The real problem is the patent system which puts these modified seeds in the hands of mega-corporations instead of individual farmers.

Looking forward to reading the Science article. Hope it answers my concerns.

The scientists who authored the Science article make several scientifically indefensible points. The most egregious, often repeated by Nina Federoff, Pam Ronald, and others is that because there is “no evidence” of–as they often put–even a cough or a sniffle after 13 years of consumption of GE foods in the U.S., these crops are safe.

But, as the National Research Council pointed out in a 2002 report scolding USDA, the lack of evidence is not evidence of the lack of harm. One has to look before harm can be detected. This is especially true for foods, where it is extremely difficult to determine whether a food is causing harm, especially chronic harm, unless careful epidemiological studies have been done. This is especially true for long-term effects. There have been no such studies for GE foods. So to say that there has been no harm from GE crops is absolutley unsupportable scientifically, and the scientists that continue to make this claim are either ignorant of the standards of epidemiological evidence….or what?

We are left with the minimal lab testing that is currently done on GE crops. For example, in the U.S. the most that is required–for some of the crops–is single dose acute toxicity testing. One big dose with monitoring for only 28 days. In Europe 90 days (subchronic testing) is often required. But there is no long term testing, no carcinogenicity testing, no teratogencity testing, and so on.

Tellingly, the authors of the Science article want to reduce the already minimal testing requirements! This is because they believe that the technology inherently poses little risk. The potential for risk, though, has been affirmed by several studies of the National Academies of Science, the British Royal Academy of Sciences, etc.

The authors don’t address monopoly control over our food supply, or the patent issue, in a meaningful way–maybe because at least three of the authors are from biotech companies including Monsanto and DuPont. This just goes to show that the public sector scientists that co-authored this article are in bed with the industry. These scientists are simply a front for monopoly control of this technology in the guise of public sector scientists being able to produce GE crops. Federoff and Beachy in particular are in positions in the Obama Administration, where they will try to weaken the already weak laws governing GE crops.

Doug is spot on. The underlying, and baseless, assumption in these types of discussions is that we can create, through genetic engineering, new crops with advantageous attributes and maintain the same level of safety, yields, and nutritional value. Where does this fantasy come from, other than simply wishful thinking? As Doug points out, there is no convincing test data to support this opinion, since thorough testing hasn’t been done. And a growing body of test data does exist which strongly suggests otherwise. With this kind of illogic, you can pose any sort of fantastic premise – GMOs will SAVE THE WORLD! WE CAN’T SURVIVE WITHOUT GMOs! The reality may be that GMOs will save the world – by eliminating humans from the equation.

Global warming is big challenge for all the word, there is best ideas has been quoted for us. Thanks

Also in addition to the very legitimate safety concerns, the GMO industry has not even been able to establish that they can reliably increase crop yields.

A study released in 2009 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (entitled ‘Failure to Yield’) found that since the inception of genetically modified crops, no significant increases in crop yields can be attributed to them.

The study is a compilation of published and peer-reviewed studies done since the mid 1990s. They looked at crop production and how GMO, environment, and other factors affected yields. According to UCS, overall these studies have shown that the yield increases often attributed to genetic modifications are often not because of the GMs at all, but due to other factors.

Overall the conclusion was that the substantial increases in crop yields over the past 15 years have mostly been due to traditional breeding and improvements in agricultural practices.

So from this perspective also, if we are expecting to face a great need to enhance our crop yields, we are better off emphasizing the traditional approaches which have been shown to work in the past.

Doug said, “Tellingly, the authors of the Science article want to reduce the already minimal testing requirements! This is because they believe that the technology inherently poses little risk. The potential for risk, though, has been affirmed by several studies of the National Academies of Science, the British Royal Academy of Sciences, etc.” What are the risks? I’d like to find out more. I understand the patent issue as well as the biased suggestions made by authors employed by big Ag, but what specifically are the risks from consuming GM foods? What did the NAS and British Royal Academy of Sciences learn that the general public should know? Thanks.

I feel that we need to include with every argument, however, an action that can be executed to fight against these monsters that OWN our food supply. After all, the reason they are monsters is because they have the money to demolish- by advertising and lawsuits- the organic farming industry. Everyone can immediately CONTROL WHERE YOUR DOLLAR IS SPENT. Be part of the SOLUTION by:

Buy ORGANIC whenever possible (especially wheat, corn, soy products)
Eat at home or support ONLY conscientious fast food (ex: Chipotle).
Grow your own garden, even if only tomatoes in a patio pot.
Shop at your local farmers market as frequently as possible.

Remember, every singular thread in the fabric counts.