Image: Chicken Farmers of Canada, courtesy Flickr
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Agricultural innovation has long sustained the world's masses with an abundance of low-cost food, thanks to the success of the mid-20th century's Green Revolution, which brought industrialization and high-yield grains to India, Mexico and many other developing countries.
A prosperous global population however, has blazed the way for burgeoning new mouths to feed that, by 2050, will nearly double food demand. At the same time, farmers face unprecedented challenges of climate change, high oil prices driving demand for biofuels, and rising costs of land and water.
The 2008 surge in food prices portended ominous and volatile times ahead. Just recently the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations warned of more food supply shocks in 2011.
While on his Asia tour in November, President Obama announced that the U.S. and India would create a partnership to "spark a second, more sustainable 'Evergreen Revolution'"—a sequel to the Green Revolution, an endeavor advanced previously by Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug.
This intention to improve global agricultural productivity and extend food security to Africa is welcomed by former U.S. Department of Agriculture Chief Scientist and Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics Gale A. Buchanan. And if the president's plan is to have any "real, revolutionary" impact, he said, then it must capitalize on the value of genetically modified (GM) crops. In a November 11 keynote address at Sigma Xi's "Food Safety and Security: Science and Policy" symposium, Buchanan charted out several examples of how GM crops could improve agricultural productivity.
Advocates argue that GM crops could also play an indispensable role in addressing the world's most serious agricultural challenges like climate change.
"The world has got to accept genetically modified plants because not to is to fail to acknowledge one of the most important discoveries of the 21st century," Buchanan said.
Critics argue otherwise. Some environmental activists raise concerns about displacement of biodiversity, jeopardizing native plants through cross-pollination or effects on wildlife. The Organic Consumers Association is concerned about health risks and commodity price manipulation by corporate giants such as Monsanto. According to a position statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists, GM foods may pose harm to human health or the environment. The organization calls for thorough risk assessment before introductions of all biotechnology products. Others cite the lack of long-term data on these and other possible impacts.
David Tribe of the University of Melbourne disagrees. The food scientist and safety expert is co-creator of Academics Review, a Web site that seeks to clear confusion about GM food safety by responding to unsubstantiated anti-GM claims. "Technological innovation is being straitjacketed by excessive and scientifically unjustified precaution. By delaying our ability to respond in time to climate change, it's doing more harm than good," he says.
Yet, the disagreement goes beyond questions about GM crop's safety—they are really not what poor farmers in developing countries need. In Africa, for example, the tried-and-true technologies of the Green Revolution are still lacking, along with access to good roads and fertilizer.
See what we're tweeting about
33 Comments
Add CommentNow it appears that the increasingly prevalent nightmare of a disease called “Morgellon’s Disease” may be a result of GM crops and food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMorgellon’s Disease was first described when a woman’s 3 year old son developed rashes and intensely itchy sores which produced weird multicolor fibers emerging from his skin. She put up a website about the condition in 2001 and named it “Morgellons Disease” after a 17th century report of a similar affliction.
As it always does, the allopathic community of Western, drug-oriented physicians labeled sufferers as delusional. As a physician, I have a great deal of difficulty explaining how a delusion can produce colored fibers which protrude from the skin and continue to grow in a petri dish. Be that as it may, the multicolored fibers produced by the “delusion” have been analyzed and we now know that Morgellon’s Disease is no longer rare, nor is it mysterious any longer. A study of the fibers shows that they contain DNA from both a fungus and a bacterium which are used in the commercial preparation of genetically modified foods and non-food crops (such as cotton). The fibers themselves are primarily cellulose, which the human body cannot breakdown or manufacture.
I agree that GM crops offer a great deal but food security cannot be trusted to companies like Monsanto. The crops need to be open source. Monsanto is not interested in food security or enabling communities to feed themselves. They are interested in profits and creating a dependence on their technology is good business sense. Because Monsanto also creates pesticides (*cides) and fertilizers, it would be like having the tobacco companies also owning the medical industry. Every nation should ban crops that are not open source if they care about their future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBubba, Morgellon's Disease appears to be a case of delusional parasitosis, which seems to be spread by the internet. There may be an actual skin condition that causes the delusion such as dermatitis or scabies but nothing at this point suggests a unique pathology. The fibers you are talking about can be seen in both health and diseased tissue and samples that people have brought in to clinics have been shown to be from textiles. Please provide a link to the study you mentioned that shows that the fibers contain fungus and bacteria DNA, otherwise I would suggest that you are nothing more than a vector of Morgellon's Disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Robert,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Bubba, Morgellon's Disease appears to be a case of delusional parasitosis, which seems to be spread by the internet."
LOL!
Why can't they engineer food plants that will use extra CO2?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBigger plants = more food + less atmospheric CO2
Oh my God, cellulose, bacteria and fungi should be banned and erradicated from the planet so no one ever has an allergic reaction........(the reaction of a hand wringing luddite
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A prosperous global population however, has blazed the way for burgeoning new mouths to feed that, by 2050, will nearly double food demand. At the same time, farmers face unprecedented challenges of climate change, high oil prices driving demand for biofuels, and rising costs of land and water."
I wholeheartedly agree with the concern being expressed here, but please! By 2050 the demand for food will double? Since when - now?
The fundamental issue placing the world's food production at risk of failure is the increasing population. Don't worry, the demand for food will be modulated by food prices, as always. Those that cannot pay the price will suffer the consequences. Continuing to allow the world's population to increase unchecked is irresponsible and exceedingly dangerous.
A previously unknown GM based disease will check the burgeoning population at some point in the future. Fortunately, I won't live to see it, but you might.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMartians could help by coming to Earth and waving magic wands, but that would be about as unrealistic as the suggestions in this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGM organisms are about Monsanto profits from selling chemicals and little else. Long range studies have not shown the claimed increases in production and super weeds are emerging that are immune to Roundup and are very difficult to control.
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=599
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislets modify crops so the the earth can feed double the population by 2050 and then what? modify them again so we can feed quadruple by 2070...why not find another solution and just leave mother nature alone, its worked for a billion years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=599
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Bubba, please quote in the next comment. This is the scientist that did the genetic study. You'll note that he does not make the claims that you have made. He states quite clearly, "This observation does not imply that Agrobacterium causes Morgellons or that Morgellons is indeed an infectious disease." Also note that Agrobacterium is found everywhere and is not itself a sign of GM crops. It is used by the GM industry because of its ability to inject DNA into cells but that does not imply that the Agrobacterium (traces) in these cases were of GM origin. In these cases self inflicted lesions were detected so the bacteria could have been introduced that way (fingernails can be very dirty places). Furthermore, the common cause of Agrobacterial infections in people is caused by medical equipment such as catheters and intravenous appliances which a number of the patients had been exposed to. Finally a study of the fibres indicates they are polysaccharides. Cotton, paper, tissue are also polysaccharides. I wonder if the patients were exposed to those?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYours is a standard tactic of Hysterical Luddites, drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from the tiniest bit of evidence in order to advance a particular world-view. It is classic confirmation bias.
I would like to clarify the involvement of my research group in the Morgellons studies. We are biochemists and cell and molecular biologists who study fundamental and diverse biological processes, such as genetic transformation, intercellular transport, and chromatin remodeling, using plants as experimental systems. Because one of our model organisms, Agrobacterium, is capable of genetically transforming not only plants, but also other eukaryotic species, including human cells, we were contacted by Dr. Stricker and MRF to investigate potential presence of Agrobacterium in biopsies from Morgellons patients. A limited number of anonymous samples provided by Dr. Stricker were tested by PCR for the presence of different families of Agrobacterium genes. Control reactions included samples from healthy donors provided by us. Only Morgellons, but not healthy subjects tested positive in these studies. This observation does not imply that Agrobacterium causes Morgellons or that Morgellons is indeed an infectious disease. However, it does encourage future studies to determine (i) statistical significance of our data, (ii) whether or not Agrobacterium is not only present extracellularly, but also causes genetic transformation of the infected tissues, and (iii) whether or not infection of laboratory animals with Agrobacterium can recreate at least some symptoms of Morgellons. These are the immediate goals which may or may not be pursued, depending on the available research funding which is currently non-existent for Morgellons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVitaly Citovsky, Ph.D.
Professor of Biochemistry and Cell Biology
"C3 process, which uses carbon dioxide and fixes three-carbon compounds in a photosynthetic cycle, but a few have evolved the more efficient C4 variety, developing a competitive edge by fixing four carbons per cycle."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow did this erroneous statement get through the editorial process of a publication which calls itself scientific? It's understandable when Pollan just makes up the science as he goes along, but you'd expect somebody with some knowledge of plant biochemistry might have been asked to take a quick look at the article before publishing such abject tripe.
For the benefit of the rest of us, would you mind explaining what is wrong with the statement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShort answer - everything
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLonger answer -
C4 does not fix 4 carbons per ‘cycle’ compared to 3. C4 avoids wasteful photorespiration by concentrating CO2 around RuBisCO rather than fixing CO2 directly – one carbon is fixed per cycle (although it is fixed twice in a C4 plant – a 3 C molecule (PEP) is carboxylated in the mesophyll to produce a 4 C molecule (malate generally, via oxaloacetate ) which is then transported to the bundle sheath where it is decarboxylated to form pyruvate + CO2 – the pyruvate (3C) then shunts back to the mesophyll where it is phosphorylated back to PEP to complete the cycle. The CO2 is assimilated by RuBisCO in exactly the same manner as in a C3 plant - but under a different O2:CO2 ratio which favors CO2 assimilation by RuBiSCO rather than O2. (its not like you have to even crack open a biochem text book or step into the arcane world of biochemists to access this information - wikipedia does the trick)
wow - copy and paste inserted all kinds of bizarre symbols in there
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this!! = -
Up arrow and weird t looking thing are scare quotes.
From what I understand c3 plants produce phosphoglycerat which contains 3 carbons and c4 plants produce oxalacetic acid which has 4 carbons. Is your issue that this doesn't happen in one cycle or that it has less to do with fixing and more to do with efficiency? Sciam articles are dummed down for the general public which certainly can result in some less than technically accurate summaries. Do you believe this summary is materially incorrect to the extent that conclusions of the article are flawed? Are C4 plants not more efficient at capturing C than C3 planets and therefore more cost effective from the perspective agriculture?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy issue is that this isnt a dumbing down but completely inventing (or if I'm remembering my Pollan right simply taking the idea from a horrible source - I'm sure he made the same ridiculous statement in the opening of Omnivore's Dilemma) facts which aren't remotely accurate - have a bit of faith that readers who are allegedly interested in science will be able to understand pretty simple science (the Calvin cycle is covered briefly in high school biology (at least in the UK) and then in more depth in freshman year biology, so it ain't that hard - if to dumb it down you have to make it up I'd suggest just skipping any explanation at all - I'm sure interested readers can go to wikipedia and see what the furor is about without blatant misinformation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisC3 plants directly stick carbon into the calvin cycle via production of phosphoglycerate (which has 3Cs, hence C3) C4 plants first stick the CO2 onto PEP to form oxaloacetate (4Cs... hence C4) which is converted to malate (generally)(4Cs) and moved to specialized cells where it is converted into pyruvate and CO2 - the CO2 is then stuck into the calvin cycle via production of phospoglycerate (ie via the same route as C3 plants - there's just additional steps and additional anatomy to deal with)
The reason this is more effective has nothing to do with no. of carbons fixed per cycle (which is, unsurprisingly, exactly the same (1)) but with the concentration of CO2 around RuBisCO (probably the most abundant enzyme on earth, so worth knowing about) which reduces the likelihood that RuBisCO will grab an errant O2 rather than a CO2 wasting water and a bit of energy as the plant recycles components through various cellular organelles.
Do I believe this makes the conclusions of the article incorrect? I'm not sure the article really has any conclusions, just a lot of waffle about what could possibly be done, a brief look with no substance - and it irks me that the science they do portray is totally and utterly wrong, so wrong in fact that it ceases to be wrong and becomes just meaningless.
1. Petrochemical oil is NOT of biological origin, but is a combination of the primordial methane, plus water, under extreme pressure and temperature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Since 2001, Monsanto has been aware of the major problem caused by GM cross-pollination into wild plants. Simply, farmers can no longer control weeds by spraying with roundup, so are forced to use even nastier chemicals, none of which have been tested for human side-effects.
3. GM crops are in the process of destroying bio-diversity, which has long-term implications for the capacity of plants to mutate naturally. For example, not long ago, there were over 4,000 varieties of rice grown. How many now?
4. To the best of my knowledge, the yield from GM crops is rapidly diminishing. They need high levels of artificial fertiliser, which is simply not available in most parts of the world.
5. Patented plants are, by their very nature, unnatural, and their health risks are, as yet, undetermined. Hearsay evidence is that they diminish mammalian fertility, and, in some recorded instances, lead to sterility at around generation 3 or 4. However, it would most certainly lead to a major reduction in the human population.
6. I seem to recall that Malthus made similar dire predictions in the 18th century. We have not yet starved to death.
ZebulonJoe: can you provided sources so I can educate myself regarding your points #2-5.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs this post deals with specific claims about Monsanto rather than simple science here's my stock disclaimer on the matter - I'm a Monsanto employee (a research associate in biotech) and the views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect those of Monsanto (same applies to any subsequent posts)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 - what major problem and why 2001 specifically? Roundup is still a viable control method for weeds across most of the US (afaik somewhere in the region of 10 species of weeds are now resistant to roundup) and proper management of herbicide use can help to combat the emergence of resistant weeds. Farmers may end up using "nastier" herbicides but the claim these are either new, or haven't been assessed for human health is completely erroneous - farmers can't spray unregistered herbicides on their crops, herbicides cant be registered without a risk assessment.
3. How exactly are GM crops destroying biodiversity any mroe or less than conventional crops would? You cite rice as a species which has suffered which seems rather odd to me - as far as I am aware there are no commercially available GM rice varieties available - doesn't this rather undermine your assertion that GM crops are destroying biodiversity? Equally you ignore the fact that there is no reason GM per-se would decrease biodiversity in any given crop - there isn't a single variety of RR corn, or Bt corn - GM traits are bred into conventional lines (which go on existing sans GM - so if anything you've increased diversity)
4. Apparently the best of your knowledge is completely wrong - even the UCS who are ardently anti-GMO concluded that GM crops yield at or slightly above the level of non-GM in their report "failure to yield" which is more a critique of the level of increase rather than an actual decrease in yield (and which only focuses on the US - there are marked yield increases in developing nations when GM crops are adopted) - your claim that GM crops need high levels of fertilizer is also erroneous - elite hybrids generally need high levels of fertilizer to attain maximal yields, and GM traits generally end up in elite germplasm first - it would be entirely possible to put traits into lower yielding varieties and not impact fertilizer requirements at all (Bt cotton in India shows this pretty well - hybrid vs op varieties show increased fertilizer useage, GM vs non-GM hybrids show no difference (why would they? There's no plausible reason)
continued....
5. So the patenting process is what makes them unnatural? Will Roundup ready soy become natural when the patent drops (in the next few years)? Interesting. The health risks are better categorized for GM crops than for any other crop on the planet - hearsay evidence is one thing (totally unreliable and with no place in a debate on science) whereas the vast bulk of the scientific literature supports the notion that GM crops pose no greater risk than their non GM counterparts - claims of leading to sterility are clearly nonsensical - GM crops have been around for over a decade now, and the major source of soy for most of this period due to heavy adoption - I get a feeling lab researchers across the US would have noticed if their standard lab rat lines had suddenly become infertile 3 generations following the sudden surge of GM soy products into their feed - oddly nobody has reported anything of the sort despite a decade being considerably longer than 3 generations of lab rat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this6. So long as you ignore the countless thousands who... have starved to death, and the driving reason that we haven't starved to death being technological advancements in crop production.
These are just some of the references (below). Yes, they mostly come from writers who have biasses, but don't we all?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question about rice is monopoly by the seed merchants. They have promised better yields from limited strains, but, like most seeds, they have special nutrient needs that are not met in the local environment. Without those added, expensive nutrients, yields fall far below the older varieties, i.e, leading to starvation.
I live in New Zealand, where dry land rice does very well. However, it is short grain rice, so had poor market acceptance.
MONSANTO'S MUTATED WORLD AND THE FDA'S HUMAN EXPERIMENT
By Byron J. Richards, CCN
October 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
GM crops cause liver and kidney damage
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 by: E. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews)
This Supermarket "Health Food" Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 04 2010
By Jeffrey Smith
SUPERMARKET NEWS FORECASTS NON-GMO UPRISING
By Jeffrey Smith
January 17, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
GMO soy bringing poverty, poor health to South America
Sunday, November 14, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews)
Note 23(4). Hybridisation and GM are totally different. Hybridisation uses natural processes, and leads to different, but natural plants. While many hybrids are not fertile, and often, but not always, lead to plants with different susceptibilites to diseases, they can also bring some benefits in particular circumstances or environments. GM, on the other hand, completely changes the gene by adding in part of a totally different species. The effects are generally unknown. To the best of my knowledge, no research has been done on the susceptibility of the new organism to diseases or problems common in either or both source species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest problem is this - what else comes across from the implantation source species? Genes have a very high level of interaction. One gene can, and often will, control far more than just a single life factor.
"Without those added, expensive nutrients, yields fall far below the older varieties, i.e, leading to starvation." - Where has this occured? One of the reasons Malthusean predictions failed to come to fruition in the past 50 years is because of the green revolution which introduced new higher yielding (with increased fertilizer input) varieites of rice and wheat - if your illustration was remotely close to the truth of what happens with the introduction of better varieties then either
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) Norman Borlaug, rather than winning a nobel prize and being lauded for saving over a billion lives would be responsible for mass starvation.
b) These varieties would never have taken off - you're hopelessly naive if you think failed varieties make it just because seed dealers want them to - farmers pick that which works for them economically.
The stories you link which appear vaguely scientific are hokum pure and simple (seriously look into Mercola or Smith even a little, they are peddlers of pseudoscientific nonsense - Mercola dangerously so, Smith is just a little nutty but not, afaik, dangerous (just utterly dishonest and utterly unscientific in his approach)
"GM, on the other hand, completely changes the gene by adding in part of a totally different species. The effects are generally unknown. "
I assume by "generally unknown" you mean well studied - you also muddle your language here a little - GM doesnt completely change a gene by adding in "part" of a totally different species - it simply inserts a gene into the genome of an organism - source of gene is unimportant really - a gene is a gene, once removed from its source species it doesn't carry a flavor of this species along with it
"The biggest problem is this - what else comes across from the implantation source species?" This is a pretty nonsensical question assuming some sort of weird imprintation on the gene by the source - all the gene does is encode for a protein - the rest is a none problem - what does the protein do is the only question - if it were a transcription factor or such then perhaps you'd have to be concerned about it turning on suites of genes you didn't intend - but with a well characterized enzyme of crystal protein - there's really no reason to think they'd have massive pleitropic effects and also no reason to think this wouldn't be thoroughly tested before commercialization.
Re: The world has got to accept genetically modified plants because not to is to fail to acknowledge one of the most important discoveries of the 21st century," [former U.S. Department of Agriculture Chief Scientist and Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics Gale A.] Buchanan said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? Are you for real serious? Let's list some of the most important discoveries of the 19/20/21st century that have not been quite so good for life . . . This bizarre wishful thinking that certain scientists have: that technology and cutting edge invention will be positive forces -- has been cruelly inflicted on many less powerful living beings to their great detriment. Just because something was invented, well, perhaps a bit of circumspection, humility, and ceasing to be in awe of the billionaires is in order, former Undersecretary person who funded their university position through GMO industry gifts and grants.
If Obama, with all his knowledge and his wife's food principles wavers down this gilded (for the agri-barrons) path, America will be a greater force for evil nature destruction than we already are.
GMO vs Non-GMO is a non-productive argument. We must start with planning sustainable farming systems that are appropriate for the local environment and social systems. In most of the third world the greatest benefit will come from incorporating covercrops that rebuild soil organic levels and fix atmospheric nitrogen. Human and animal wastes must be added back into the soil. All other systems require the importation of fertilizers none of which are produced sustainably. Increasing nitrogen fixation of crop plants changes their susceptibility to pests and diseases. This then puts the farmer on the slippery slope of using ever increasing amounts of offsite and expensive inputs to control these pests and diseases. While this benefits companies like Monsanto it does not benefit the farmers, and over time will not benefit the consumers. Unfortunately, most research in the United States goes toward developing the expensive high tech options rather than low tech, less expensive or more sustainable options
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving served on the advisory committee for a major land grant university I saw first hand how most university research goes to products and systems that can be easily patented or are directed by corporate donations.
Fortunately there are some non-profits and a few social entrepenuers working with farmers to develop systems that work for their area using local resources. These local efforts use classic plant breeding to improve plants that work in the area.
President Obama should look to these front line organizations for guidance on international agricultural development. Otherwise he is just setting the world up for another suicide epidemic(when fertilizer prices rose and groundwater levels dropped) and environmental degradation we have seen in rural India as a result of the Green Revolution.
Thanks for the resources however these are not references. These citations are nothing buy the usual anxiety ladened tripe pitched by organizations with an agenda. I have sent quite some time digging to find they actual publication of Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini who analyzed the Monsanto data but have been unable to locate it. Even the GM-Free Cymru site fails to list a journal where this was published; refereed or not. I have to conclude this is unpublished and it is in that form for a reason. If you are to make accusations the onus is upon you to provide rigorous, reproducible science to back them up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur current paranoia about food would be laughable to people just 100 years ago. Back then, they understood that starvation will kill you far faster than the potential damage done by a food additive that keeps you from that fate. For all the supposedly toxic chemicals that have been introduced into our food system, we have increased the average lifespan by 20-30 years since 1900. I seriously doubt food chemicals detracted from this.
It is true that genetically modified (GM) food plants may benefit people. Such is the case with Canola oil, which is genetically modified rape seed oil, which is toxic for people. The genetic modification to make Canola oil has benefited people. But the bigger question of GM foods involves the confusion between organizations and scientists who are working to enhance the vitamin and nutrition content of grains, and Monsanto, which has modified soy, corn, and sugar potatoes, not to enhance the vitamin or nutrition content, but simply to make them resistant to glyphosate, a chemical which kills soil bacteria, rendering the soil sterile. Monsanto has never done anything in agriculture except to distribute toxins, and render the soil useless. But Monsanto has money, and it can buy Congressman. Rumor has it that it already owns a few. So, what has to be done is to distinguish between genetically modified foods which enhance nutrition and do not harm the soil, and Monsanto GM, which does nothing to enhance nutrition and harms the soil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenetically modified foods can enhance the benefits of nutrition to people. Canola oil is genetically modified rape seed oil. Rape seed oil has a component harmful to people. By modifying it to make Canola oil, it is a useful oil. And there are other attempts to genetically modify food to enhance its nutrition. Yellow rice is an example. But there is a confusion between organizations and scientists who are genetically modifying foods to enhance nutrition and Monsanto, which also genetically modifies food, but not to enhance nutrition. Rather it sole purpose is to make selected foods (Corn, soy, sugar potatoes) resistant to Round Up, an herbicide containing glyphosate, which kills soil bacteria. So, the distinction must be made between Monsato GM and the GM products which enhance nutrition and do not harm the soil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI detect a lack of understanding what is genetically modified and how it can be done. Maybe this helps:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe views of farmers, scientists, biotechnology critics, federal regulators and the food industry, all caught up in the intensifying debate over genetically modified food. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/interviews/