This increase in public knowledge will lead to more informed policies and better management of distribution and implementation of gene technology in foods.
This article is extremely relevant to health care. It brings up the point that the GM crops could have much more impact that most people believe. Current debate focuses on the whether the crops are effective and safe for consumption. Most people do not realize the effect modified genes could have on the environment. The transference of these genes of further mutation could have impacts that are almost impossible to accurately predict. We could cause the extinction of wild type plants and animals or the destruction of certain niche organisms. We are part of the world environment, so these possible changes would affect our lifestyle and health.
I found this article very helpful. It caused me to consider many possible ramifications that I had not considered before. I feel more thought should be put how a certain modified crop will impact the environment into which it is placed. The article has convinced me that GM crops must be developed with specific regions and farmers in mind to minimize the environmental impact they have in addition to boosting food output and safety.
Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Foods in Developing Countries
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5608/900
This article by Matin Qaim and David Zilberman supports the use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. The article cites the yields obtained from Bt cotton grow in India as evidence that genetically modified crops can be beneficial. Bt cotton has been modified so that it contains the Cry1Ac gene which gives the plants resistance to bollworms, a major pest in India.
Critics of genetically modified crops claim that their use does not increase yields. The data from gathered from the farms that used Bt cotton indicate that yields did increase dramatically (up to 80% increases). In addition, farmers saved money by using less insecticide on their crops.
This article was published to show how effective modern GM crops can be. We currently have the technology to increase efficiency in farms around the world. The authors wish to prove to readers that GM crops can be very effective if used properly and critics merely show selected data to influence public opinions.
This article focuses on only one example of GM crop implementation so it cannot be reflective of all situations. Additionally, the massive increase in yields are probably due in part to the number of pests present that year. The areas of India where the Bt cotton was introduced are under heavy pressure from insect pests. These situations all contribute to the effectiveness of the cotton. The article does prove that GM crops that are currently available have potential to increase worldwide crop yields, especially in poorer countries where pests take a much higher proportion of the crop. Their use will also create less need for insecticides.
These issues are relevant to health care today in two respects. Increased food supply as a result of the modified crops could prevent death and disease from malnutrition. Chemical insecticides area also a probable cause of some disease and pollution. Decreased use of insecticides would benefit the environment, and by extension, public health.
I found the interesting because it gave an in-depth example of one successful situation. To be truly convince of the effectiveness of GM crops, I would have to see the yield results in many more experiments. This article does have more impact because of its focus. When paired with broader information, the data presented in this article could be convincing enough to spur more support for GM foods and their use in the developing countries of the tropics and subtropics.
This article by Matin Qaim and David Zilberman supports the use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. The article cites the yields obtained from Bt cotton grow in India as evidence that genetically modified crops can be beneficial. Bt cotton has been modified so that it contains the Cry1Ac gene which gives the plants resistance to bollworms, a major pest in India.
Critics of genetically modified crops claim that their use does not increase yields. The data from gathered from the farms that used Bt cotton indicate that yields did increase dramatically (up to 80% increases). In addition, farmers saved money by using less insecticide on their crops.
This article was published to show how effective modern GM crops can be. We currently have the technology to increase efficiency in farms around the world. The authors wish to prove to readers that GM crops can be very effective if used properly and critics merely show selected data to influence public opinions.
This article focuses on only one example of GM crop implementation so it cannot be reflective of all situations. Additionally, the massive increase in yields are probably due in part to the number of pests present that year. The areas of India where the Bt cotton was introduced are under heavy pressure from insect pests. These situations all contribute to the effectiveness of the cotton. The article does prove that GM crops that are currently available have potential to increase worldwide crop yields, especially in poorer countries where pests take a much higher proportion of the crop. Their use will also create less need for insecticides.
These issues are relevant to health care today in two respects. Increased food supply as a result of the modified crops could prevent death and disease from malnutrition. Chemical insecticides area also a probable cause of some disease and pollution. Decreased use of insecticides would benefit the environment, and by extension, public health.
I found the interesting because it gave an in-depth example of one successful situation. To be truly convince of the effectiveness of GM crops, I would have to see the yield results in many more experiments. This article does have more impact because of its focus. When paired with broader information, the data presented in this article could be convincing enough to spur more support for GM foods and their use in the developing countries of the tropics and subtropics.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods, Including the FDA's Role
http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey17.htm
This article was posted on October 21, 2007 by Jeffrey Smith, author of the book Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, on NewsWithViews.com. Previous articles have dealt with the FDA's role in regulating GM foods and their labelling. Both of these issues remain controversial, and this article examines the reasons for the contrversies.
Part of this controversy is that fact that according to the FDA, a food that gains GRAS status (generally recognized as safe) is allowed to be commercialized without any additional testing. GM crops have GRAS status, even though they did not undergo the rigorous testing and research that other foods must in order to be considered GRAS. This was decided by the FDA in 1992, and it still holds today.
The FDA's policy of overlooking the potential dangers of GM foods and classifying them as safe has largely been attributed to the influence that the agricultural technology company Monsant has on the FDA. There are many sources of evidence surrounding this debate, such as the fact that the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy Michael Taylor was an attorney for Monsanto and became Vice President of Monsanto after his work at the FDA, which included the year 1992. This conflict of interest raises many questions and doubt in the American public over how responsible the people that are overseeing their health are.
One would assume that since 1992 the FDA must have conducted studies on GM foods and their safety. They have, but the transparency of their results raises another debate. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the negative effects of GM foods were deleted rom the safety reports, allowing the FDA to clear the foods for production.
The FDA controls the safety of food, which makes it a clear conflict of interest when they publicly promote GM foods as they do. Certainly the debate over the FDA's role in regulating GM foods must be elevated to the level of a national health concern and included in health care debates. Health care reform must take the FDA into account, especially if health care is going to be under the direct mandate of the government. Since the FDA is a government agency, its employees must have background checks for conflicts of interest, such as ones with biotech companies. If extra health care funding needs to be enacted to ensure that the FDA is organized and focused, then it should be a high priority in health care reform.
This article was posted on October 21, 2007 by Jeffrey Smith, author of the book Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, on NewsWithViews.com. Previous articles have dealt with the FDA's role in regulating GM foods and their labelling. Both of these issues remain controversial, and this article examines the reasons for the contrversies.
Part of this controversy is that fact that according to the FDA, a food that gains GRAS status (generally recognized as safe) is allowed to be commercialized without any additional testing. GM crops have GRAS status, even though they did not undergo the rigorous testing and research that other foods must in order to be considered GRAS. This was decided by the FDA in 1992, and it still holds today.
The FDA's policy of overlooking the potential dangers of GM foods and classifying them as safe has largely been attributed to the influence that the agricultural technology company Monsant has on the FDA. There are many sources of evidence surrounding this debate, such as the fact that the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy Michael Taylor was an attorney for Monsanto and became Vice President of Monsanto after his work at the FDA, which included the year 1992. This conflict of interest raises many questions and doubt in the American public over how responsible the people that are overseeing their health are.
One would assume that since 1992 the FDA must have conducted studies on GM foods and their safety. They have, but the transparency of their results raises another debate. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the negative effects of GM foods were deleted rom the safety reports, allowing the FDA to clear the foods for production.
The FDA controls the safety of food, which makes it a clear conflict of interest when they publicly promote GM foods as they do. Certainly the debate over the FDA's role in regulating GM foods must be elevated to the level of a national health concern and included in health care debates. Health care reform must take the FDA into account, especially if health care is going to be under the direct mandate of the government. Since the FDA is a government agency, its employees must have background checks for conflicts of interest, such as ones with biotech companies. If extra health care funding needs to be enacted to ensure that the FDA is organized and focused, then it should be a high priority in health care reform.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Ecological Concerns of Genetically Modified Foods
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jaeger/genetically_modified_foods.htm
This article was posted under the toxicology section on the New York University Sciences website in 2005. The blog has already discussed many positives and negatives of GM foods, and this article gives more depth into the mechanisms that allow for the growing and manufacturing of GM foods. The included mechanisms include natural gene transfer via an Agrobacterium tumefaciens vector, a basterium normally found in soils. External DNA may be partially inserted, inserted completely, or backwards.
This article also explores the process of making GM foods that are resistant to certain herbicides. This strategy does reduce the risk posed by chemical pesticides. GM crops such as these produce endotoxins that cause resistance to pesticides, but these endotoxins are harmless to humans and animals. Plants have also been engineered to be resistant to stress factors such as cold weather or drought.
Prior articles haven given insight into a variety of health risks related to GM foods, but this article focuses on the risks that GM foods pose to the environment. One of these is the fact that plants that are resistant to pests will cause the selection of new strains of pests that resist the effects of transgenes. This could cause the rise of new herbicides to fight these new "superpests." It is not yet certain whether the resistance to pests and pesticides in GM foods can be transferred to weeds and other unwanted plants. If so, this could cause a huge spike in weed populations.
This article states that the FDA has stated that "a food or food ingredient developed by genetic engineering must meet the same rigorous standards under the Act as other food products, and the FDA has broad legal authority to take action against a substance that poses a hazard to the public." This certainly would ease the minds of most consumers, though there is still a large debate over the labelling of GM foods.
GM foods still do not need to be labelled as such. The FDA does not see any way of distinguishing genetically modified foods from others and, thus, does not see any way to label them as such. In response, the USDA has developed standards for foods to be labelled as "organic" and will prohibit the use of recombinant DNA crops in organic farming. This is good new for consumers looking to avoid the risks of GM foods that have been presented in previous articles.
Concerning health care, this article presents both positive and negative effects of GM foods. The lingering debate is over whether or not GM foods should be labelled as such. If Americans want to avoid GM foods due to health or environmental risks, they can certainly do so.
This article was posted under the toxicology section on the New York University Sciences website in 2005. The blog has already discussed many positives and negatives of GM foods, and this article gives more depth into the mechanisms that allow for the growing and manufacturing of GM foods. The included mechanisms include natural gene transfer via an Agrobacterium tumefaciens vector, a basterium normally found in soils. External DNA may be partially inserted, inserted completely, or backwards.
This article also explores the process of making GM foods that are resistant to certain herbicides. This strategy does reduce the risk posed by chemical pesticides. GM crops such as these produce endotoxins that cause resistance to pesticides, but these endotoxins are harmless to humans and animals. Plants have also been engineered to be resistant to stress factors such as cold weather or drought.
Prior articles haven given insight into a variety of health risks related to GM foods, but this article focuses on the risks that GM foods pose to the environment. One of these is the fact that plants that are resistant to pests will cause the selection of new strains of pests that resist the effects of transgenes. This could cause the rise of new herbicides to fight these new "superpests." It is not yet certain whether the resistance to pests and pesticides in GM foods can be transferred to weeds and other unwanted plants. If so, this could cause a huge spike in weed populations.
This article states that the FDA has stated that "a food or food ingredient developed by genetic engineering must meet the same rigorous standards under the Act as other food products, and the FDA has broad legal authority to take action against a substance that poses a hazard to the public." This certainly would ease the minds of most consumers, though there is still a large debate over the labelling of GM foods.
GM foods still do not need to be labelled as such. The FDA does not see any way of distinguishing genetically modified foods from others and, thus, does not see any way to label them as such. In response, the USDA has developed standards for foods to be labelled as "organic" and will prohibit the use of recombinant DNA crops in organic farming. This is good new for consumers looking to avoid the risks of GM foods that have been presented in previous articles.
Concerning health care, this article presents both positive and negative effects of GM foods. The lingering debate is over whether or not GM foods should be labelled as such. If Americans want to avoid GM foods due to health or environmental risks, they can certainly do so.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Commentary on New Technique For Modifying Plant Genes Developed -ScienceDaily (May 4, 2009)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429132233.htm
According to a recent Science Daily article, scientists have developed a genetic engineering tool that makes a model crop plant herbicide-resistant by making slighter, more subtle changes to its DNA. This new technique can help scientists modify plants more precisely and potentially reduce concerns about genetically modified organisms. The new method for gene modification involves a customized enzyme known as zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) that binds to specific DNA sequences, altering single genes at or near the binding site.
This new development, as indicated by the article, is revolutionary because it is the first major change to genetic modification since the 1980’s. Traditionally, genetic engineering of crops involves introducing foreign DNA into plant cell genome without knowing exactly where the DNA will be incorporated. There are several methods of delivering this foreign DNA, including the use of Agrobacterium tumefaciens and a particle gun. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a bacterium that lives in the soil and “acts as a natural genetic engineer.”[1] It has a tumor-inducing(TI) plasmid which is a circular, doublestranded DNA molecule that can replicate independently of the agrobacterium’s genome. When the bacteria infects a plant cell, a segment of the Ti plasmid, T DNA, separates and incorporates itself into the host genome.[2] Scientists exploit this process by inserting desirable genes into the T DNA while ridding it of its cancer-causing properties.[3] Crop plant cells are exposed to the new recombinant bacteria, receive the foreign genes, and grow into modified plants. The particle gun method is popular for monocots (corn, wheat) which do not work with agrobacterium.[4] It involves microscopic pellets of gold or tungsten bathed in the foreign DNA.[5] The pellets are fired into the plant cells, leaving traces of DNA behind which can mix with the host DNA.
The article states that one of the main benefits is that the new ZFN technique may quell fears about the dangers of genetically modified foods in that it reduces the unknowns in the old method where genes are inserted randomly into the genome. However, I doubt that this new development will do much to settle the war over GM foods. It may help sway a few on the fence about GM crops, but most people will not be able to understand or differentiate between the new and old techniques. The fear over genetically modified foods is not rooted in logic or scientific proof but heavily politicized beliefs.
I’m not saying that we should not be cautious in embracing GM foods. The potential threats to biodiversity, the actual effectiveness of certain GM crops, and the regulation of crop biotechnology companies like Monsanto are all very important issues the public must continue to monitor. But think about the potential good biotech crops offer in the(perhaps somewhat distant) future. The latest developments in the GMO world involve tobacco plants that deliver therapeutic proteins[6], high protein rice[7], tomatoes that deliver vaccines[8], and more. Yes these will take many years to be available commercially, but they can play a part in treating the world’s sick and impoverished. Increased crop yields from GM crops will be key in the next Green Revolution.
Besides, whether or not the world is prepared for it, genetically modified foods are here to stay. An additional 1.3 million farmers planted 10.7 million new hectares of biotech crops including three new countries in 2008, according to the ISAAA brief Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops 2008.[9] The U.S., China, India, and numerous other countries are adopting GM foods and seeing economic and environmental benefits. Europe cannot continue to avoid the reality of GM foods, as evidenced by the traces of GM corn even in non-GM shipments of soy to Europe.[10]
This article is just one example of the continuing advancements of the biotech industry and its increased skill in creating well designed, safe crops for the future. In relation to the current healthcare debate, GM foods in the future may prove to be helpful in providing extra nutrition or producing cheap, accessible vaccines for the public.
[1] “Biotech Basics” Monsanto, 2001.
[2] Pamela Peters, “Transforming Plants: Basic Genetic Engineering Techniques” from "Biotechnology: A Guide to Genetic Engineering." Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1993. <http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BA/Transforming_Plants.php>
[3] Ibid.
[4] “Biotech Basics” Monsanto, 2001.
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Tobacco Makes Medicine” Science Daily 4 May 2009. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318211236.htm
[7] “New High Protein Rice Strain Developed” Science Daily 15 Jan 2008. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114095753.htm
[8] Andy Coghlan, “Killer tomatoes attack human diseases” New Scientist 29 June 2009.
[9]“Crop Biotech Update” ISAA 2008. http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/specialedition/2009/default.asp
[10] Paul Voosen, “Trade Chaos Looms as GM Crops Proliferate” Greenwire 2 Nov 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/11/02/02greenwire-trade-chaos-looms-as-gm-crops-proliferate-98320.html?scp=1&sq=genetically%20modified&st=cse
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Potential Risks of GM Foods
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
Commentary:
This article by Arpad Pusztai shows the potential dangers of GM food consumption. He argues that ineffective testing and a number of worrying results are reason enough to stop consumption until better testing methods can be put into effect and used regularly.
Pustzai claims that tests are poorly executed and happen very rarely. This results in a lack of information about GM foods that creates confusion. GM foods can create antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the allergens can become a problem. In some animal studies, rats died at increased rate, developed digestion problems, or gained weight. Even if animal studies show no dangerous effect, we cannot know if the food is safe for humans. Some foods have shown increased allergen or toxin levels. All of these results and ineffective and scarce testing are problems with GM foods.
Pusztai feels strongly that the standards for GM foods are too low and testing is not working well enough. The development of better tests is his solution to the problems with GM foods. This article was published in 2001, but many of the problems it describes are still relevant. Testing for allergens in GM foods is still extrememly difficult and the tests do not take place often enough.
This article is meant to create public doubt and caution about GM foods. This will push the industry to create more concrete standards for safety and utilize better tests more often.
I had never thought food testing was a real issue. I don't have any allergies myself, so testing for allergens was never a concern to me. This article certainly made me rethink my position on GM foods. The "substantially equivalent" method of ascertaining safety seems very poorly thought out and needs to be changed.
The article raises many heathcare issues. As consumption of GM foods rises, the risk of allergies, bacteria resistance, and toxins in the food will also rise. As we have seen with recent outbreaks of E. coli and toxins in foods, these problems can be hard to control and are very real. As food contamination and safety have become bigger issues, we must also weigh the potential risks of GM foods and consider creating more testing to ensure that the biotechnology is both safe and effective.
Commentary:
This article by Arpad Pusztai shows the potential dangers of GM food consumption. He argues that ineffective testing and a number of worrying results are reason enough to stop consumption until better testing methods can be put into effect and used regularly.
Pustzai claims that tests are poorly executed and happen very rarely. This results in a lack of information about GM foods that creates confusion. GM foods can create antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the allergens can become a problem. In some animal studies, rats died at increased rate, developed digestion problems, or gained weight. Even if animal studies show no dangerous effect, we cannot know if the food is safe for humans. Some foods have shown increased allergen or toxin levels. All of these results and ineffective and scarce testing are problems with GM foods.
Pusztai feels strongly that the standards for GM foods are too low and testing is not working well enough. The development of better tests is his solution to the problems with GM foods. This article was published in 2001, but many of the problems it describes are still relevant. Testing for allergens in GM foods is still extrememly difficult and the tests do not take place often enough.
This article is meant to create public doubt and caution about GM foods. This will push the industry to create more concrete standards for safety and utilize better tests more often.
I had never thought food testing was a real issue. I don't have any allergies myself, so testing for allergens was never a concern to me. This article certainly made me rethink my position on GM foods. The "substantially equivalent" method of ascertaining safety seems very poorly thought out and needs to be changed.
The article raises many heathcare issues. As consumption of GM foods rises, the risk of allergies, bacteria resistance, and toxins in the food will also rise. As we have seen with recent outbreaks of E. coli and toxins in foods, these problems can be hard to control and are very real. As food contamination and safety have become bigger issues, we must also weigh the potential risks of GM foods and consider creating more testing to ensure that the biotechnology is both safe and effective.
GM Foods and Developing Countries
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/124/3/923
Commentary:
This article is supports the introduction of GM crops in developing countries. Luis R. Herrera-Estrella points out that genetically modified foods provide the most promise for increasing food production to meet rising needs.
In order to increase the food supply, the author writes that genetic innovations must be available to subsistence farmers in developing countries, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where pests take the greatest toll. Pest destroy almost half of all world crop production. Current technology is aimed at helping high-output industrial farmers.
Herrera-Estrella feels that plant biotechnology is advantageous because of the flexibility and the number of crops it will benefit. Genetic changes can be made to combat various problems such as pest damage or rushed ripening. These changes could be applied to a wide range of crops and offer greater yields to countless farmers in different countries. He also promotes biotechnology because of the relatively few changes it would make to individual farmers. They would still grow the same species and would need no additional factors of production.
Herrera-Estrella makes a very convincing argument for the use of biotechnology and also points out the problems with the current development and transfer of these technologies. He feels that large corporations and industrialized countries where research is taking place do not feel the urgency to implement these technologies. The issue of payment also becomes an issue. The author claims that in order for the transfer of technology to take place, a separate body must be created to oversee crop biotechnology and decide controversial issues.
I found this article very convincing. I never really considered food production a problem but this article elucidated the current and potential problems an increasingly large and city-bound population will have getting enough food. I have know that most of the crops we have been selectively bred but I felt that genetically engineered crops were fairly rare. The increasing prevalence of these crops is encouraging for those in the field. This article is relevant to current healthcare debates because it argues for a new direction in genetic engineering for foods. It must be aimed at helped farmers in developing countries in order to prevent a world food crisis from erupting.
The article pushes very stongly for GM foods, but Herrera-Estrella never addresses the issue of genetically engineered crops themselves being harmful. The only problems he sees are in the distribution of the technology. He aims to increase public knowledge of the problems with food production across the world the solution he sees in biotechnology. He hopes this will prompt new gusto in research for farmers in developing nations and a better distribution of the resulting modified crops.
Herrera-Estrella does bring up the interesting point of protecting the environment. Without new technology, poor farmers will continue to clear rainforests and other valuable resources for new farmland. This could also impact healthcare by taking away potential sources for new drugs and lower the quality of the enviroment for all.
Herrera-Estrella stresses the promise of biological engineering for crops, the problems with the current system that prevent technology from being developed and given to poor farmer, and the environmental impact that ignoring the growing problem could have.
Commentary:
This article is supports the introduction of GM crops in developing countries. Luis R. Herrera-Estrella points out that genetically modified foods provide the most promise for increasing food production to meet rising needs.
In order to increase the food supply, the author writes that genetic innovations must be available to subsistence farmers in developing countries, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where pests take the greatest toll. Pest destroy almost half of all world crop production. Current technology is aimed at helping high-output industrial farmers.
Herrera-Estrella feels that plant biotechnology is advantageous because of the flexibility and the number of crops it will benefit. Genetic changes can be made to combat various problems such as pest damage or rushed ripening. These changes could be applied to a wide range of crops and offer greater yields to countless farmers in different countries. He also promotes biotechnology because of the relatively few changes it would make to individual farmers. They would still grow the same species and would need no additional factors of production.
Herrera-Estrella makes a very convincing argument for the use of biotechnology and also points out the problems with the current development and transfer of these technologies. He feels that large corporations and industrialized countries where research is taking place do not feel the urgency to implement these technologies. The issue of payment also becomes an issue. The author claims that in order for the transfer of technology to take place, a separate body must be created to oversee crop biotechnology and decide controversial issues.
I found this article very convincing. I never really considered food production a problem but this article elucidated the current and potential problems an increasingly large and city-bound population will have getting enough food. I have know that most of the crops we have been selectively bred but I felt that genetically engineered crops were fairly rare. The increasing prevalence of these crops is encouraging for those in the field. This article is relevant to current healthcare debates because it argues for a new direction in genetic engineering for foods. It must be aimed at helped farmers in developing countries in order to prevent a world food crisis from erupting.
The article pushes very stongly for GM foods, but Herrera-Estrella never addresses the issue of genetically engineered crops themselves being harmful. The only problems he sees are in the distribution of the technology. He aims to increase public knowledge of the problems with food production across the world the solution he sees in biotechnology. He hopes this will prompt new gusto in research for farmers in developing nations and a better distribution of the resulting modified crops.
Herrera-Estrella does bring up the interesting point of protecting the environment. Without new technology, poor farmers will continue to clear rainforests and other valuable resources for new farmland. This could also impact healthcare by taking away potential sources for new drugs and lower the quality of the enviroment for all.
Herrera-Estrella stresses the promise of biological engineering for crops, the problems with the current system that prevent technology from being developed and given to poor farmer, and the environmental impact that ignoring the growing problem could have.
Commentary on “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research” by Andrew Pollack NYT 20 Feb 2009.
Commentary on “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research” by Andrew Pollack NYT 20 Feb 2009.
This New York Times article found that biotechnology seed companies are preventing scientists from conducting research on genetically modified crops. Apparently, these companies require that buyers of the genetically modified seeds sign an agreement that is supposed to honor the company patent rights. However, it also prohibits the growth of crops for research. [i] Without third party testing and research of genetically modified products, information on the effectiveness, environmental impact, and safety of these foods is severely limited.
I do not doubt that biotechnology companies like Monsant, DuPont, Syngenta, etc., have and will continue to benefit us in the future. The advantages of genetically engineered foods are undeniable. Genetically modified crops can decrease the amount of chemical pesticide sprayings and environmental damage since most today contain pesticide or are resistant to herbicides. For example, in India, cotton containing Bt pesticide reduced the overall chemical pesticide use and poisonings, leading to a doubling of cotton production between 2002-2007.
[ii] The increased yields per acre of GM goods is not only economically beneficial, but it will also help sustain the next Green Revolution, helping to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people by 2050”[iii] In addition, GM foods that treat allergies, deliver vaccines, and reduce malnutrition are in development and could help thousands of individuals.[iv]
But, as the aforementioned article indicates, biotechnology companies may possess too much unregulated power. Scientists wishing to conduct research on genetically engineered seeds now must seek permission from companies. Dr. Ken Ostlie at the University of Minnesota was forced to halt a study on insect resistant corn varieties because Syngenta withdrew permission.[v] He pointed out that “If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research.”[vi]
This limiting approach to independent studies is somewhat similar to that of the pharmaceutical industry. In her book Side Effects, Allison Bass describes how some of the big players of the pharmaceutical industry, such as Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, suppressed negative data concerning their drugs and paid off individuals in the FDA and independent researchers. Biotechnology crop companies, like drug companies, are few in number yet each holds great power, giving them much potential to both help the public and make huge profits. While it would be untrue to say that the biotechnology companies are being purposefully misleading, the unwillingness to allow for open experimentation of their products is bad for their reputations. It allows for potential distortion of information and gives critics of biotech crops more ammunition over the safety and environmental friendliness of the crops. The unpopularity of GM foods can only increase from such an arrangement.
It is not as if the scientists wishing to conduct research on the GM crops are against genetic engineering. The group of scientists that came forward said that “the chokehold on research means that they cannot supply some information to farmers about best to grow the crops.”[vii] Allowing more freedom for independent researchers could help the industry further increase crop yields, or even increase competition between seed companies if a study found one GM seed more effective than another. This can lead to better designed crops in the future.
The Obama administration supports GM crops, accompanied by “stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice." [viii] But overall genetically modified foods have not been a large part of healthcare debates, since currently the U.S. government does not distinguish between GM crops and non-modified ones, believing that there is no significant difference in terms of safety.[ix] This is indeed the view held by most of the scientific community. Government regulation of GM crops is actually quite complex, where “the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat.”[x] The FDA has come under criticism for being underfunded and unable to fully assess the safety of food, thanks to recent contaminated food outbreaks, but Obama has not addressed possible reforms.
Greater openness in GM food research would not only benefit the biotech industry’s reputation but can also possibly increase the quality of GM crops.
[i] Andrew Pollack, “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research” NYTimes 20 Feb 2009.
[ii] Michael F. Jacobson, “Biotech: Scourge or Savior?”
[iii] Claudia Parsons. “The fight over the future of food.” Reuters 10 Nov 2009.
[iv] Andy Coghlan, “GM rice makes allergies easy to stomach” New Scientist 3 July 2009.
Andy Coghlan, “Killer tomatoes attack human diseases” New Scientist 29 June 2009.
[v] Andrew Pollack, “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research” NYTimes 20 Feb 2009.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] .Maria Gabriela Cruz “Great Expectations for Obama,” Forbes, 04/02/09 <http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/02/farming-gm-obama-opinions-contributors-europe_print.html>.
[ix]Deborah Whitman, “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Healthy?” Proquest and CSA April 2000
[x] Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)