Article

The GMO/GE Debate

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

We live longer and healthier lives because advances in science create easier and better ways to sustain and survive. Society has an intricate relationship with biotechnology. Vaccines save lives. Fluoridated water decreases dental issues. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections. Nuclear power is a form of clean energy. With any emerging technology, the benefits do not exist in a vacuum, thus, negative consequences result as well. Our widespread uses of antibiotics are creating antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Our research into nuclear energy also facilitated the creation of nuclear bombs. Perhaps it is human nature to use scientific advances for good and for bad. Acknowledging the reality that advances in science lead to both positive and negative consequences, we have to analyze the trade-offs in order to implement sound policy.Food from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) food (collectively “GE”) provides a prime example where advances in biotechnology are available to address a variety of issues in our food supply. GE food is in a major cross-hair in the public debate—although much of the public debate fails to fully acknowledge the contours of issues facing our food supply and the environment, and so it is in a sense a misguided public debate. Disconnect between the public debate and scientific knowledge is not new; unfortunately, many examples exist to highlight the scientific community’s failure to fully educate the public. The GE debate appears to have an added layer of complexity: mass marketing to consumers suggesting that GE food is unsafe, harmful and bad for the planet. These marketing campaigns engage emotion, for example, that consumption of GE food will harm children. These anti-GE marketing campaigns prey on the emotions of the consumers, as many marketing campaigns do. This swelling of the emotional response to GE foods is very difficult to overcome. This Article attempts to provide context and scientific support for discussing the challenges to our food supply. Addressing the issues in our food supply is critical, but the discussion has to be based on facts—and these facts must inform our regulatory policies. To do this, this Article provides an overview of the scientific literature on conventional and GE food, attempts to understand the emotional response to GE food, and provides a frame of focus for regulatory policies.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Once again, there are calls to reopen the debate on genetically modified (GM) crops. I find these calls frustrating and unnecessarily decisive. In my opinion the GM debate, on both sides, continues to hamper the urgent need to address the diverse and pressing challenges of global food security and environmental sustainability. The destructive power of the debate comes from its conflation of unrelated issues, coupled with deeply rooted misconceptions of the nature of agriculture.
Article
Full-text available
Although public opinion is important in deciding what is valued by society, governments have determined that scientific expertise is required to evaluate potential environmental effects of genetically modified (GM) crops. We suggest how to evaluate rigorously the environmental effects of GM crops in the context of a scientific investigation. Following a disciplined scientific approach to environmental risk assessment (ERA) for GM crops should help resolve controversy in identifying and addressing risk.
Article
Nitrogen is essential for all life. But even though nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere, it's in a form that can't be used by living organisms. Instead it's tied up in nitrogen molecules made up of two nitrogen atoms that share a strong triple bond that's not easily broken. A century ago, two German chemists, Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, figured out how to sever those bonds with high pressures and temperatures and weld nitrogen atoms with hydrogens to make ammonia, thereby converting nitrogen into the starting material for a nitrogen-rich fertilizer that can be taken up and used by microbes, plants, and people. That process has been so successful that ammonia-based fertilizers now enable farmers to feed billions more people than our planet could otherwise support. But ammonia production also comes at a high environmental cost, as it is responsible for 2% of worldwide energy use and thus a massive greenhouse gas footprint. However, on page 637 of this issue, U.S. chemists report that they've come up with a way to synthesize ammonia from air, water, and sunlight. If the approach can be scaled up, it could offer a means for making an essential commodity without a major cost to the climate.
Leading Environmental Activist's Blunt Confession: I Was Completely Wrong to Oppose GMOs, SLATE
  • Torie Bosch
Torie Bosch, Leading Environmental Activist's Blunt Confession: I Was Completely Wrong to Oppose GMOs, SLATE (Jan. 3, 2013, 2:27PM), http://www.slate.com/ blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_ad mits_he_was_wrong.html [https://perma.cc/FQG6-8QX6].
Leverage Points for Improving Global Food Security and the Environment, 345 SCI
  • E G See
  • C Paul
  • West
See, e.g., Paul C. West et. al, Leverage Points for Improving Global Food Security and the Environment, 345 SCI. 325, (2014);
supra note 119; see also, Peter Barfoot & Graham Brookes, Key Global Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use
  • Fedoroff
Fedoroff, supra note 119; see also, Peter Barfoot & Graham Brookes, Key Global Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996-2012, 5
  • H Steven
  • Strauss
Steven H. Strauss, et al., 349 SCIENCE 794, 795 (2015).
160. Id. 161. See generally Luisa Bortesi & Rainer Fischer, The CRISPR/Cas9 System for Plant Genome Editing and Beyond
  • Strauss
Strauss, supra note 158 at 794-795 (2015). 160. Id. 161. See generally Luisa Bortesi & Rainer Fischer, The CRISPR/Cas9 System for Plant Genome Editing and Beyond, 33 BIOTECHNOLOGY ADVANCES 41 (2015). 162. Saletan, supra note 25 (discussing "The Papaya Triumph").
  • Yorike Hartman
Yorike Hartman et al., Genomic Regions in Crop-Wild Hybrids of Lettuce Are Affected Differently in Different Environments: Implications for Crop Breeding, 5 EV-OLUTIONARY APPLICATIONS 629, 629 (2012); see also GMO Green Light, 512 NATURE 118, 118 (2014).
  • See Laura Vargas-Parada
  • Gm Maize Splits Mexico
See Laura Vargas-Parada, GM Maize Splits Mexico, 511 NATURE 16, 16 (2014).
calling for increased agriculture research)
  • See Donald Kennedy
See Donald Kennedy, Editorial, Building Agricultural Research, 346 SCI. 13, 13 (2014) (calling for increased agriculture research). Cf. 8 Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture: #7 Suppressing Research, UNION CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, http:// www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/ suppressing-research.html [https://perma.cc/Q9S3-K365] (last revised Jan. 9, 2012) (suggesting that companies need to make their GM seeds available for scientific studies).
at 5; cf. The Cost of Native and GM Cotton Crops, 522
  • See Gurian-Sherman
See Gurian-Sherman, supra note 117, at 5; cf. The Cost of Native and GM Cotton Crops, 522 NATURE 130, 130 (2015) (addressing costs of growing conventional versus GE cotton).