It reviewed more than studies and data covering the 20 years since genetically modified crops were first introduced. They have lowered pest populations in some areas, especially in the Midwest but increased the number of herbicide-resistant weeds in others. The review was thorough and systemic, assessing many of the issues that have been raised about genetically engineered crops over the years, said Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the non-profit watchdog group the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington D.
The group was not involved in the report's creation. The genetic material of GE plants is artificially manipulated to give them characteristics they would not otherwise have. The two most common are pest resistance and the ability to withstand certain herbicides. That allows farmers to spray fields with herbicide, killing weeds while not harming the crops.
Drought tolerant traits are newer and also becoming popular. The report, " Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects ," was meant to be an objective overview of current research into the safety and environmental and social effects of these increasingly popular crops and the foods made from them. To gauge whether foods made from genetically modified crops were safe for human consumption, the committee compared disease reports from the United States and Canada, where such crops have been consumed since the mids, and those in the United Kingdom and western Europe, where they are not widely eaten.
No long-term pattern of increase in specific health problems after the introduction of GE foods in the s in the United States and Canada was found. Celiac disease, which makes humans intolerant of gluten, increased in both populations. Patterns in the increase in autism spectrum disorder in children were similar in both the United Kingdom and the United States, the committee reported. Smaller farms that don't have the time to achieve non-GMO verification, or are unable to grow non-GM crops in their environment, may be suffering.
Even though, yes, non-GM seed is cheaper than GM, they are more unwieldy. A blogger named The Foodie Farmer, who manages their own farm, reported "Even when there is a premium involved with growing a non-GM grain, due to better yields, GM has out-performed non-GM on our farm every year.
We have experienced higher yields in all of our GM crops in the nearly 17 years we have been using the seeds. So even though non-GM seed is less costly, the end quality of the crop is inferior to GM. This leads me to the question: why should farmers grow seeds that don't perform as well as the seeds being demonized by the media? It seems a little ridiculous. Aside from the fact that GMOs require less herbicide and pesticide use and cost less at the supermarket, some surprising information has popped up.
This study revealed that, " They result from fungal activity in insect-infested corn crops. With fewer insect holes in plant tissue, associated fungi are not able to invade and produce toxins. It is an utterly fascinating fact that I can't wait to be further researched.
Now, I'm not denying there are negative side effects to genetically modified crops after all, superweeds exist. I'm just saying that there are multiple cold hard facts that prove GMOs aren't pure evil.
Not every situation is completely black and white, which is why I ask you to reconsider your opinions, do some more research, and reevaluate why you put certain grocery items in your shopping cart. The prestigious National Academies of Science agrees with US regulatory agencies, scientists, and leading health associations worldwide that food grown from GM crops is safe to eat, and no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant breeding techniques.
Banning GMOs results in negative health consequences because farmers would be forced to go back to using older, more toxic pesticides and access to food is more limited. Reality: Humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals for countless millennia, so all domesticated plant species—and even your pet dogs and cats—are technically genetically modified.
Genetic engineering replicates a process that has been occurring in nature for millions of years as bacteria and viruses regularly shuttle genes between different species. Additionally, organic growers are allowed to use certain types of pesticides, so some GMOs could claim to be safer than organics. An example might be a GM blight-resistant potato, which does not need toxic substances like copper sulfate or other fungicides often used to control blight in organic farming.
Ideally, genetic modification would be used to improve organic farming. Reality: No one plant breeding or agricultural system can or will feed 9 billion people in a sustainable manner. Myth: GMOs are used only in industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture. Myth: GMOs are not adequately tested Reality: Governments everywhere employ strict biosafety protocols to ensure that any new GM product poses no threat to human or animal health, or the environment.
Myth: GMOs are harmful to the environment. Myth: GMOs are unhealthy.
0コメント