STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH

Duane A.  Lienemann
UNL Extension Educator

     I have been watching with interest the increase of discussion on Facebook, blogs, newspapers and even discussions with people I know about Genetic Modified Organisms (GMO’s) and particularly genetically engineered food. What is frustrating is the fact that the main source of information today, the web, has become a channel for scare mongering about crop bio-technology. This misinformation has created a lot of angst and fear about the food that agriculture produces and that our consumers eat. Agriculture needs to do a better job of getting the real story out on GMO. Let’s explore GMO’s. 
     Search the terms “myths about GM foods” in Google and you will come up with more than 1.6 million entries and thousands of articles with titles like: “Top 7 myths about GM foods and Monsanto,” “GM myths and truth report,” “13 myths about genetic engineering,” and a current favorite, “10 reasons why we don’t need GM foods.” The later, which can be downloaded from a web site called www.gmwatch.org and is ready to pass out at the next Anti-GMO event and can be found on literally hundreds of sites. It’s a compilation of the most egregious (and easily debunked) claims by advocacy groups. Unfortunately anti-biotech campaigners who pass around such ‘hit lists’ do not respond well to reasoned discussion and complex logic. They are persistent and growing in strength and numbers. Consumers tend to group all 'GMOs' together without regard to the needs of the farmer or to the social, environmental, or nutritional benefits. That is worrisome to me.
     In spite of two decades of stunning scientific, humanitarian and financial successes and an admirable record of health and environmental safety, the application of genetic engineering to agriculture is still beleaguered by activists. And they continually swamp the web with non-scientific “findings”, conduct events like the “March Against Monsanto,” which was used to protest the company’s prominence in the production of genetically engineered crop plants.  Anti-genetic engineering activism is far from being all fun and games. When the activists are unable to sway public opinion with flagrant misrepresentations or to intimidate regulators into rejecting or delaying products, they often resort to harassment with nuisance lawsuits and even to vandalism of field trials.  Their stock in trade is the insertion that the application of molecular methods of genetic improvement is unwanted, unneeded, unsuccessful and unsafe.  These allegations have been debunked repeatedly over the years, as they are once again in a newly-released analysis from U.K.-based PG Economics and published in the peer reviewed scientific journal “GM Crops”. https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops  . 
     Farmers certainly don’t believe that genetic engineering is unwanted, unneeded or unsuccessful.  The net economic benefit at the farm level in 2011 was $19.8 billion, equal to an average income premium of $329/acre.  For the 16 year period 1996-2011, the global farm income gain was $98.2 billion.  Of the total farm income benefit, 49% ($48 billion) was due to yield gains resulting from lower pest and weed pressure and improved genetics, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production. The insect-resistance technology used in corn and cotton has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage.  The average yield gains over the 1996-2011 period across all users of this technology were 10.1% for insect-resistant corn and 15.8% for insect-resistant cotton.
     What kinds of farmers benefit from genetically engineered crops?  About half (51%) of the 2011 farm income gains went to farmers in developing countries, 90% of whom are resource-poor, small operators. Cumulatively (1996-2011), the benefits were again divided about equally between farmers in developing and developed countries. According to the PG Economics analysis (as well as many others), genetically engineered crops offer important benefits in addition to improvements to the bottom line. First, their use has obviated the need to cultivate vast additional amounts of arable land. Second, the cultivation of GM crops has reduced significantly the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices.  And third, the cultivation of pest-resistant GM crops reduced pesticide spraying and decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to genetically engineered crops by 18.1%.
     The strong distrust of GE foods is curious. Opponents typically profess a high degree of concern for human welfare and the environment. They want the same things that scientists, farmers, food security experts, and environmentalists want: ecologically sound food production accessible to a growing global population. But their opposition threatens the great strides that have been made. For 10,000 years, we have altered the genetic makeup of our crops and animals. Today virtually everything we eat is produced from seeds or animals that we have genetically altered in one way or another. 
     We need to trust the science and research - and instead of denigrating our advances we should embrace them. When managed correctly, this technology is amazing. But study the issues yourself. Read a current editorial by Scientific American “Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea,” http://bit.ly/16w8zp9   or look at “The Truth About GMOs” http://bit.ly/17glAED   or get the book “Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Food” all with real information. Real science can be powerful, just ask former architect of anti-GMO activism, Mark Lynas, who now supports GMO crops after accepting scientific information as a solution. Read his story http://bit.ly/1fUxGqD , You can also find a wealth of information on the positive side of GMO’s at: http://gmoanswers.com/  .  I challenge each of you to spend time every week to listen and help consumers overcome any fears they bring up. We will discuss this topic further next week. In the meantime – study and then tell your story. This is vitally important to your livelihood. 

The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home