Nowadays, our society seems to dwell on the perceived or assumed negatives of all things good. Such is the case with genetically modified (GM) crops that have changed the face of American agriculture.

Today’s American farmer feeds about 155 people worldwide; in 1960, the number was about 25. This has resulted from: 1) the ability of the American farmer to farm and manage more acres more efficiently with less labor; 2) mechanized agriculture; 3) fewer operations per person so that each person is capable of managing the culture of more acres; 4) technological advances in pest management arising from use of pesticides; 5) the advent of GM crops; and 6) ever increasing yields resulting from new management schemes and advances in breeding and genetics to produce new hybrids and varieties.

A genetically modified organism (GMO) can be defined as a plant or animal whose genetic material (DNA) has been altered through genetic engineering/biotechnology techniques (insertion/deletion of genes) to produce a genotype that possesses a modified trait that is not found in naturally occurring plants of that species. When genes are inserted, they usually come from a different species. The principle of producing a GMO is to add new genetic material into an organism’s genome (MSSOY).

There is no doubt that the debate over GM crops that result from GMO’s has been and continues to be attention-grabbing. There is also no doubt that the pros and cons surrounding this issue have engendered very strong opinions among individuals and agricultural groups, and in the media. Furthermore, groups on opposite sides of this debate are oftentimes very fervent in their stances.

In the U.S., the main agronomic crops that benefit from genetic modifications (insect and herbicide tolerance) are corn, cotton, and soybeans. In 2015, GM varieties accounted for 92%, 94%, and 94% of all corn, cotton, and soybeans planted in the US (NASS, June 30, 2015).

In 2013, GM crops were planted on 429.8 million acres worldwide, with GM soybeans, corn, and cotton having the largest acreages of 195.1, 141.8, and 59 million, respectively, or 92% of the total GM crop production. This represented 79%, 32%, and 70% of the total worldwide acreage for each respective crop (GMO Compass).

Nations growing the largest acreage of GM crops are the United States, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, and China. In 2013, there were no countries using GM crops for the first time. In the European Union, GM crop cultivation (mainly corn) is concentrated in Spain and Portugal (GMO Compass).

In agriculture, GM crops are developed to contain desirable traits such as resistance to pests, herbicides, and/or environmental stresses, and to improve storage life and nutritional value. Examples are herbicide-resistant (HR) varieties of corn, cotton, and soybeans, and GM varieties of corn and cotton that are resistant to insects.

A GM crop that is resistant to a herbicide that kills a weed or weeds that grow in the crop will not require tillage to control those weeds. In a USB-funded report, the latest surveys by the Conservation Tillage Information Center (CTIC) estimate that 39% of U.S. soybeans were grown with no-till, and this is largely attributable to the adoption of HR soybeans. Also, erosion on cropland had declined by 21% between 1992 and 2007, and this is largely attributable to a reduction in tillage made possible by growing HR crops.

According to a CAST 2012 report, the advent of HR crops, specifically those resistant to glyphosate, resulted in dramatic increases in conservation tillage systems used for crop production. Use of conservation tillage systems resulted in decreased sediment losses of about 25% (mulch till) and over 80% (no-till) compared to losses from conventional tillage systems from 1989 to 2008 in the southern U.S.

To underscore the safety and scientific credibility of GMO-containing foods, several publications reported in Nov. 2015 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration denied petitions filed by several groups by refusing to require labeling of foods made with ingredients from GM crops. The FDA’s statement reads “The petition does not provide evidence sufficient to show that foods derived from genetically engineered (GE) plants, as a class, differ from foods derived from non-GE plant varieties in any meaningful or uniform way, or that as a class, such foods present any different or greater safety concerns than food developed by traditional plant breeding.” This decision was made after an exhaustive review process, and the resulting statement is unequivocal and quite easy to understand.

The above brief summary leads to the following conclusions.

• GM crops are accepted as properly suitable alternatives to conventional crops on a worldwide basis.


• GM crops result in adoption of environmentally sound agricultural practices such as reduced tillage that result in reduced soil erosion and concomitant water runoff and loss of soil nutrients.


• Foods derived from GM crops are safe for human consumption.

Below are excellent references that provide more insight on the GMO issue.

U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance “View on GM Seeds”

U.S. Food and Drug Administration “Food from Genetically Engineered Plants”

National Academy of Sciences “The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States”

GMOANSWERS.COM

UCR Magazine “Busting GMO Myths”

CAST Issue Paper “The Potential Impacts of Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Engineered Food in the United States”

On this day of Thanksgiving, I am thankful for the scientists who continue to develop new technology to enhance sustainable food production, and to the farmers who adopt this technology to continue to produce more and better crops that will feed an increasing population.

Composed by Larry G. Heatherly, Nov. 2015, larryheatherly@bellsouth.net