Talk:Genetically modified crops

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture
— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Any of this content useful? Cut from food security.
I've just cut out this content from the food security article as it was digressing. There might be bits in here that could be added to this article? Or maybe it's all here already and would only be repetitive. Note: most of this content had been added by students several years ago so it's likely not very up to date:

++++++++++

Use of genetically modified (GM) crops: The area sown to genetically engineered crops in developing countries is rapidly catching up with the area sown in industrial nations. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), GM crops were grown by approximately 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries in 2005; up from 8.25 million farmers in 17 countries in 2004.

Opposition to GM crops
Based on evidence from previous attempts, there is a likely lack of transferability of one type of GM crop from one region to another. For example, modified crops that have proven successful in Asia from the Green Revolution have failed when tried in regions of Africa. More research must be done regarding the specific requirements of growing a specific crop in a specific region.

There is also a drastic lack of education given to governments, farmers, and the community about the science behind GM crops, as well as suitable growing practices. In most relief programs, farmers are given seeds with little explanation and little attention is paid to the resources available to them or even laws that prohibit them from distributing produce. Governments are often not advised on the economic and health implications that come with growing GM crops and are then left to make judgments on their own. Because they have so little information regarding these crops, they usually shy away from allowing them or do not take the time and effort required to regulate their use. Members of the community that will then consume the produce from these crops are also left in the dark about what these modifications mean and are often scared off by their 'unnatural' origins. This has resulted in failure to properly grow crops as well as strong opposition to the unknown practices. A study published in June 2016 evaluated the status of the implementation of Golden Rice, which was first developed in the 1990s to produce higher levels of Vitamin A than its non-GMO counterparts. This strain of rice was designed so that malnourished women and children in third-world countries who were more susceptible to deficiencies could easily improve their Vitamin A intake levels and prevent blindness, which is a common result. Golden Rice production was centralized in the Philippines, yet there have been many hurdles to jump in order to get production moving. The study showed that the project is far behind schedule and is not living up to its expectations. Although research on Golden Rice continues, the country has moved forward with other non-GMO initiatives to address the Vitamin A deficiency problem that is so pervasive in that region.

Many anti-GMO activists argue that the use of GM crops decreases biodiversity among plants. Livestock biodiversity is also threatened by the modernization of agriculture and the focus on more productive major breeds. Therefore, efforts have been made by governments and non-governmental organizations to conserve livestock biodiversity through strategies such as cryoconservation of animal genetic resources.

Support of GM crops
Many GM crop success stories exist, primarily in developed nations like the US, China, and various countries in Europe. Common GM crops include cotton, maize, and soybeans, all of which are grown throughout North and South America as well as regions of Asia. Modified cotton crops, for example, have been altered such that they are resistant to pests, can be grown in more extreme heat, cold, or drought, and produce longer, stronger fibers to be used in textile production.

One of the biggest threats to rice, which is a staple food crop especially in India and other countries within Asia, is blast disease, which is a fungal infection that causes lesions to form on all parts of the plant. A genetically engineered strain of rice has been developed so that it is resistant to blast, greatly improving the crop yield of farmers and allowing rice to be more accessible to everyone. Some other crops have been modified such that they produce higher yields per plant or that they require less land for growing. The latter can be helpful in extreme climates with little arable land and also decreases deforestation, as fewer trees need to be cut down in order to make room for crop fields. Others yet have been altered such that they do not require the use of insecticides or fungicides. This addresses various health concerns associated with such pesticides and can also work to improve biodiversity within the area in which these crops are grown.

In a review of Borlaug's 2000 publication entitled Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry, the authors argued that Borlaug's warnings were still true in 2010,

"GM crops are as natural and safe as today's bread wheat, opined Dr. Borlaug, who also reminded agricultural scientists of their moral obligation to stand up to the antiscience crowd and warn policy makers that global food insecurity will not disappear without this new technology and ignoring this reality global food insecurity would make future solutions all the more difficult to achieve."

Research conducted by the GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence (GRACE) program through the EU between 2007 and 2013 focused on many uses of GM crops and evaluated many facets of their effects on human, animal, and environmental health.

The body of scientific evidence concluding that GM foods are safe to eat and do not pose environmental risks is wide. Findings from the International Council of Scientists (2003) that analyzed a selection of approximately 50 science-based reviews concluded that "currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat," and "there is no evidence of any deleterious environmental effects having occurred from the trait/species combinations currently available." The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) supported the same consensus a year later in addition to recommending the extension of biotechnology to the developing world. Similarly, the Royal Society (2003) and British Medical Association (2004) found no adverse health effects of consuming genetically modified foods. These findings supported the conclusions of earlier studies by the European Union Research Directorate, a compendium of 81 scientific studies conducted by more than 400 research teams did not show "any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding." Likewise, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Europe (OECD) and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1999) did not find that genetically modified foods posed a health risk. EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Needs updating?
Much of the information currently given is now 10-20 years old and possibly out of date. I will try to find some newer scientific sources. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. If anything needs to be updated in re: WP:GMORFC, I'd be very interested in discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help out a bit too. I wanted to clean it up the article a little but I'm mindful that this is a sensitive page so wanted to proceed carefully. I just wanted to ask should this page mention gm animals as it is a dedicated crops page (eg in the history section)? I wanted to remove mention to animals but perhaps cross reference to Genetically modified food. -- Sporesalad (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's a good question, about animals. I would take "crops" to mean plants only, but I can see an argument to the contrary, so I'd like to hear more opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd go with largely plants only, though there's weird edge cases like algae that aren't really plants. Functionally, I'd say farmed primary producers.
 * If there's mention of genetically modified animals, it's probably best only when there's a topic here that covers both, but I wouldn't delve into animals here in significant depth. People may talk about a "crop" of calves in the beef cattle world, but that's more jargon than anything. KoA (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that approach. The GM animals page is the right location for such content. I'm fine with including algae here, as, in effect, a non-animal crop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)