Genetically engineered crops

[doctorb]

My daughter has a debate coming up, and the topic is genetic engineering of our food source.  She has to defend it, and, as a young idealistic lady, has a preconcetption that "messing" with nature is always bad.  Therefore she is not pleased with the "side" of the argument assigned to her.

While we discussed it at lenght over dinner, I am hoping that some of the learned people of the FF could help me/her out with their points of view on the subject.  I think that the general public 1) doesn't like the idea of genetic engineering much and 2) doesn't have a clue what they are talking about regarding this topic.  Your thoughts, especially those farmers/agriculturalists/naturalists amongst us.  Trees count too!

[Kansas]

They have been genetically engineering crops for centuries. They just had to work with nature a little more.

The key points for her to make is.. there are a lot of people that need fed. That genetically modified crops can use a whole lot less herbicide and insecticide, than non, and are safer for the enviroment, done properly. They can genetically alter rice I believe, to provide some key nutrients for people in poor and developing countries. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the BT corn simply has a gene that mimics a natural insecticide. There can be a whole lot more damage done by non genetically modified crops. Think shattercane, johnson grass, serica lespedesia that got introduced and all turned out to be disasters. In short, you allow advances in genetics, either through breeding or through modifying genes, or people starve. Modifying genes simply takes a bit of a shortcut.

[bull]

Cross pollination is genetic modification, if it hadn't been done for I don't know how long we would not have the varieties we have today.... science is ever evolving no different than man has evolved.... Time for the schools to start teaching true science and reality !! Improvements are part of lifes cycle, we are constantly trying to improve, this has taken place since the begging of mankind...

[Gary_C]

Let me point out one example of genetic engineering that was a very controversial topic some time ago but has for the most part gone away as a problem. Bovine growth hormone or Bovine Somatropin (BST) or rBST or rBGH. All are names or abreviations associated with the recombinant bovine growth hormone product that Monsanto developed and I believe still sells to dairy farmers to increase milk production in cows.

As you probably know growth hormones are a protein type hormone and like insulin are only effective if injected. If a growth hormone is eaten, it is nothing more than a small bit of protein that the stomach digests and the residue comes out the other end. And extensive research back in the 1930's I believe, found that growth hormones are indeed not effective at all when digested and are species specific, ie human growth hormones are only effective on humans and bovine growth hormones are for only bovines.

So now when Monsanto came out with this synthetic BGH that was produced by genetic engineering, there was a huge outcry. And the opponents got some doctor or doctors from that  group "PCRM" to say that it would be harmful to humans. But some of the real facts are that all milk contains trace amounts of natural BGH and a protein hormone is not in any way going to be a hazard when it's ingested.

And the reason that the product that Monsanto was selling was genetically engineered is because no one wants to gather the brains of dead cows and extract the remaining BGH. So it can only be produced by synthetic means and yes, there is a very slight difference in the genetic engineered product. But knowing all the above, how can that one tiny difference be a problem?

When I was still in the dairy business, we injected rBGH or BST for a short time. We found that it did increase milk production but were doubtful that it would pay in the long run. With the work involved and the high cost of the product, we felt in the long run it would be a wash to continue using it. And the reason for that is body condition of your cows would deterioriate when they go into a negative energy balance during lactation. And artifically increasing milk production would only further deplete the body condition of your cows. And it would be hard to recover that body condition as you already push a complete balanced ration into those cows all the time. So I felt in the end that Monsanto would be the only beneficiary of BST. So we stopped using it for economic reasons. We did not in any feel it would harm the consumers in any way.

[Cedarman]

Good and bad is a term only relative to humans.  We assign those adjectives based on human feelings.  A gun is neither good nor bad.  The purposes for which it is used is good or bad depending on how people decide.
Changes to nature done by humans falls in the same category.  Nature doesn't care, it simply adapts to those changes and the future is based on the outcome.  A genetic change can only be considered an improvent from a human point of view.  The consequences of these changes are only good or bad depending on the expected outcomes that humans feel benefits them.
Nature doesn't give a squat.  Think Mt St Helens and hurrican Katrina on a small scale, think supernova on a big scale.
Nature goes on doing its thing based on chemical and physical laws established at the time of the big bang.
Debating genetic engineering based on whether it is good or bad for humans short term or long term is a whole different story. 
Short term clear cutting the trees on Eastern Island was good for the folks that settled there.  Long term it pretty well destroyed their society.
But Eastern Island is now different, but still doing its own thing.
To me that is the importance of the debate.

[Gary_C]

Food safety is a very emotional topic. Genetic engineering of crops has become a term that arouses very emotional responses when the facts should be more important than emotion. But many times the science is ignored or not talked about enough to effect the debate.

Another subject would be Roundup. This Monsanto product is actually nothing more than a salt. If a person ate a handful of regular salt they would get very sick. And the same thing would happen if you ate an equal quantity of Roundup. You would get equally sick, but probably not die. Bottom line is that Roundup is no more toxic than table salt.

But after Monsanto has genetically engineered crops like corn and soybeans so they do not die when roundup is applied as a contact herbicide, somehow the crops produced are toxic to humans? That's a purely emotional response and not factual.

So doctorb, surely the daughter of a scientifically trained person like you can thwart these emotional responses with facts and win this debate.  :D :D :D

[doctorb]

Stop calling me Shirley! 8)

[Gary_C]

Too much pressure?   

Ya, those daughters can be difficult to deal with at times.  :D :D :D

[Norm]

Unfortunately so many opinions on this subject are given with no idea of what they are talking about. They take talking points from those that oppose anything to do with modern agriculture and treat it as the truth. The vast majority of them have never been to a modern farming operation let alone read anything that is not lopsided in it's matter.

It's well known that there are no safety issues with consuming GMO crops. Even the Euros who have tried to restrict it under the safety guise have lost in the WTO courts on that point. Of course they ignore that we use a fraction of the really lethal chemicals now that GMO crops have come into widespread use. Then of course there's the huge increase in efficiency that allows us to feed an ever growing population. Organic crops will never be more than a niche and if we adopted them in large scale use billions will starve to death. Which is better, limit a method that has no proven safety risk or pick who gets to eat and who doesn't.

Golden rice is a perfect example of this mind set. Many subsistence farming countries in Africa will not allow it's importation even though it would vastly limit the problems with consuming rice as a primary food stock. Many suffer because of this short sightedness.

[Roxie]

I plant Brandywine Heirloom tomato's because I love the taste.  Four or five fruits per plant is considered an excellent yield.  I gave one of my heirloom plants to a horticulturist, and his produced one tomato.  That is not an uncommon result. 

Right next to them are my Mountain Fresh and Big Boys and I can feed the entire neighborhood from just two plants.  The difference in yield per plant (with exactly the same conditions and fertilization) is for one heirloom fruit I get 2 or 3 dozen from the genetically engineered seeds.  The flavor is very good and they are consistent in size and quality. 

[Patty]

Hey Doc, tell your daughter to look up the biography of Norman Borlaug. This man saved countless lives throughout the world introducing them to modified grains. He is truly a hero in every sense of the word.

[caveman]

Dr. Rob, I was going to offer my opinions based on information that I have read of have been told by others but you have already received good information from the learned among us.  Congratulate your daughter for me for participating in a debate.  I spend a good portion of my life trying to encourage young people to become involved in meaningful activities.  If the world's population increases as predicted, today's young people have their work cut out for them using genetically modified organisms (GMO's), fertilizers, and innovative agricultural techniques to ensure a safe and abundant food supply.  Caveman

[WDH]

The interesting thing to me is that we have this knowledge and capability now, and we cannot just go bury our head in the sand.  That is not how progress works.  We have to find beneficial ways to use it.  You can't unknow something once you know it.  We have to move forward.  This is not the Dark Ages.  There have been other notable break throughs that forever changed the world and society, and there will be others.  This may very well be one.

[Gary_C]

Genetically engineered crops may already be the one thing preventing part of the population of this earth starving. Certainly hybrid seed as in the Borlag work in wheat and others in corn has prevented starvation of part of the world's population and no doubt genetically engineered seed is the latest development. It has allowed the pipeline to be filled with corn going to ethanol plants without any shortage of supply of corn for animal feed. It hasn't been that many years ago that farmers were lucky to average 75 bushels per acre of corn and now they are dissapointed if they don't get 200 bushels per acre.

It's easy to forecast that at some time in the future we will have converted too much land to other uses and would not be able to continue suficient food production to feed everyone. And genetically engineered crops may very well be the only thing that stands between the hungry population and starvation.

And the knowledge we now have in this genetic engineering may be the thing that saves the world if some natural disaster occurs that interrupts food production in the future. Something like a volcanic eruption that fills the upper atmosphere with a dust cloud that blocks out the sun for a year or more. Plus we may have to genetically engineer enzymes to convert biomass to fuel if we use up all the energy we have underground.

There is no end to the potential needs for genetic engineering.

[SwampDonkey]

I see another side, and that is someone else controls the seed since they have a patent on it. That means if you want to grow this I get the royalties. How many years or seasons of selling seed does it take to pay for the research? The processor here tried to do it with their contracted producers and it failed because 1) it would put the seed growers out of business 2) give control to the processor 3) the public would not buy their product. Part number 3 was based on a lot of propaganda mind you, but it took the wind out of the sails of the processor.

That control is what I don't like about the whole stinking business. Monsanto has sued farmers because their GMO pollen landed in their field and the seed was planted next season with the new genes. Then Monsanto, tested the seed and asserted their clout and patent claims. Them coming on my land and "stealing" seed to test is trespass to begin with. It's all well and good if your subservient to these outfits, but when nature intervenes and blows the pollen on your seed crops then life isn't so good.

[thecfarm]

We have tried to sell brandywine tomatoes at our greenhouse and veggie stand. Most people want the nine looking orange round pretty tomato. Yes,I try to educate them on taste,but looks matters to some.

[Roxie]

Yes, the appearance of the Brandywine Heirloom is not for the faint of heart.   :D

[Dan_Shade]

I consider genetic engineering different than hybridizations.

Genetic engineering mixes up genes that would never happen naturally.  An unintended consequence could be to trigger allergies through the population.  I read an article once discussing this possibility when genitically modifying corn.

[Kansas]

Depends on the genetic modification. Take Roundup ready corn. If you took thousands and thousands of acres of non genetically modified corn, sprayed it with roundup, I imagine sooner or later you would find a corn plant that was not affected by it. It stands to reason simply because there are weeds that have resistance to it. Certain strains of crops have natural resistance to a variety of diseases. Inserting a gene just shortens the time to achieve your objective. I will say, however, that they need to be careful because its hard to tell one kernel of grain from another. If I remember right, there was some incident some years back about a GM variety of corn that got mixed up that was only supposed to go for livestock. While I don't think it would have been harmful for humans, it makes for really bad publicity. We don't need that.

[Faron]

One other benefit of GMOs is in the area of soil conservation.  The systems we have developed in the last few years enable extensive use of no till. We save tons of soil and untold gallons of fuel in this way.  As late as the early 1990's many chemicals required tillage to enhance their effectiveness. 

It is important farmers understand how to properly use GMO's lest they lose their effectiveness and become useless.  Roundup resistant weeds are an example.  Proper placement and acreage  of refuge corn is another.

Opponents of GMO's and farm chemicals in general love to portray the industry as indiscriminatly pouring poison across the landscape.  Anyone who pays the bills for a season's crops knows better than that.  The stuff is expensive.  You have to use enough to do the job, and that is all. 

[Gary_C]

So how did the debate go doctorb?

Haven't been online much lately and had to look a long way back to find this thread and bring it back up. Did we help any or is the young lady still not on the genetic engineering band wagon?

I'm not even sure of what is the definition of "genetically engineered crops."

[doctorb]

Gary_C

Thanks for asking.  The debate was a week or more after the opinions were brought forth here, and I shared each and every one of them with her.  Gave her an interesting perspective for both sides of the argument.  Oh, her team won the debate, and she was one of the presenters and did the rebuttle.  I can't say that I witnessed it, but she was DanG pleased.  She was accepted early decision to Kenyon, so she's on easy street for the remainder of her senior year.

[chain]

Good to hear about your daughter's big win....but wish she had been on the 'Rachel Carson' side of things.

I'm a life long farmer, I've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of both sides. Presently, in this area our backs are to the wall as we are running out of herbicide products that will control some major resistant weeds. I'm not arguing fooduse here but side effects from products used to enhance GM seeds.

LibertyLink is a trait that enables a relatively new herbicide, common name "IGNITE" to spray directly on the crop to control many weeds and most resistant varieties. But as a 'steward' of our soil, water, air, wildlife and domestics' I will have to decide, quite likely, to throw chance to the wind, make a crop and hopfully not hurt too many living things. The above mentioned product has lable warnings, a. twevle hour wait after applying before canines may enter a treated field[it will kill dogs] b. Absolutely no green forage from treated plants shall be fed to livestock. [OK, but what about deer, rabbits and other birds and animals?]

This is but one example of side effects from usuages. There are many other factors and issues to be argued, only time will tell...an anecdote...wondering why ducks & geese, and crows and blackbirds don't glean out waste grain from genetically modified corn fields anymore...they know frankenstine food when they see it!

[BaldBob]

There are many other factors and issues to be argued, only time will tell...an anecdote...wondering why ducks & geese, and crows and blackbirds don't glean out waste grain from genetically modified corn fields anymore...they know frankenstine food when they see it!

If that is in fact happening, we should be seeing published studies documenting that in the near future. I'm sure that people on both sides of the issue will be studying that and also any possible effects on wild herbivores.

[Mooseherder]

I missed this thread somehow.  We get to answer these types of questions at work.  I asked our category manager for some insight about GMOs last week because we had a customer asking specifics about our products and even though it's been answered before I wanted to make sure I didn't answer with dated or wrong information.
Part of What he stated in his reply is 90% of Corn production is now GMO.
That and there was 93 million acres of corn planted in 2011.