.
What is the purpose of genetic
engineering?
The following crop species
were genetically engineered between 1995 and 2010, soybean, cotton, maize,
canola, sugar beet and alfalfa.
The implied purpose of
biotech and genetic engineering is to attack flaws in the genetic traits of the
seeds. Traits include herbicide
tolerance, insect resistance, drought tolerance and disease resistance.
According to Biotech
industry advocates biotechnology is supposed to provide farmers with tools that
can make production cheaper and more manageable. For example, some
biotechnology crops can be engineered to tolerate specific herbicides, which
makes weed control simpler and more efficient. Other crops have been engineered
to be resistant to specific plant diseases and insect pests, which can make
pest control more reliable and effective, and/or can decrease the use of
synthetic pesticides. These crop production options can help countries keep
pace with demands for food while reducing production costs. A number of
biotechnology-derived crops that have been deregulated by the USDA and reviewed
for food safety by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been adopted by growers.
Many other types of crops
are now in the research and development stages. While it is not possible to
know exactly which will come to fruition, certainly biotechnology will have
highly varied uses for agriculture in the future. Advances in biotechnology may
provide consumers with foods that are nutritionally-enriched or longer-lasting,
or that contain lower levels of certain naturally occurring toxicants present
in some food plants. Developers are using biotechnology to try to reduce
saturated fats in cooking oils, reduce allergens in foods, and increase disease-fighting
nutrients in foods. They are also researching ways to use genetically
engineered crops in the production of new medicines, which may lead to a new
plant-made pharmaceutical industry that could reduce the costs of production
using a sustainable resource.
Genetically engineered
plants are also being developed for a purpose known as phytoremediation in
which the plants detoxify pollutants in the soil or absorb and accumulate
polluting substances out of the soil so that the plants may be harvested and
disposed of safely. In either case the result is improved soil quality at a
polluted site. Biotechnology may also be used to conserve natural resources,
enable animals to more effectively use nutrients present in feed, decrease
nutrient runoff into rivers and bays, and help meet the increasing world food
and land demands. Researchers are at work to produce hardier crops that will
flourish in even the harshest environments and that will require less fuel,
labor, fertilizer, and water, helping to decrease the pressures on land and
wildlife habitats.
In addition to genetically
engineered crops, biotechnology has helped make other improvements in
agriculture not involving plants. Examples of such advances include making
antibiotic production more efficient through microbial fermentation and
producing new animal vaccines through genetic engineering for diseases such as
foot and mouth disease and rabies.
These hopes sound good but
what are the consequences of this rapidly evolving industry when it comes to
the hopes and claims?
Fast Facts About Agriculture
2.2 million
farms dot America’s
rural landscape. About 97 percent of U.S. farms are operated by
families – individuals, family partnerships or family corporations.
Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U.S. population.
Farmers account for about 1% of the population, and the average age of farmers is rapidly increasing.
Large-scale family farms account for 9% of all farms and 66% of agricultural production.
A mere 19¢ of every dollar spent on food in 2006 went back to the farm – in 1975 it was 40¢.
Four out of every five farm households earned the majority of their income from off-farm sources.
From 2002 to 2007, total cropland acres decreased from 434 million acres to 406 million acres.
Many parts of the U.S., including agricultural regions, are experiencing groundwater depletion (withdrawal exceeds recharge rate).
Nutrient runoff in the agricultural upper regions of the Mississippi River creates a hypoxic “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. The average size of the region was over 6,600 sq. mi from 2004 to 2008.
Despite a tenfold increase in insecticide use between 1945 and 1989, crop losses due to insect damage nearly doubled. In 2007 the agriculture sector used 877 million pounds of pesticides in the U.S.
Less than 20% of corn, soy, and cotton plants were genetically engineered in 1996; by 2011 88% of corn and 94% of soybeans were genetically modified.
In 2007, 1.73 billion tons of topsoil was lost to erosion, equal to about 200,000 tons each hour.
Agricultural activities were responsible for 6% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Livestock are major contributors.
More than 21 million American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce) produce, process and sell the nation’s food and fiber.
Today’s farmers produce 262 percent more food with 2 percent fewer inputs (labor, seeds, feed, fertilizer, etc.), compared with 1950.
In 2010, $115 billion worth of American agricultural products were exported around the world. The United States sells more food and fiber to world markets than we import, creating a positive agricultural trade balance.
One in three U.S. farm acres is planted for export.
31 percent of U.S. gross farm income comes directly from exports.
About 23 percent of raw U.S. farm products are exported each year.
Farmers and ranchers receive only 16 cents out of every dollar spent on food at home and away from home. The rest goes for costs beyond the farm gate: wages and materials for production, processing, marketing, transportation and distribution. In 1980, farmers and ranchers received 31 cents.
U.S. farm programs typically cost each American just pennies per meal and account for less than one-half of 1 percent of the total U.S. budget.
Americans enjoy a food supply that abundant, affordable overall and among the world’s safest, thanks in large part to the efficiency and productivity of America’s farm and ranch families.
Agriculture and the Environment
Careful stewardship by farmers has spurred a nearly 50 percent decline in erosion of cropland by wind and water since 1982.
Conservation tillage, a way of farming that reduces erosion (soil loss) on cropland while using less energy, has grown from 17 percent of acreage in 1982 to 63 percent today. At the same time, total land used for crops declined by 15 percent (70 million acres).
Farmers have enrolled a total of 31 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program to protect the environment and provide habitat for wildlife. Since its inception in 1985, the program has helped reduce soil erosion by 622 million tons and restored more than 2 million acres of wetlands.
Farmers, ranchers and other landowners have installed more than 2 million miles of conservation buffers under farm bill initiatives. Buffers improve soil, air and water quality; enhance wildlife habitat; and create scenic landscapes.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of trees are planted on farmland.
More than half of America’s farmers intentionally provide habitat for wildlife. Deer, moose, fowl and other species have shown significant population increases for decades.
Through the farm bill, funding is provided to farmers and ranchers for conservation, for programs that prevent soil erosion, preserve and restore wetlands, clean the air and water, and enhance wildlife.
Crop rotation, the practice of growing different crops in succession on the same land, is another way farmers take care of the land.
For contour farming, farmers plant crops across the slope of the land to conserve water and protect soil.
Alternative energy sources, including wind power and renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel (made from corn, soybeans and other crops) are beneficial to the environment and promote energy security.
GMOs, A Global Debate: US Leads in GMO Production
SAN FRANCISCO—The United States is
the world’s top producer of genetically modified organisms (GMO), followed by Brazil.
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications, a non-profit that promotes crop biotechnology, reports that the United States has about 70 million hectares (170
million acres) of land planted with GMO crops; Brazil has about 40 million
hectares (90 million acres).
Since the first GMO was approved in the United
States in 1994, GM crops have played an increasingly
larger role in U.S.
agriculture. Today, about 90 percent of all corn and soybeans planted in the United States are grown from GM seeds, and more
than 40 percent of all GM crops produced worldwide are grown in the United States,
according to estimates by the University of California–Davis.
About 70 percent of all processed foods sold in U.S. grocery stores contains GM ingredients,
according to Colorado
State University.
Yet unlike most other developed nations, American regulators do not require
special labeling of GM products. The first ballot initiative that would have
made labeling mandatory failed last November in California.
Is GMO Food Necessary?
For
Colin Carter, professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource
Economics at the University of California–Davis, it is clear that America
needs GMOs.
Almost two decades have shown the advantages of genetically engineered
crops for farmers and growers, he said.
“I think the strongest arguments [for GMOs] are reduced pesticide use,
reduced yield loss, and increased competitiveness of U.S. agriculture,” Carter wrote in
an email.
He does not see a significant safety issue since, he said, no study has
definitively shown a health risk for humans.
While Dr. Robert Gould, adjunct professor at the University of
California–San Francisco, is a proponent for labeling, he cannot say whether
GMOs are necessary or not. For Gould, it comes down to making wise choices in
the face of uncertainty.
“A lot of animal studies are inconclusive on both sides in terms of
demonstrating clear-cut harm,” Gould said.
Gould is also a former national president of the Physicians for Social Responsibility,
a global physician organization that has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for
its work on nuclear threats.
He sees a parallel between GMOs and the introduction of nuclear
technology—the risks of nuclear technology mostly became known only after it
had already been used and its impacts already felt.
“I have concerns when there is widespread application [of a technology]
and not adequate testing of impacts,” Gould said.
Therefore, he stresses the need for more long-term and industry-independent
studies to better determine any potential chronic impacts of GM crops and food
on animals, humans, and the whole ecosystem.
Studies in the United States on the Health Effects
of GMO Food
The American Medical Association (AMA), the largest and oldest organization
of medical professionals in the United
States, extensively reviewed existing
studies on the human health implications of GM food in a 2012 report.
The report concludes, “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close
to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have
been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
The report, however, identifies three areas where “a small potential for
adverse events exists”: horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity.
One concern is that GM crops could cause an allergenic or toxic reaction
when the intentional transfer of certain genes results in the unintentional
transfer of allergens or toxins into the crop. Horizontal gene transfer is the
unintentional introduction of genetic material from GM food into body cells
that could lead to antibiotic resistance.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently
conducting a wide-ranging study, the project GMO Risk Assessment and
Communication of Evidence (GRACE), which will not only look at health, but also
at environmental, and socio-economic impacts of GM plants.
.
