GMO Food for Thought

According to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study, Ohio ranks last among all of the major U.S. corn-producing states in adopting genetically modified versions of the crop. Nonetheless, Ohio’s shift to producing GM corn crops is starting to accelerate with the increased use of high-yielding hybrids and seed package incentives.

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service surveys farmers in the United States regarding the adoption of genetically modified, or transgenic, crops every year. According to the latest survey, over half of the corn acreage in the United States is planted with biotechnology varieties. In Ohio, genetically modified corn was planted on only 18 percent of the state’s total corn acreage in 2005 – 30 percent behind Indiana, its closest competitor, and about 78 percent behind South Dakota, the top-ranked state.

Peter Thomison, an agronomist from the Ohio State University Extension and a researcher with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, said that one of the things about GM crops that are attractive to farmers and growers is the fact that there have been “major improvements” in transgenic hybrids from the standpoint of agronomic performance. These improvements are also a very attractive marketing promotion for seeds containing genetically modified traits. He points out the example of the Ohio Performance Trials, in which eight of the top 10 high-yielding hybrids evaluated contained the Bt trait, proving that GMOs work.

“The challenge has often been finding a reason to use them,” Thomison said.

Ohio farmers are beginning to adopt genetically modified varieties of corn because of lower costs. Convenience is also sparking interest in using more transgenic hybrids among the farmers and growers as well. Thomison said that if a farmer is getting genetically modified seeds for the same cost as similar seeds without the GM traits, it may be an incentive to make the switch to genetically modified crops. He also said that farmers and growers are looking at these genetically modified crops from a risk management perspective.

“He (the farmer) may not have problems every year, but the addition of the transgenic crops with built-in insect resistance, or one that offers herbicide resistance, will minimize those problems if he were to have them,” Thomison said.

I think it’s great that farmers and growers in Ohio have realized the advantages that adopting genetically modified crops can bring. They have seen that GMOs are a cost effective, convenient, and a safe way to grow quality food for people around the world. I believe that other farmers who have had some doubts about growing genetically modified crops should take a look at the efforts by those in Ohio and consider embracing biotechnology and its benefits.

Posted by AC Baumer at 5:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) convention earlier this month in Chicago, former President Bill Clinton sent a message to those in attendance: the biotechnology industry has a job to do.

In his speech, the former President discussed the importance that biotechnology has in food security and health issues in the developing world. He said the first obligation of society is to feed people and that biotechnology can help individuals feed more people while addressing environmental concerns. He also stressed the need for interdependence in the world today as well as the unsolved problems that biotechnology is uniquely suited to face.

Clinton also discussed the need to efficiently manage agricultural production. He mentioned several key aspects of environmental health that agricultural biotechnology can address, including climate change and top soil erosion.

“All of these applications of biotechnology have the potential to lift people out of poverty,” he said.

The former President also asserted that scientific evidence should rule any debate over issues such as genetically modified foods. He said that in America, we “should be driven by science, evidence, and argument, not by assertion and fear.”

Former President Clinton called upon the biotechnology industry to work to reduce the spread of a variety of diseases, including infectious diseases, guard against pandemics, create genetically engineered foods that will feed more of the world’s hungry, tap into sources of renewable energy, and confront global warming head on.

“When we empower individuals to feed and care for their families,” he said. “It is a good thing.”

As President, Bill Clinton supported the development of biotechnology and its practical applications in American life, as well as the development of genetic engineering and agriculture, and since he left office in 2001, President Clinton has dedicated almost all of his time to support causes, from raising funds for Hurricane Katrina victims in the United States to helping individuals with AIDS receive the drugs they need. He has seen first hand the needs that biotechnology can address around the world and the good that genetically modified foods can bring to developing nations in feeding the poor.

I agree with what former President Clinton said in his speech. Modern biotechnology holds such an importance in the world today and these continued developments should not be driven by the fearful beliefs that those opposed to biotechnology and genetically modified foods continuously try to impose upon the general public.

The world needs to support biotechnology, genetically modified foods, and the innovative developments the technology can bring in order to ensure a better future and life for all.

Posted by AC Baumer at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Are the products and benefits of biotechnology often seen but not heard about? That was the thought raised by an interesting survey I came across the other day on the subject.

About 500 adults in the Chicago, Illinois area took part in the telephone survey. The survey was conducted on behalf of health care company Abbott Laboratories, a major sponsor of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) 2006 convention, held in Chicago early last week.

According to the survey results, about 60 percent of those surveyed said they were unfamiliar with the term “biotechnology.” Even individuals who have heard of the term were a bit vague about its meaning, with one in ten of the respondents (about 13 percent) able to generally define biotechnology as “the use of biology and technology.” Approximately one-third of the respondents declined to attempt giving any definition at all.

However, the majority of the respondents believe that biotechnology can enhance lives. According to the results, about 70 percent of those surveyed agreed that biotechnology brings better medicine to their lives, 85 percent said it is likely to be an important source of new medicine in the next twenty years, and 80 percent of the respondents said that biotechnology will likely provide new drug therapies, including ones to fight cancer, as well as create new tests to be used in the detection of certain diseases.

In addition, nearly 70 percent of those surveyed believe that it is likely that biotechnology contributes to the economy of the state.

The results also showed that 48 percent of the adults surveyed say they might have used a product created through biotechnology, compared to 24 percent of the respondents who said they don’t think they’ve used such a biotech product. In addition, about 17 percent of those surveyed “definitely” have a lot of confidence that they have used a product created through biotechnology. Approximately 20 percent of those surveyed listed medication as a biotechnology product they have used, 14 percent have said they’ve eaten genetically modified foods, and 12 percent of the respondents said they’ve used biotech detergent, soap, and hair care products.

So, why is there a general lack of knowledge among the public about biotechnology? I believe the reason for this lack of knowledge is that individuals just don’t realize they are surrounded by biotechnology in their everyday lives, whether it’s the foods they consume, the medicines they take, or driving past a local farmer’s field of genetically modified crops every day. In addition, I think the media also plays a role in this lack of knowledge. For the most part, the media is not always interested in reporting on positive developments regarding biotechnology, but rather on protests against the technology. Sensationalism and negativity often capture the public’s interest more so than the good that a certain technology, in this case biotechnology, can do.

While this survey may only represent a small portion of the public, I firmly believe the results are showing a continual change in the public’s feelings and attitude toward biotechnology. I believe the public is becoming more accepting of biotechnology and are embracing the benefits that biotech products can bring to their daily lives. Perhaps in this case, maybe the old saying does hold true...seeing is believing.

Posted by AC Baumer at 6:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the leading critics of biotechnology is back with a soon to be released book that once again attempts to discredit genetically modified foods.

Jeffrey M. Smith, director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and author of the book Seeds of Deception, has written a new book entitled Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which claims that people who eat GM foods are taking a gamble with every bite.

According to the book publisher’s website, the biotech industry’s “claim” that genetically modified foods are safe will be ”shattered” in this book. In addition, it claims that nearly forty health risks regarding the foods that Americans eat every day will be presented in the book with fully referenced text, describing both research studies and theoretical risks.

The new Jeffrey Smith book says it will also explore why children are most at risk when eating genetically modified foods, which is a completely unfounded assumption. In fact, according to countless studies and reports, natural and organic foods cause more allergic food reactions in people, especially small children, killing hundreds each year. Genetically modified foods can greatly reduce this risk. Even the American Medical Association stated in a 1999 report that people are eating genetically modified foods with no overt adverse effects on human health and there are no known cases of allergic reactions caused by marketed foods derived from GM plants.

The book also plans to discuss how people can avoid GM foods, the false claims by biotech advocates, how industry research is “rigged” to avoid finding problems, why GM crops are not needed to feed the world, and the economic losses associated with these crops. Once again, the dubious claims made by Jeffrey Smith are without merit. For example, there haven’t been any false claims made by biotech activists. Instead, these claims have been made solely by environmental groups and activists whose main goal is to constantly express their message that food must be “natural,” thus instilling a fear in the hearts of the average citizen about genetically modified foods. Also, many organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations have stated for years that genetically modified foods are needed to meet food demands in developing nations. In addition, several states and nations would be in economic ruin if it wasn’t for biotechnology, including Hawaii, which almost lost its thriving papaya industry to a devastating virus in the late 1990s without the development of a genetically modified papaya that was resistant to the virus. Today, many of these nations and states have thriving economies because of biotech developments.

Several findings are also expected to be presented in this new book, including the belief that soy allergies skyrocketed in the United Kingdom after GM soy was introduced, and that genes from GM crops transfer to human gut bacteria, which might transform our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.

As I stated before, there hasn’t been any evidence showing that genetically modified foods cause allergies. According to several reports, people consume soybean oil more than any other part of the food. Since oil is protein and DNA-free, oil from natural and genetically modified soybeans is identical and therefore, there would be no biological basis for attributing an increase in allergies to the oil. In addition, the human body already has resistance genes in the gut in large quantities. In contrast, genetically modified versions of these genes can restrict or limit, so essentially, genetically modified versions represent only a few harmless drops compared to the natural amount that already exists in our bodies.

Despite the doubtful claims against genetically modified foods that Jeffrey Smith makes in this upcoming book, biotech activists, companies, scientists, and researchers will continue their efforts in developing genetically modified foods and promoting the benefits that GM crops can offer to the public. It will be interesting to see the different responses the book could bring from parties on both sides of the issue when Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods is released in August 2006.

Posted by AC Baumer at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)