Talk about a strange turn
of events, which seem to be a common occurrence in the reign of President
Obama, suddenly the tables have turned and China
I wrote a series of
articles on the GMO controversy and confusion, and they are accessible through
the links at the end of this introduction.
However, it might be useful that we all share the same understanding of
the issue so there can be no distortion of the basics.
There are two sides to the
GMO battle, very rich corporate producers, and very poor people all over the
world. In between lay a battlefield of
the governmental agencies at the international, national, federal, state and
who knows, all trying to regulate and generate money from the big boys and
protect the health and safety of the people they purportedly represent.
Circling the regulators in
the middle are the piranha, the lobbyists, bankers, environmentalists,
anti-environmentalists, lawyers, accountants, a bunch of businesses making a
lot of money and creating many jobs in the business of food. Remember, billions of dollars a year are
involved in this playground.
Therefore, we start by
defining the issue. Here is my explanation
to help me understand the meaning behind the alphabet soup of key issues. Two competing interests are at the producer
level where all the money lies, and the battle is over what they stand for in
the industry.
Within the producer, is
the Natural Breeding segment, versus
the Genetically Modified
segment.
Natural breeding is quite
ancient, and practiced for thousands of years as Druids, ancient Chinese,
indigenous peoples, kings, emperors, and presidents would use designer breeding
methods to modify the seeds. They might
cross their plants through pollination or crossbreed them for multiple
generations. It was the only game in
town.
Then the scientists began
using a genetic insertion, according to Biology Online it means
"(Science: genetics) a rare nonreciprocal
translocation involving three breaks in which a segment is removed from one
chromosome and then inserted into a broken region of a nonhomologous
chromosome."
Are you kidding me?
How about this definition
from the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, "a: a section of genetic material inserted into an existing
gene sequence, b: the mutational process producing a genetic insertion."
Now that really explains
it. No wonder the general population is
clueless about the news stories when such scientific, technical, and biological
terms get bandied about in the latest breaking news.
According to the Union of
Concerned Scientists, just what is the definition of Genetic Engineering?
"Genetic engineering is a set of technologies
used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes
within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms.
The techniques involve sophisticated manipulations of genetic material and
other biologically important chemicals.
Genes are the chemical blueprints that determine an
organism's traits. Moving genes from one organism to another transfers those
traits. Through genetic engineering, organisms can be given targeted
combinations of new genes—and therefore new combinations of traits—that do not
occur in nature and, indeed, cannot be developed by natural means.
Such an
approach is different from classical plant and animal breeding, which operates
through selection across many generations for traits of interest. Classical
breeding operates on traits, only indirectly selecting genes, whereas
biotechnology targets genes, attempting to influence traits. The
potential of biotechnology is to rapidly accelerate the rate of progress and
efficiency of breeding."
Maybe we should say Playing God by combining things that
are different and alien to each other in hopes of creating a more superior
specimen. I do not know about you but
when it comes to manipulating the genetic structure of DNA and cells, whether
in plants, animals, or humans, I get very nervous.
The field of genetic
engineering is relatively new, in fact it came into use in 1996, just nineteen
years ago, when our government approved the use by farmers. Seems from a science standpoint it is still
in the infancy stage since exposure is recent and it seems like something that
new should undergo testing for longer than nineteen years to assess the side
effects.
Not in America
Quite the contrary, as our
government went so far as to shield, protect, or whatever you may want to call
the unfair business practices in which the government gave GMO producers immunity
from liability for injuries or deaths caused by side effects or even prescribed
use of their G
As a result, use of the
experimental GMO technology went from nothing in 1996 to over 90% in 2014 for several
major food categories including the largest selling, corn, soybeans, and others.
To be precise, 94% of all corn products used
as human food and for animal food came from GMO seeds. At the same time, the food for 95% of the
food-producing animals in America
The following are three recent
news stories about the GMO situation, the role China
GMO Part 1. - America
GMO Part 2. - Myths and
Truths
GMO Part 3. - The Higher
Purpose of Genetic Engineering
GMO Part 4. Does the USA
http://coltonspointtimes.blogspot.com/2013/08/gmo-part-4-does-usa-feed-world.htmlMO,
once it was approved by the FDA (the federal government).
GMO Part 5 - The End Game
- Now What?
The Guardian
Is China
As For 42 years, Don Villwock has grown soybeans and corn on 4,000 acres in southwest
In March,
Villwock explains that, as a major market evaporated, prices tumbled, and farms across the
Genetically modified foods have long been controversial. Opponents argue that these crops damage the environment, contribute to corporate control of food systems, and have not been proven safe for human consumption. Supporters counter that genetically engineered crops require less pesticide use and could be a key part of confronting rising food demand worldwide.
Ripples from a closed
market
The trait Veronica Nigh, an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), says that, in recent years,
“When your number one customer starts rejecting [your crop], the price drops quickly,” Nigh says.
In response, the US Grains Council asked Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to pressure
Syngenta did not respond to requests for comment, but has rejected responsibility on its website. David Morgan, president of Syngenta Seeds, has asserted that halting marketing of certain seeds at this point would be tantamount to giving a foreign nation control over US agricultural practices.
At the moment, biotech
companies are standing by the power of GMOs. Villwock says, however, that some
farmers are considering a return to conventional seed next year rather than
risk growing crops that prove unsellable.
An economic power play?
AFBF’s Nigh suggests that
“Long-term, our concern is that it slows down the abilities of US farmers to adopt the newest and best technology available to them,” she says.
Monsanto, a major seed producer that is not currently having trouble with
“They can breed faster, they can breed more precisely, they can map and tag breeding traits – but it’s not a GMO,” Fraley says.
These techniques have already produced an antioxidant-boosting broccoli that is just coming to market, Fraley says, noting that other varieties that offer enhanced nutrition, better flavor, and other desirable traits are also in development.
There are also promising alternatives to genetically modified crops, says Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. Farming practices known as ecological agriculture – including crop rotation and the planting of cover crops – can help keep weeds at bay, making it unnecessary to plant herbicide-resistant GMO seeds. Moreover, he explains, conventional breeding programs have produced the kinds of drought-tolerant and enhanced-nutrition strains promised by genetic engineering. However, none of these new varieties have yet been able to gain traction in the market because the breeders, many of whom are publicly funded, don’t have the money or clout to compete with GMO producers, he says.
Even with the challenges they’re facing, GMOs are likely to stick around. Genetically modified crops make up nearly 90% of the corn grown in the
Many farmers are planning to stick with their GMO seeds. When prices are low, Villwock says, it just makes sense to use the seeds with the highest yields. And, in his experience, those are genetically modified crops. “There’s no doubt the economics lean towards planting a GMO crop,” Villwock says. “We will stay planting GMOs on our farm.”
Sarah Shemkus is a freelance reporter and editor who writes about business, technology, food and the places where they all meet. Find her on Twitter at@shemkus.
The technology
and innovation hub is funded by BT. All content is editorially
independent except for pieces labelled “brought to you by”. Find out more here.
Bloomberg News
Zhou, the owner of a recycling business in the northeast coastal city of Weihai, said one source of her concern was an anonymous article shared online by her friends that alleges genetically modified crops cause infertility in Asians, part of a U.S. ploy against China. She fears her 21-year-old son won’t have his own family if she feeds him the corn-meal porridge.
“I definitely won’t let my son eat it,” Zhou said by telephone. “It’s not just me. All our friends are worried. All the corn grown now is genetically modified.”
Meat consumption has surged in
‘Controversial Views’
“There has been a lot of opposition against GMO inBecause the technology is new, “it’s reasonable that society should hold controversial views and doubts,” Xi told the Communist Party conference on rural works last December, the Beijing Evening News reported on Sept. 28.
‘Very Big Problem’
The concern among some Chinese consumers about genetically modified grains dovetails with broader worries about food safety. Fears have been fanned by high-profile incidents, including rice found with cancer-causing heavy metals; rat, fox and mink sold as mutton; cooking oil salvaged from sewers; and baby formula laced with chemicals. About 41 percent of Chinese consumers in a 2012The state-led campaign to promote GMOs comes at a time when meat has become a popular choice at meals, requiring more corn, wheat and soybeans to feed livestock.
In December, the country announced a new food-security strategy that will allow “moderate” grain imports for feed, while maintaining self-sufficiency in wheat and rice, a break from previous policies to ensure the nation grows 95 percent of the corn, wheat and rice it needs, according to an April report by the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service.
More Meat
Per-capita demand for corn more than doubled in the past two decades, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. Beef consumption in China, which the USDA estimates already raises and eats half the world’s pork, could surge by more than 70 percent from 2013 to 2030, Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. said Sept. 5.The country imported 63 million metric tons of soybeans last year valued at $38 billion, accounting for more than 60 percent of global exports, customs data show. It also shipped in 3.3 million tons of corn, according to the data. Soybean purchases will climb to 96.9 million tons by about 2020, with corn reaching 16 million tons, according to a long-term projection made by the USDA in February.
U.S.
Grains
Most of the soybeans and corn
China ’s biggest supplier
is the U.S. ,
where GMO crops account for 93 percent of all corn produced and 94 percent of
soybeans, USDA data show. While the U.S.
is the largest user, Brazil
and Argentina sowed a
combined 64.7 million hectares (160 million acres) of GMO corn, soybeans and
cotton in 2013, with another 21.8 million hectares planted in India and Canada , according to the
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.
“China
doesn’t have a choice when the top suppliers all employ the technology,” Zhang
said.
Corn in China trades at
almost three times the U.S.
price. Futures for December delivery on the Chicago Board of Trade were down
0.4 percent at $3.4175 a bushel at 6:08 a.m. On the Dalian Commodity Exchange,
the grain was at 2,342 yuan a ton, or about $9.70 a bushel.
Not Unique
Concern that GMO crops are unsafe isn’t unique to China . Only 27 countries planted genetically modified crops in 2013, ISAAA data show, and at least 60 have labeling requirements, including Japan , Brazil and the entire European Union. Surveys in the EU show opposition by consumers, who worry about risks such as human resistance to antibiotics and the development of so-called superweeds that are impervious to herbicides.
China approved strains of genetically modified rice and corn in 2009, saying at the time that mass-production will be allowed only after trial planting and public acceptance. Cotton is the only bioengineered crop widely grown.
Unlike the U.S. , Brazil and Argentina , China doesn’t raise gene-altered food crops on a commercial scale, according to Huang Dafang, a researcher with Chinese Academy
Consumer Concern
Even as the top leadership has approved the safety of domestically developed genetically modified corn and rice, they haven’t been cultivated outside labs, according to Huang. No one at China ’s agriculture ministry replied to a request for comment sent by fax.
“The main reason for China ’s slow adoption of biotech grain crops isn’t so much that the government is swayed by public opinions,” Shanghai JC Intelligence’s Li said. “It’s that China doesn’t have leading, marketable biotechnologies and is afraid of having the market controlled by foreign companies once commercialization is granted.”
Genetically modified foods currently available show no effect on human health among the populations where they’ve been approved and likely aren’t a risk, according to the World Health Organization.
That hasn’t prevented consumers from expressing concern about food safety.
China Central Television reported illegal sales of unapproved GMO rice in
supermarkets in central Hubei
province, prompting a pledge by the government that it would crack down on
illegal growing and selling.
“We don’t know what GMO is and what it really does to our bodies,” said
Zhou, the mother in Weihai who expressed fear of feeding her son corn porridge.
“Hopefully, the government can help us understand what the truth really is.”
To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: William Bi in Beijing at wbi@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Ramsey Al-Rikabi at ralrikabi@bloomberg.net Sungwoo Park.
Here are the Top 7 Genetically
Modified Crops:
1. Corn: Corn is the No. 1 crop grown in the U.S.
2. Soy: 93 percent of soy is genetically modified. Soy is a staple
of processed foods under various names including hydrogenated oils, lecithin,
emulsifiers, tocopherol (a vitamin E supplement) and proteins.
3. Cottonseed: According to the
USDA, 94 percent of cotton grown in the U.S.
4. Alfalfa: Farmers feed alfalfa
to dairy cows, the source of milk, butter, yogurt, meat and so much more.
Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the U.S.
5. Papaya: 75 percent of the Hawaiian papaya crop is genetically modified to withstand
the papaya ringspot virus.
6. Canola: About 90 percent of the U.S. canola crop is genetically
modified. Canola oil is used in cooking, as well as biofuels. In North Dakota
7. Sugar Beets: More than half --
54 percent -- of sugar sold in America
The organization True Food Now
has a list of foods currently being tested for genetic modification, as well as
those foods that are approved but not yet sold in the U.S.
Forbes
The Debate About GMO Safety Is
Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study
By Jon Entine
9/17/2014
Visit almost any anti-GMO website
and you will find alarming headlines about the alleged dangers of GMO foods.
They kill pigs, cows and sheep on farms and in lab studies! Humans are next!
“Monsanto MON +3.93%’s GMO Feed
Creates Horrific Physical Ailments in Animals,” screams a typical article, in AlterNet, a popular anti-GMO
site. It touts “new research” but as is typical of such articles and such
sites, it neither quotes a study nor links to any independent research.
Although there have been more
than 2,000
studies documenting that biotechnology does not pose an unusual threat to
human health and genetically modified foods are as safe or safer than
conventional or organic foods, questions remain in the minds of many consumers.
What does the research say?
Animal feeding studies are the
basis for evaluating the safety of GMO crops. One-off studies of lab
animals have occasionally shown some problems. Gilles-Eric Séralini, in his
retracted GM corn study (later republished in a non-peer-reviewed anti-GMO journal), claimed rats fed
genetically engineered corn developed grotesque cancerous tumors—the kind no
farmer would miss among his animals if this cause-effect was genuinely in
place.
Anti-GMO crusader Jeffrey Smith,
on his personal website, the Institute for Responsible Technology, lists more than a dozen cases in which he claims
animals fed GMOs exhibited abnormal conditions, including cancer and early
death. He also references his own self-published book, and anecdotal evidence
that pigs fed GM feed turned sterile or had false pregnancies and sheep that
grazed on BT cotton plants often died.
“Nearly every independent animal
feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverse or unexplained effects,” he
writes. “But we were not supposed to know about these problems…the biotech
industry works overtime to try to hide them.”
The American Academy of
Environmental Medicine—an alternative medicine group that rejects GMOs and
believes that vaccines are dangerous—claims,
“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,”
including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin
regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.
Is there any basis to these
allegations? After all, globally, food-producing animals consume 70% to
90% of genetically engineered crop biomass, mostly corn and soybean. In
the United States Brazil
and Argentina
Estimates of the numbers of meals
consumed by feed animals since the introduction of GM crops 18 years ago would
number well into the trillions. By common sense alone, if GE feed were causing
unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed. Dead and sick
animals would literally litter farms around the world. Yet there are no
anecdotal reports of such mass health problems.
But we don’t need to depend on
anecdotes to address these concerns. Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive
study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis
Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison
Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of
livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the
introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. [NOTE: article is
behind a paywall until October 1.]
The field data represented more
than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was
100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The
documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as
ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.
What did they find? That GM
feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no
indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO
crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can
reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health
is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.
The Van Eenennaam study
corresponds to other reviews of animal feeding data, some multi-generational
and as long two years.
Several recent comprehensive
reviews from various authors summarize the results of food-producing animal
feeding studies with the current generation of GE crops (Deb et al., 2013;
Flachowsky, 2013; Flachowsky et al., 2012; Tufarelli and Laudadio, 2013; Van
Eenennaam, 2013). Studies have been conducted with a variety of food-producing
animals including sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, quail, cattle, water buffalo,
rabbits and fish fed different GE crop varieties. The results have consistently
revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals were comparable with
those fed near isogenic non-GE lines and commercial varieties.
Here is a comprehensive
list of animal feeding studies. Many of these studies are independent. The
list included systematic reviews, all of which conclude that GMO feed is safe.
As Dr. Steven Novella notes
on his blog Neurologica:
[T]his data is observational,
meaning the authors are looking at data collected out there in the world and
not part of any controlled prospective experiment. Observational data is always
subject to unanticipated confounding factors. However, robust observational
data is still highly useful, and has the potential to detect any clear signals.
The findings also comport with
long-term GMO feeding laboratory studies. The GENERA database, found at Biology
Fortified online, lists more than three-dozen examples of multi-year
studies. A
recent review of 24 of these studies by Snell et. al found: “Results…do not
suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically
significant differences within parameters observed.” There have been a few
outlier studies, such as the retracted GMO corn research. But if Séralini’s
data were real and 80% of food was poison, animals and people would be dropping
like flies.
The authors also
found no evidence to suggest any health affect on humans who eat those animals.
No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal
products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal
components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably
quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following
consumption of GE feed.
In other words, the debate over
the risks associated with GMO food is effectively over. As Novella writes:
We now have a large set of data,
both experimental and observational, showing that genetically modified feed is
safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There does not appear to be
any health risk to the animals, and it is even less likely that there could be
any health effect on humans who eat those animals.
In order to maintain the position
that GMOs are not adequately tested, or that they are harmful or risky, you
have to either highly selectively cherry pick a few outliers of low scientific
quality, or you have to simply deny the science.
FOLLOW @JonEntine on Twitter.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment