WIKIPEDIA genetically modified organism (GMO) is any

organism whose genetic material has been altered(diubah) using

genetic engineering techniques (i.e. genetically engineered
organism). GMO adalah semua organisme yang bmareri genetiknya telah diubah dengan
teknik genetik. GMOs are the source of medicines and genetically
modified foods and are also widely used in scientific research and
to produce other goods. GMO adalah sumber obat-obatan dan
modifikasi makanan dan juga banyak digunakan di penelitihan
ilmu pengeahuan dan untuk menghasilkan tujuan lain. The term
GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism', defined in the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs
(specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material
obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").
A more specifically defined type of GMO is a "Transgenic Organism". This is an organism
whose genetic makeup has been altered by the addition of genetic material from another,
unrelated organism. This should not be confused with the more general way in which "GMO"
is used to classify genetically altered organisms, as typically GMOs are organisms whose
genetic makeup has been altered without the addition of genetic material from an unrelated
organism.

Intitute for rrsposible technology :

10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs

1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges
(mendorong) doctors to prescribe (meresepkan) non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite

animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system

disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how
genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us,
possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for
example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the
toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant
women and their unborn fetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were

introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or

more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years;

food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism,
reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the
rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing
factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting
ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association

are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine
growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the
hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminateforever.
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our
contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects
of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the
health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for
organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide (pembunuh tanaman) use.

Most GM crops are engineered to be herbicide tolerantthey deadly weed killer.
Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their
Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds
of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in superweeds,
resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic
herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM
foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is
linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.

Teknologi genetik menciptakan efek samping berbahaya
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering
unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the
type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can
result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens,
carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.
Dengan mencampurkan bahan genetika dari spesies yang berbeda, teknik
genetika melepaskan sebuah host efek samping yang tidak terdeteksi.
Selain itu, tanpa berfikir panjang dari dari tipe gen yang dimasukkan,
proses dari pembuatan sebuah tumbuhan GeneticallyModified dapat

menghasilkan dampak yng besar yang menghasilkan toksin baru, alergen,

kasionogen dan defisiensi nutrisi.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.

Keteledoran pemerintah adalah kesalahan besar.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments superficial
regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesnt require a single safety study,
does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the
market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no
information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret
agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among
the FDAs own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects.
They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote
biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsantos
former attorney, later their vice president. Hes now the US Food Safety Czar.
Banyak dari kesehatan dan resiko lingkungan dari Genetically Modified Organism tidak
dipedulikan oleh pemerintah dan penilai keamanan. Alasan untuk tragdi ini adalah politik.
UA Food and Drug Administration, contohnya, tidak mengharuskan sbuah penelitian
keselamatan, tidak memerintakan labeling dari Genetically Modified Organism produk,dan
mengizinkan perusahaan untuk menaruh makanan GM kedalam pasar tanpa memberitahu
agen. Mereka mengklaim bahwa mereka tidak mendapatkan informasi bahwa makanan GM
memiliki zat yang berbeda.
6. The biotech industry uses tobacco science to claim product safety.
Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe.
They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that
GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed,
demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding
problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.
7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened,
and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a large block of scientists . . .
denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is
not helpful in advancing knowledge. Attempts by media to expose problems are also often
censored.
8. GMOs harm the environment.
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine
ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are
unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose
populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth

defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in
animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota
and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.
9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have
conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average,
increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists 2009 report
Failure to Yieldthe definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58
governments, stated that GM crop yields were highly variable and in some cases, yields
declined. The report noted, Assessment of the technology lags behind its development,
information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and
damage is unavoidable. They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the
goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and
facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more
safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer
rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting
brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies
will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after
a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers.
In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a
tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon,
Yoplait, and most of Americas dairies.
NOTE: As an additional motivation to avoid GMOs, you may wish to take a lesson from the
animals. Eyewitness reports from around the world describe several situations where animals,
when given a choice, avoid genetically modified food. These include cows, pigs, geese, elk,
deer, raccoons, mice, rats, squirrels, chicken, and buffalo. Were pretty sure the animals didnt
read the above 10 reasons.
The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against
GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the
population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and
provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMOs much easier.
Please choose healthier non-GMO brands, tell others about GMOs so they can do the
same, and join the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network. Together we can quickly reclaim
a non-GMO food supply.

Can GMOs end hunger in Africa?

By Elizabeth Lopatto

We're excited to have Bill Gates as our guest editor in February. Throughout the month, Bill
will be sharing his vision of how technology will revolutionize life for the world's poor by
2030 by narrating episodes of the Big Future, our animated explainer series. In addition,
we'll be publishing a series of features exploring the improvements in banking, health,
farming, and education that will enable that revolution. And while the topics reflect the bets
Bill and his wife Melinda are making with their foundation, they've asked us for nothing less
than fully independent Verge journalism, which we're more than happy to deliver. Turns out
Bill Gates is a pretty confident guy.
Nilay Patel, Editor-in-Chief
Depending on who you ask, genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are the solution to
malnutrition and hunger in the developing world, or a threat to food sovereignty. Take
Uganda, for example. Ugandans eat, on average, a pound of bananas daily more than any
other population. But this crucial resource has been threatened by a bacterial wilt disease,
which turns the banana plants sap into ooze, wilts the leaves, rots the fruit, and eventually
destroys the crop.
Banana wilt was first seen in Uganda in 2001, and neither pesticides nor chemicals have
stopped it. Farmers tried to control the wilts spread by torching infected plants and
disinfecting tools, but the disease cut Ugandan banana yields by as much as half from 2001 to
2004. In the countrys central region, wilt hit 80 percent of plants, and sometimes knocked
out whole fields, according to a report from The Guardian.
So scientists at Ugandas National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) which
receives funding from the Gates Foundation created a genetically modified banana by
inserting a green pepper gene into the bananas genome. The new gene seems to trigger a
process that kills infected cells and saves the plant. NARO wants to give the seeds away for
free, but no regulation exists around GMOs in Uganda, and Uganda is obligated to take a
cautionary approach to GMO technology, as signer of 2000s Cartagena protocol. The
Ugandan government is considering passing a law that would allow the introduction of
GMOs, including the bacteria-resistant banana, but some food scientists worry it may open
the door to corporate exploitation by multinational companies like Monsanto down the line.
This year, the Gates Foundations annual letter points to innovations in farming as a
revolution that will transform the lives of the poor over the next 15 years, particularly in
Africa. Food is a fundamental human right; nonetheless, people are starving. The UNs World
Food Programme estimates over 800 million individuals, or one in nine people on the planet,
struggle to find enough food to eat on a regular basis. In places like Sub-Saharan Africa,
hunger is a tremendous problem and an ironic one. The region is home to abundant arable
land; 70 percent of the population there farms. But the prevalence of hunger there is also the

highest in the world one in five people are undernourished. Chronic malnutrition has
stunted the growth of 40 percent of children under the age of five, according to
UNICEF. Thats 25 million kids.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, hunger is a tremendous problem and an ironic one
A new generation of highly productive crops, Gates suggests, are part of the solution to
address global hunger seeds that are drought-resistant, disease-resistant, productive, and
nutritious could benefit farmers. Some of the crops can be bred through traditional methods,
but Gates thinks many African countries will adopt GMOs, or genetically modified
organisms. GMOs are an accelerated version of the traditional methods of plant breeding
which require raising several generations of plants, improving their yield or drought-tolerance
properties over years if not decades. But genetic information lets scientists tweak specific
genes a much faster process. It also expands the range of possible alterations, since genes
from one species can be inserted into another.
The first American GMO crop was the Flavr Savr tomato, created by California company
Calgene and green-lit by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1994. The modified
tomatoes didnt get squishy as quickly as regular tomatoes. Though Flavr Savr tomatoes are
no longer sold turns out, its more economical to ship green tomatoes genetic
modifications caught on and proved more successful in other foods. More than 90 percent of
soybeans and 80 percent of corn sold in the US today are GMOs created by companies like
Monsanto, Cargill, and Dupont. GMO seeds are often more expensive than conventionally
bred varieties, a concern voiced by some opponents of Ugandas bill.
More than 90 percent of soybeans and 80 percent of corn sold in the US today are GMOs
GMOs have been widely touted as a solution to hunger and malnutrition: engineering for
specific traits, like the wilt-resistant banana in Uganda, they could make farmers less
vulnerable to crop loss. "GMO-derived seeds will provide far better productivity, better
drought tolerance, salinity tolerance, and if the safety is proven, then the African countries
will be among the biggest beneficiaries," Bill Gates told The Verge.
(The Gates Foundation Asset Trust, which manages the foundation's assets, has previously
held shares of Monsanto. The trust hasn't held shares of Monsanto "for a few years" says Alex
Reid, a foundation spokesperson, who adds that the trust is managed separately and doesn't
get input into what the foundation funds. The trust's 990 tax form lists all holdings at the end
of the fiscal year you can see the most recent one here.)
The Gates Foundation suggests that by using better fertilizer and more productive crops such
as GMOs, African farmers could "theoretically double their yields." (The average yield per
acre in Africa is one-fifth of that in the US.) "With the right investments," the Gates letter
goes on, it may be possible for farmers on the continent to "increase productivity by 50
percent overall." The Foundation believes so strongly in the promise of farming that in 2013
it spent 22 percent of its $1.8 billion global development expenditure on agriculture. But even
if GMO crops yield more produce, will that translate to less hunger?
Lowered production is an issue, certainly. Once, Africa was a major food exporter, sending
out coffee, cocoa, and spices but the price of commodities dropped in the 1980s, and
imports have outpaced exports. Food production has mostly been stagnant since then, while

consumption has grown, according to the UNs Food and Agriculture Organization. Today,
African countries spend $35 billion to $40 billion a year on imported food. Relying heavily
on imports raises the price of regionally produced food, contributing to a cycle of poverty.
Increasing production, however, may be a red herring: according to the World Food
Programme, the planet actually produces enough food to feed everyone alive more than 2,000
calories a day. But global funding priorities remain "heavily focused on increasing
agricultural production," according to a 2013 report from the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development. "The perception that there is a supply-side problem is, however,
questionable," the report reads. "Hunger and malnutrition are mainly related to a lack of
purchasing power and/or the inability of the rural poor to be self-sufficient. Meeting the food
security challenges is primarily about the empowerment of the poor and their food
sovereignty." In other words: the primary problem isnt technology, its distribution.
the planet produces enough food to feed everyone alive more than 2,000 calories a day
Poverty exacerbates the issue: in some developing countries, farmers cant afford the seeds
they plant to feed their families; some are too poor to even feed themselves well, limiting
their ability to work, earn more money, or invest in their own farms. "In a lot of famines, you
have food leaving the famine areas, because buying power has collapsed," says Gawain
Kripke, the director of policy and research at Oxfam America. (Oxfam America has
previously received funding from the Gates Foundation.) "Its not supply or availability of
food. Theres just no buying power."
Farmers in Africa are also politically weak, says Kripke. As a result, countries policies favor
urban consumers in budget allocations. That makes it difficult for farmers to lobby for the
changes theyd need to create a functioning agricultural supply chain.
The stance is supported by the UNs FAO, which says, in a 2014 report, that the keys to
progress in nutrition include "sustained political commitment to food security at the highest
level," as well as policies that give a voice to politically weak groups. The Gates Foundation
donated $12 million to the FAO last year.
About 30 percent of crops produced in Africa are lost after harvest
But even assuming the technology makes it to the needy, farmers dont necessarily have a
reason to grow more food than they can eat themselves. Without basic infrastructure like
markets, storage, and trade agreements, theres little they can do with the extra produce. Of
the 54 states within the African Union, only 10 have allocated at least a tenth of their public
investments to agriculture that is, to infrastructure, irrigation, research, and development.
Without markets, international trade, places to store surplus harvests, and irrigation, its hard
to encourage farmers to invest in growing more than they need.
About 30 percent of crops produced in Africa are lost after harvest, says Agnes Kalibata, the
president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, an agricultural organization
founded with funds from the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation in 2006. Her
group hopes to change that.
Before heading up AGRA, Kalibata was the minister of Rwandas Agriculture and Animal
Resources. Between 2004 and 2014, Rwanda more than doubled its crop production by

increasing agriculture investment from 3.5 percent to 7.2 percent of government

expenditures. That investment reduced poverty by almost a third, according to AGRAs
statistics.
Using the lessons Kalibata learned in Rwanda, AGRA is trying to promote policy changes,
including increased government investment, across the continent. "One policy breakthrough
in one country could be a big breakthrough for everyone," she says. In 2013, the Gates
Foundation awarded the group $4 million for policy change and about $23 million for
education and technology.
AGRA advocates for basic, but wide-reaching structural changes: for instance, Africa has no
continent-wide regulations on grades, standards, weights, or measures all of which
complicate trade. There are also no strong regulations on how food should be stored in
warehouses, which may mean losses for farmers if the storehouses arent up to grade.
Customs procedures are often cumbersome, and vary widely which drive up the cost of
transactions.
"All the infrastructure we take for granted in a modern agricultural supply chain doesnt exist
[in Africa]," says Oxfam Americas Kripke. "So where do you start? Seeds? Roads?"
Africa has no continent-wide regulations on grades, standards, weights, or measures all of
which complicate trade
Roads are a safe bet, according to International Food Policy Research Institute. In fact,
theyre one of the best investments governments can make. Not only do they get seeds and
other agricultural products and technology into an area, roads are crucial for trade. Without
access to roads, farmers tend to buy seeds at high prices and sell produce at lower ones,
which exposes them to more risk from food price fluctuations. Sometimes, farmers are unable
to sell their crops at all. And when that happens, farmers become apathetic about adopting
new technology: whats the point of increasing yield if most of it will rot, anyway?
Infrastructure investment has a proven impact: the introduction of roads in 15 rural villages in
Ethiopia increased consumption by households by about 16 percent, while lowering poverty
about 7 percent, according to a 2008 IFPRI study.
More roads may also mean more information: currently agricultural extension programs
which help train farmers and educate them about the marketplace can be tough for farmers
to reach. Thats particularly true for about half of African farmers: women, who are less able
to travel because of familial responsibilities or the hazards of the road. "Gender is a pretty big
concern," says Kripke. "Especially women farmers have trouble," AGRAs Kalibata says.
And farm education is an area where women especially stand to gain, says Calestous Juma, a
professor at Harvards Kennedy School of Government and director of the Science,
Technology, and Globalization Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Juma also serves as the director of Agricultural Innovation in the Africa Project,
which the Gates Foundation funds.
All these factors come into play in Uganda. In this sub-Saharan nation of 37 million,
bananas are essential about 75 percent of farmers grow them there. The country depends
on agriculture for 23 percent of its gross domestic product.

But like other countries in the region, Uganda suffers from a dearth of infrastructure. Though
the country is only slightly smaller than the UK, it has only 2,028 miles (3,264 km) of paved
roads, compared to the UKs 245,068 miles (394,428 km). That makes trade and transit quite
difficult, especially since 85 percent of Ugandas 36 million people live in rural areas. A
quarter of the population is below the poverty line. As a result, almost 40 percent of children
there are undernourished, according to the US governments Feed the Future initiative.
Can the genetically modified bananas have a positive impact for millions of Ugandans?
"Many farmers cant afford expensive seeds. They would have no rights."
Ugandas wilt-resistant banana is the best possible scenario for GMO adoption, in some
respects. The strain was created by local scientists and, because its being distributed for free,
wont lead to capital from farmers flowing out of the country. But some activists are
concerned that the banana GMO will open the door to other crops with pernicious
consequences. "Farmers have been told that the GMOs are almost the same as non-GMOs,"
Ellady Muyambi, an environmental scientist at the Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria,
told NPR. "But they would have to go to a company to buy the seeds. Many farmers cant
afford expensive seeds. They would have no rights."
Hunger in Uganda is a bigger issue than the impact of one GMO law: evidence suggests that
improving farmer education programs and infrastructure investment can have a bigger impact
than increasing productivity alone. Without infrastructure roads, granaries, markets,
irrigation and policy changes, more food wont eliminate hunger. And while GMOs like
the wilt-resistant banana may save critical crops, its not clear they can ensure food security
in hungry communities.
And Uganda has bigger problems on the horizon. According to the Brookings
Institute, Uganda should expect inflation in 2015 the result of government borrowing, a
depletion of foreign currency reserves, and cutbacks on essential supplies that will "widen
the income gap" and "reverse the gains made in poverty reduction." In other words: the
economic situation in Uganda is set to reduce the purchasing power of the impoverished. If
the Brookings Institute is right, that means hunger, with or without genetically modified
bananas.
Update 12:36PM ET: This story has been updated with information about the investments of
the Gates Trust, which funds the Gates Foundation. Correction 2PM ET: This story was
updated to remove an erroneous figure on the Gates Foundation spending in agriculture
22 percent of the foundation global development budget was spent on agriculture in 2013.

Feeding Africa: why biotechnology sceptics are wrong to dismiss GM

Calestous Juma argues that advocacy groups are clinging to ideology and
ignoring the potential of genetically modified crops

GM crops cannot solve the challenges related to access to food, but their role
cannot be dismissed for ideological reasons. Photograph: Alamy
Global development is supported by

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Calestous Juma
Tuesday 27 May 2014 13.21 BST Last modified on Wednesday 13 January 2016 20.32 GMT

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Google+

Shares
571

Comments
68
Save for later

Biotechnology sceptics have a right to question the role of biotechnology in global food
security. But they are wrong to ignore the growing evidence of the potential contributions the
biotechnology and new challenges such as climate change that require new technological
responses.
Food security depends on four interrelated factors: quantity of food, which involves
increasing agricultural productivity; access to food, which is determined both by income

levels and quality of infrastructure; nutrition; and overall stability of the food system, such as
resilience to shocks.
Genetically-modified (GM) crops or any other breeding methods on their own cannot solve
the challenges related to food quality, access to food, nutrition or stability of food systems.
But their role cannot be dismissed for ideological reasons.
GM crops already benefit smallholder farmers in several major ways. For example, they help
farmers control pests and disease. This leads to higher production and increased income,
which in turn provides them with increased ability to consume more nutritious food.
Let us take the example of pest-resistant GM cotton. Although GM cotton is not directly
consumed, it indirectly contributes to food security by raising household income levels and
improving access to more nutritious food.
A recent study published by Plos One found that households in India growing GM cotton
consumed significantly more calories. Each hectare of GM cotton increased total calorie
consumption by 74 kcal per adult equivalent and day. Furthermore, a smaller proportion of
households are food insecure (7.93% of adopting GM cotton households compared to 19.94%
of non-adopting households.
The study also showed that GM cotton adoption led to consumption of more nutritious foods
such as fruits, vegetables and animal products. The authors estimate that if the households
that do not currently grow GM cotton switched, "the proportion of food insecure households
would drop by 15-20%."
These studies do not justify the widespread adoption of GM crops to address food security,
but they show that under certain conditions, the technology has the potential to contribute to
increasing farm incomes which in turn gives farmers the opportunity to raise their food
purchases. It is therefore a mistake to argue for their exclusion without giving farmers a
chance to make their own choices.
The ability of farmers to benefit from GM crops is closely linked to their ability to access
new technologies. It has often been argued that the control of the global seed industry by a
small number of large multinational corporations is a threat to food security. The problem is
not simply the presence of large corporations but the low level of the development of
domestic seed firms. Such local firms can help focus on indigenous crops. They can also play
key roles as business partners with foreign farms.
Africa has been a major focus of the concern that foreign firms are likely to undermine food
security through their control of seed technology. However, a recent study, Planting the Seed
of a New Green Revolution for Africa, shows that the continent's seed sector is dominated by
local start-ups, not foreign multinational firms.

In fact, local African scientists are at the forefront of using biotechnology to solve local
problems. For example, researchers in Uganda are using biotechnology to control the
Xanthomonas banana wilt. By transferring two genes from green peppers, scientists were able
to grow highly resistant bananas.
The bacterial disease causes discoloration and early ripening of bananas and costs the Great
Lakes region approximately US$500m annually in losses (pdf). There is currently no
treatment for the disease. Bananas are a staple crop in the region and so controlling the
disease would directly enhance food security.
In Nigeria the insect Maruca vitrata destroys nearly US$300m worth of blackeyed peas a
major staple crop. It forces farmers to import pesticides worth US$500m annually (pdf). To
solve the problem, scientists at the Institute for Agricultural Research at Nigeria's Ahmadu
Bello University have developed a pest-resistant, transgenic blackeyed pea variety using
insecticide genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium.
These techniques have the potential to address a wide range of agricultural, health, and
environmental issues in African countries, leading to increased productivity and therefore
contributing to increased food security. The importance of building capacity in biotechnology
is reinforced by the rising concern over the impact of climate on agriculture.
These examples show that emerging nations, including relatively poor nations such as
Uganda, have the minimum scientific and technical capacity to engage use biotechnology to
solve local problems. But they face major regulatory hurdles imposed by their own
governments and championed by external advocacy groups. It is time to follow the growing
evidence rather than cling to ideology. In the long run new threats to food security may come
from not adopting biotechnology, rather than adopting it.
Professor Calestous Juma is faculty chair of Innovation for Economic Development
Programme at Harvard Kennedy School. Follow @calestous on Twitter.

oe DeVries is American, but he has spent three decades in Africa, helping farmers improve
yields, fight pests and control disease. I met him in his office in Nairobi and asked how hed
ended up so far from home. He told me his career dated to one moment, when he was an
undergraduate studying agronomy. I was in the back of the class, he said, probably falling
asleep. And the professor looked at us and said, One of you will go out there and make the
world a smaller place. Somehow, I knew he was talking to me.
For DeVries, a smaller world is a place where tools for better farming improved seed,
appropriate fertilizer, access to agricultural and financial infrastructure are available
wherever people farm, and hes making that happen as director of the Program for Africas
Seed Systems at the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a nonprofit
organization devoted to improving African agriculture.
Tamar Haspel writes Unearthed, a monthly commentary in pursuit of a more constructive
conversation on divisive food-policy issues. She farms oysters on Cape Cod. Find out more
about her at www.tamarhaspel.com. View Archive

Facebook

Say the words green revolution, and people take sides. For opponents, the phrase conjures
visions of monocrop fields fertilized with chemicals and sprayed with more chemicals. For
proponents, it evokes the tremendous efficiencies that have helped us feed our burgeoning
population. For DeVries, a plant scientist by training, its a period where agricultural
productivity shifts upward. AGRA isnt trying to deliver American-style agriculture to
Africa but to bring the basics to a place that has largely not seen their benefit. By using a
little bit of fertilizer with an improved seed, like a hybrid, farmers can double and triple their
yields, he said.
As polarizing ideas go, though, the green revolutions got nothing on genetically modified
crops, and in Africa, as here, that topic is dominating the debate about food. And there, as
here, GMOs are a proxy for the excesses and dangers of an industrialized food system.
[Five things to stop saying about GMOs, pro and con.]
In the United States, that means were having all the wrong debates. Were arguing about
whether genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops have increased or decreased pesticide
use, rather than trying to figure out how systems such as integrated pest management can help
farmers grow food with fewer chemicals. Were arguing over how evil Monsanto is, rather
than asking how government can effectively regulate a system in which corporate,
agricultural, consumer and environmental goals are often at odds. Were wasting time, money
and ever so much energy.
Take that proxy arguing about GMOs instead of industrialized agriculture to the
developing world, and the stakes are much higher. Lives and livelihoods are on the line, and
overwrought arguments about genetic modification will cost both.
And overwrought the debate about GMOs in Africa certainly is. While agricultural nonprofits
like Grain and Practical Action oppose them in relatively sober terms, others, like ActionAid,

use full-on scare tactics. The idea that GMOs are actively dangerous has taken hold to such
an extent that one Ugandan scientist told me she heard a colleague also a scientist
explain to farmers that genetically modified corn would make men sterile. Theres also the
idea, promoted by activists such as Vandana Shiva, that the agriculture indigenous to the
developing world with small farmers growing traditional crops is a tradition to be
protected. Chemical fertilizers and seeds that cant be saved are the enemy of that tradition.
[Small vs. large: Which size farm is better for the planet?]
Anne Wangalachi, the communications officer at AGRA, seems unswayed by ideas of
tradition or dignity. The people who push for this narrative are well-fed, she said. Theres
nothing dignified about going hungry.
While I was in Africa, I talked with scientists who were trying to improve agriculture from
just about every angle. Some organizations have opted against using genetic modification (as
AGRA has); Ravi Prabhu, at the World Agroforestry Centre, is looking for ways to improve
farm productivity by incorporating trees. Others are going the GM route; Leena Tripathi, at
the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, has developed a banana resistant to
bacterial wilt. Nobody was very focused on genetic modification per se; they were all too
busy solving problems.
For the time being, DeVries is seeing huge advances with conventional seed but said there
are constraints that we cant deal with through conventional breeding. Whether the answer is
GM or not, the important thing is keeping science on the agenda and looking for solutions.
After spending many hours talking with scientists, touring labs and visiting farmers, I came
away convinced that the most important conversation we can have isnt about GMOs, and its
not about traditional crop varieties. Its not about corporate control of the food supply, and its
certainly not about dignity. Its about money. Because theres one thing and, as far as I can
tell, only one that we absolutely cannot export to the developing world, and thats the idea
of farms that dont make any.
We have a lot of them here. According the USDA, 59 percent of farm households have sales
of under $10,000 and, on average, they lose money. But many of those are hobby farms, or
farms created for tax purposes, so the more meaningful statistic is the 30 percent of farm
households with sales from $10,000 to $250,000. Only 10 percent of their household income,
on average, comes from the farm. Even when many consumers are willing to pay top dollar to
opt out of the large-farm, industrialized system, smaller producers arent making ends meet.
If you live in a place where there arent any off-farm jobs, and nobodys willing to pay more
than is absolutely necessary for food, farmers ends have to meet, and then some.
In Kenya, I asked a lot of people drivers, guides, hotel staffers how they ended up in
Nairobi. Most came from surrounding rural areas and left for one reason: to find jobs.
AGRAs Wangalachi said that is the norm. If you want me to consider agriculture, show
me the money, the young people say. Farmers want to make money. They dont want to do it
as a pastime.
And that was the theme of my visit. Everyone I spoke with emphasized that farmers have to
make a living. We want people to make money, said Prabhu. And we want them to do it in
a way thats sustainable.

Nyiranaikubwayo Illuminee worked with AGRA-funded trainers to learn better agricultural

techniques that she now practices on her small farm in Rwanda, which for the first time is
bringing in income. (From Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa)

And so AGRA is focused on agriculture as enterprise. Growing enough to feed a family isnt
sufficient; there has to be money coming in. Improved seeds and fertilizer are critical to that.
But so is infrastructure. So are loan guarantees. AGRA isnt just helping people farm; its
helping people start, and run, successful businesses.
If you think that denying those people tools because youre afraid thats how multinational
corporations are going to cash in by making farmers dependent on seeds and chemicals
they cant afford ask yourself a couple of questions. Do you think African farmers are
incapable of understanding how GMOs work and weighing the pros and cons? Do you think
they dont realize that hybrid or patented seeds have to be bought every year and make sense
only if the yield improvement outweighs the increased cost? Do you think those are decisions
African farmers cant make, or that its math they cant do?
Deploying powerful agricultural tools to Africa will have a downside; agriculture is a long
series of trade-offs, and downsides are inevitable. Farmers have to do whats best for farmers,
and the fact that whats best for farmers isnt always whats best for the environment, or
whats best for consumers, is a fundamental and difficult problem inherent in growing food.
In fact, its one of those important problems we might be talking about if we didnt have our
knickers in such a twist about GMOs.
The way agricultural technology has been deployed in the first world has taught us a lot, and I
havent encountered a single person who thinks our current system vast swaths of corn
and soy that go into meat, processed foods and biofuel is optimal. The way to help other
countries avoid our mistakes isnt to deny them tools but to help them deploy those tools
more effectively than we have.
In Nairobi, I had the chance to meet several scientists who, like DeVries, left the comforts of
the developed world to spend careers in service to the idea that science can improve the lives
of African farmers. Theyre doing work that makes other jobs like, say, journalism
seem cushy, even trivial. Widening options to help farmers lift themselves out of poverty is, I
think, about as honorable as work gets. Any attempt to narrow them is advocacy gone awry.
Haspel writes about food and science and farms oysters on Cape Cod. Unearthed, winner of a
2015 James Beard Foundation award for the nations best food column, appears monthly. On
Twitter: @TamarHaspel. Shell join Wednesdays Free Range chat at noon:
live.washingtonpost.com.

The Gates Foundation Is Trying to Feed the

Poor With GMO Propaganda

The foundation has funded a unit of Cornell that is operating as a public relations arm for the
agrichemical industry.
By Stacy Malkan / U.S. Right to Know
January 26, 2016

Print
469 COMMENTS

Photo Credit: JStone/Shutterstock

The founders of Cornell University, Andrew D. White and Ezra Cornell, dreamed of creating
a great university that took a radical approach to learning. Their revolutionary spirit, and the
promise to pursue knowledge for the greater good, is said to be at the heart of the Ivy League
school their dream became.
It is difficult to understand how these ideals are served by a unit of Cornell operating as a
public relations arm for the agrichemical industry.
Yet that is what seems to be going on at the Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS), a program
launched in 2014 with a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a
goal to depolarize the charged debate about GMOs.
A review of the groups materials and programs suggests that beneath its promise to restore
the importance of scientific evidence in decision making, CAS is promoting GMOs using
dishonest messaging and PR tactics developed by agrichemical corporations with a long
history of misleading the public about science.
Communicating science or propaganda?
CAS is a communications campaign devoted to promoting genetically engineered foods (also
known as GMOs) around the world. This is made clear in the groups promotional video.
CAS Director Sarah Evanega, PhD, describes her group as a communications-based
nonprofit organization represented by scientists, farmers, NGOs, journalists and concerned

citizens who will use interactive online platforms, multimedia resources and
communication training programs to build a global movement to advocate for access to
biotechnology.
In this way, they say they will help alleviate malnourishment and hunger in developing
countries, according to the video.
Dr. Evanega said her group has no connections to industry and receives no resources from
industry. We do not write for industry, and we do not advocate for or promote industryowned products, she wrote in a blog post titled A Right to Be Known (Accurately)" in
which she pushed back against criticisms from my group, U.S. Right to Know.
Yet the flagship programs of CAS a 12-week course for Global Leadership Fellows and
two-day intensive communications courses teach communication skills to people who are
committed to advocating for increased access to biotechnology specifically so they can
lead advocacy efforts in their local contexts.
The group also has unusual dealings with journalists. What does it mean, as the CAS video
states, that it is represented by journalists?
CAS offers journalism fellowships with cash awards for select journalists to promote indepth contextualized reporting about issues related to food security, crop production,
biotechnology and sustainable agricultural.
Are these journalists also GMO advocates? How ethical is it for journalists to represent the
policy positions of a pro-agrichemical-industry group?
Messaging for corporate interests
One thing is clear from the publicly available CAS messaging: the context they offer on the
topic of genetically engineered foods is not in-depth and comprehensive, but rather highly
selective and geared toward advancing the interests of the agrichemical industry.
For example, the video: Brimming with hope about the possibilities of GMOs to solve world
hunger in the future, it ignores a large body of scientific research that has documented
problems connected with GMOs that herbicide-tolerant GMO crops have driven up the use
of glyphosate, an herbicide linked to cancer by the worlds leading cancer experts; and
accelerated weed resistance on millions of acres of U.S. farmland, which makes crop
production harder for farmers, not easier.
There is no mention of the failure of GMO crops designed to ward off harmful insects, or the
rising concerns of medical doctors about patterns of illness in places like Hawaii and
Argentina where exposures are heaviest to the chemicals associated with GMOs.
There is no recognition that many scientists and food leaders have said GMOs are not a
priority for feeding the world, a debate that is a key reason GMO crops have not been widely
embraced outside of the United States and Latin America.

All these factors are relevant to the discussion about whether or not developing countries
should embrace genetically engineered crops and foods. But CAS leaves aside these details
and amplifies the false idea that the science is settled on the safety and necessity of GMOs.
Disseminating selective information of a biased or misleading nature to promote a particular
agenda is known as the practice of propaganda.
Working from industrys PR playbook
The Cornell Alliance for Science was supposed to present a new vision for biotechnology
communications, yet the group relies on an established set of messages and communication
tactics that are familiar to anyone who follows the PR campaigns of the agribusiness industry.
The report Spinning Food, which I co-authored with Kari Hamerschlag and Anna Lapp,
documents how agribusiness and food industry funded groups are spending tens of millions
of dollars a year to promote misleading messages about the safety and necessity of industrialscale, chemical-intensive, genetically engineered agriculture.
The companies that profit most from this system Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and other
agrichemical giants have repeatedly violated trust by misleading the public about science,
as Gary Ruskin showed in his report Seedy Business. So they rely on front groups and thirdparty allies such as scientists and professors to spread their messaging for them.
A core industry narrative is that the science on GMO safety is settled. Pro-industry
messengers focus on possible future uses of the technology while downplaying, ignoring or
denying the risks; make inaccurate claims about the level of scientific agreement on GMOs;
and attack critics who raise concerns as anti-science.
As one example, Mark Lynas, political director of CAS, wrote a New York Times op-ed
accusing 17 European Union countries that banned GMO crop cultivation of turning against
science. He dubbed them the coalition of the ignorant.
The article is heavy on attack and light on science, brushing over the topic with an inaccurate
claim about a safety consensus that many scientists have disputed.
As molecular geneticist Belinda Martineau, PhD, wrote in response to Lynas, Making
general claims about the safety of genetic engineering (is) unscientific, illogical and
absurd.
The World Health Organization states, it is not possible to make general statements on the
safety of all GM foods.
Yet, while claiming to stand up for science, CAS routinely makes general even outlandish
claims about GMO safety.
From the groups FAQ:

You are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than be hurt by GE food and thats not
an exaggeration.

GE crops currently available to the public pose no greater health risks or

environmental concerns than their non-engineered counterparts. This is not opinion.

In fact, it is propaganda.
Battling transparency in science
In the spring of 2014, CAS launched a petition attacking my group U.S. Right to Know for
filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain the emails of publicly funded
professors as part of our investigation into the food and agrichemical industries and their PR
operations.
CAS called the FOIA requests a witch hunt, yet documents obtained via these FOIA
requests generated news stories in several top media outlets about academics who were
working with industry PR operatives on campaigns to promote GMOs without disclosing
those ties to the public.
The story broke in a front-page New York Times article by two-time Pulitzer Prize winner
Eric Lipton, who explained how Monsanto, facing consumer skepticism about GMOs,
retooled their lobbying and public relations strategy to spotlight a rarefied group of
advocates: academics, brought in for the gloss of impartiality and weight of authority that
come with a professors pedigree.
In one case, reported by Laura Krantz in the Boston Globe, a Monsanto executive told
Harvard professor Calestous Juma to write a paper about how GMOs are needed to feed
Africa.
Monsanto not only suggested the topic to professor Calestous Juma. It went so far as to
provide a summary of what the paper could say and a suggested headline. The company then
connected the professor with a marketing company to pump it out over the Internet as part of
Monsantos strategy to win over the public and lawmakers, Krantz wrote.
Juma said he took no money from Monsanto but noted he has received funding from the
Gates Foundation, which has been partnering with Monsanto for years on pro-GMO projects
after Rob Horsch, Monsantos veteran top executive for international development, joined the
Foundation in 2006. Horsch now leads Gates agricultural research and development team. (A
2014 analysis by the research group Grain found that about 90% of $3 billion the Gates
Foundation has spent to feed the poor in Africa has gone to wealthy nations, primarily
universities and research centers.)
The public has a right to know if academics posing as independent sources are working
behind the scenes with corporations and their PR firms on coordinated messaging campaigns
to push a corporate agenda.
CAS takes the position in its petition that the public doesnt have a right to know about the
ties between industry PR operatives and 14 public scientists who have contributed to the
scientific consensus about the safety of GMOs.
The Cornell petition is accompanied by a photo montage featuring Carl Sagan, Madame
Curie, Albert Einstein and other deceased scientists who have not signed the petition,

stamped with the slogan, I stand with the #Science14 a bit of PR flair that mirrors the
dishonest propaganda used to oppose GMO labeling.

Aligning with industry PR writers

At an esteemed institution like Cornell, you might expect to find experts in science or ethics
teaching communication courses that promise to restore scientific integrity to public
discourse. Instead, at CAS, you will find experts in crisis management communication who
specialize in opposing public health regulations.
For example, Trevor Butterworth, a visiting fellow at Cornell and director of Sense About
Science (a non-partisan, non-profit organization that advocates for sense about science!) is
partnering with CAS to teach students and scientists how to communicate with journalists
about GMOs.
Butterworth has a long history of communicating science for the benefit of corporations
wishing to keep their products unregulated. A 2009 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article by
Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust about industry lobbying efforts on bisphenol A (BPA)
identified him as a chemical industry public relations writer.
As an editor of STATS at George Mason University, Butterworth was a prolific defender of
BPA who regularly combs the Internet for stories about BPA and offers comments without
revealing his ties to industry, Kissinger and Rust wrote.
STATS claims to be independent and nonpartisan. But a review of its financial reports shows
it is a branch of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. That group was paid by the tobacco
industry to monitor news stories about the dangers of tobacco. (The tobacco industry, they
noted, was lobbying alongside the chemical industry to keep BPA unregulated.)
Butterworth has also promoted industry positions arguing against regulations for vinyl plastic
and phthalates, fracking, high fructose corn syrup and sugary sodas.
He now partners with CAS to teach students how to communicate about GMOs, and CAS
political director Lynas sits on the advisory board of Sense About Science.
Lynas work raises more questions: Why does a science group need a political director? And
why would CAS choose Lynas for the role? Lynas is not a scientist but an environmental

writer who rose to sudden fame after embracing GMOs, and his science has been critiqued at
length by scientists, reporters and professors.
Depolarizing the GMO debate?
Corporations have been known to deploy outrageous messaging when their products run into
trouble; examples include DDT is good for me, More doctors smoke Camels and the
Dutch Boy campaign to promote lead paint to children.
A low point for chemical industry messaging was its PR campaign to paint Silent Spring
author Rachel Carson (and environmentalists in general) as murderers of millions of children
in Africa for raising concerns about DDT.
That sort of messaging is making a comeback in the GMO debate.
In September 2015, the CAS Speakers Series hosted Owen Paterson, Member of Parliament
from the UK, for a talk titled, Check Your Green Privilege: It's Not Environmentally
Friendly to Allow Millions to Die.
Patersons speech was filled with hyperbolic claims about GMOs that lack scientific rigor
(GMOs are in fact safer than conventionally bred crops one of the most environmentally
friendly advances this world has ever seen can save millions of lives that today are
squandered by the ideology of massively supported environmental campaign groups.)
The speech garnered praise from the American Council on Science and Health, a well-known
industry front group, in a blog by Dr. Gil Ross titled, Billion Dollar Green Campaigns Kill
Poor Children.
Ross explained in the blog that the CAS Speakers Series was created, to use facts to counter
the perceived tendency of college students to follow the environmentalist mantra without too
much thought the concept of being afraid of genetic engineering is akin to looking under
the bed for hobgoblins such as Godzilla, awakened by the atomic tests of the Cold War.
Paterson and Ross are unhelpful to the image of scientific integrity CAS is trying to project.
Ross is a convicted felon who spent time in jail for Medicaid fraud. Paterson, the former UK
environment secretary, is widely seen as a climate change skeptic whose views are
incompatible with science.
How are bloggers in Hawaii helping feed the poor in Africa?
With its year round growing season, the Hawaiian Islands are an important testing ground for
GMOs. They are also ground zero for concerns about pesticides associated with GMOs, and a
key focus of industrys pro-GMO propaganda campaigns and allies such as CAS.
Elif Bealle, executive director of the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, has been active
in grassroots efforts for pesticide reporting, bans and pesticide buffer zones around GMO
crops. She has also been keeping an eye on CAS, which she said has been recruiting local
bloggers and has associates on several of the Islands.

They present themselves as just concerned local residents or neutral journalists. They are
almost full time commenting on online newspaper articles, submitting, Community Voice OpEds, etc. Their blog posts are regularly picked up and disseminated by the biotech trade group
website in Hawaii, the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, Bealle said.
For example, Joni Kamiya, a CAS Global Leadership Fellow, uses her blog, Hawaii Farmers
Daughter, to promote the safety and science of GMOs with messaging that glosses over
science and disparages GMO critics.
Kamiya is also an independent expert for GMO Answers, a GMO PR website created by
Ketchum PR firm and funded by agrichemical companies. Her articles are posted on Jon
Entines Genetic Literacy Project, which was also tapped to publish the GMO promotion
papers assigned by Monsanto and written by professors.
Kamiyas writing also appears on the home page of Kauai Farming and Jobs Coalition, a
group with unknown funding that claims to represent a wide range of individuals and
organizations in our community and promotes articles by Monsanto, Genetic Literacy
Project and other food industry front groups such as the Center for Consumer Freedom.
Other CAS allies in the Islands include Lorie Farrell, a CAS associate who writes for GMO
Answers and helped coordinate opposition to the GMO cultivation ban on the Big Island for
Hawaii Farmers and Ranchers United; and Joan Conrow, who has a consulting contract with
Cornell and writes the confrontational blog Kauai Eclectic.
Their messaging follows a typical pattern: they claim a scientific consensus on GMO safety
and attack people calling for transparency and safety as outsiders who are killing the Aloha
spirit of the Islands.
Arming the conflict
In his article, The War on Genetically Modified Food Critics, Tufts Professor Timothy Wise
takes the media to task for falling for industry PR tactics and incorrectly reporting the science
on GMO as settled.
What were seeing is a concerted campaign to paint GMO critics as anti-science while
offering no serious discussion of the scientific controversy that still rages, Wise wrote.
One indicator of that campaign, he said, was the Gates Foundation award to Cornell to
depolarize the debate over GM foods.
The Gates Foundation is paying biotech scientists and advocates at Cornell to help them
convince the ignorant and brainwashed public, who may not be well informed, that they are
ignorant and brainwashed Its kind of like depolarizing an armed conflict by giving one
side more weapons, Wise wrote.
Instead of arming the PR wars in service of industry, Cornell University should stand up for
science by convening a more honest discussion about GMOs one that acknowledges the
risks as well as the benefits of genetically engineered foods.

One that refrains from attacking and instead seeks common ground with groups calling for
transparency and health and safety standards.
CAS Director Dr. Evanega said her group does share common values around right to know
and access to information, and she disputes the notion that CAS was formed to promote
GMOs.
So-called GMOs are not a monolithic thing, Dr. Evanega wrote in her blog. For example,
it makes no sense to cluster together such diverse technologies as bacteria engineered to
produce insulin and papaya engineered to resist a virus. We support access to innovation
and the information that will help people make sound decisions based on science and
evidence not fear, emotions.
Certainly GMOs are not a monolithic thing. Thats exactly why it is inaccurate and dishonest
to claim that people are more likely to be hit by an asteroid than to be harmed by GMOs.
A science alliance that truly is about restoring integrity to science should illuminate a
comprehensive record of research, not parrot the talking points of PR firms and corporate
players.

enetically Modified Crops

Overview
For thousands of years, human beings have modified nature's organisms for usage in
agriculture. New technology has furthered this trend: recombinant DNA technology allows
biotechnology firms to insert DNAs into plant genomes, thereby creating plants that express
the desired traits. Use of such genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has prompted
controversy, especially for its role in ensuring food security. As such, the use of transgenics
merits a serious discussion regarding its relevance to food security.
This piece discusses the purported benefits and costs of utilizing GMOs, as well as the
benefits they have brought saving land, reducing pesticide use, and promising to alleviate
third world hunger. Then we provide an in-depth analysis of the health, ecological, and socioeconomic impact of transgenic organisms. Our ultimate stance on this issue is to wait for
greater availability of biotech organisms unassociated with large agricultural corporations,
and for additional scientific data. Any reference to genetically modified (GM) organisms in
this piece are exclusively pointed at transgenic organisms. We will also be examining in
depth the two most widespread types of transgenic organisms: herbicide-tolerant crops and
insecticide-producing plants.

Arguments for GMOs:

GMOs increase crop yields and promote efficient land use.
Food production uses a significant quantity of arable land and natural resources, and GMOs
hold promise to alleviate this burden on the Earth. The efficiency of land use is a significant
issue: by 2050, the global population is expected to rise above 9 billion, and the existing
amount of arable land is expected to decrease significantly due to anthropogenic climate
change and urbanization (FAO). If everyone in the world used as much land per person as the
average United States citizen, we would need four Earths to sustain ourselves (Cribb). The
projected population expansion and rise of food consumption per person in China and India
makes efficient land use essential to food security in the next 100 years (Cribb).
Consequently, conserving land to produce more food is a necessity for any long term plan.
Biotechnology firms claim that transgenic crops promise more food with less land. GMO
crops have been found to increase yields, with a 10 percent change to a genetically modified
herbicide tolerant crop yielding a roughly 1.7 percent increase in productivity (USDA).
Biotechnology companies state that such varieties of crops will improve the livelihood of
farmers around the world (Cummins).
GMOs reduce the use of synthetic chemical pesticides that are harmful to the
environment.
Use of transgenic plants increases yields and decreases the need for pesticide use, thereby
preventing significant ecological damage. GM pesticide-producing crops are engineered to
produce Bt toxins, a crystal protein naturally synthesized by the bacterium bacillus
thuringiensis. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that these
toxins do not activate in the human gut, and pose no risk to human health (EPA). The
endotoxins are insecticidal and exhibit low environmental persistence (meaning they degrade
quickly), making them ideal for expression in crops (Sharma, 2010). Although Bt is lethal to
many insects, multiple scientific studies have found them to be harmless to wild mammals,
birds, pets, and humans; Bt endotoxins may as well be considered biopesticides (Sharma,
2010). Herbicide-resistant crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide
with relatively low toxicity levels, which allows for the spraying of glyphosate on crops to
kill weeds. An example of such a plant is the Roundup Ready soybean produced by
Monsanto, and the EPA has labeled glyphosate with a low toxicity rating (EPA).
The European corn borer, a widespread crop pest, claims 7 percent of the world's corn supply
each year. Use of Bt corn has saved US farmers in Iowa and Nebraska alone up to 1.7 billion
dollars in fighting this pest over the past 14 years, when compared to non-Bt variants
(Hutchinson). Spanish farmers who have implemented Bt maize have found a 10 percent
increase in yields, with up to 20 percent increases in borer-infested areas (Europa). Along
with increasing yields, Bt crops also decrease pesticide usage. Some estimates indicate that if

50% of maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet, and cotton grown in the EU were GM varieties,
pesticide in the EU/year would decrease by 14.5 million kg of formulated product, and
there would be a reduction of 7.5 million hectares sprayed, which would save 20.5 million
liters of diesel and result in a reduction of approximately 73,000 tons of carbon dioxide being
released into the atmosphere (Phipps). A reduction of 13 million kg of pesticide in the
United States has been recorded in soybean and corn fields in between 1997 and 2009, after
the introduction of genetically modified crops (Phipps). Pesticide usage is reduced by a
projected 2.5 million pounds a year in the US alone due to introduction of Bt crops (USDA).
It is projected that the introduction of Bt resistant sugar beet in Europe would decrease
pesticide usage in kilograms per year by 2,208 kg and increase yield by 5,050 kg per year
(Gianessi). Europe, a place where transgenic plants are marginally utilized, uses roughly 3 kg
of pesticide per hectare, compared to the United States' 2.5 (Goodplanet).
Overall, we believe that biotechnology has great potential to bring about many benefits to
provide for food security, especially in the third world. These benefits include, but are not
limited to, the reduction of crop loss to environmental stress, the prevention of vitamin
deficiency through more nutritious crops, the prevention of food spoilage before it is brought
to market, the alleviation of soil degradation in the Third World, the potential use in
agroforestry systems to create more efficient and non-competitive nitrogen fixers, the
potential to synthesize more potent biopesticides for organic farming, the potential to create
plants built to bioremediate contaminated soils, and the potential to create plants that thrive in
rooftop or vertical farms. However, although promising, agricultural technology has not yet
delivered on the aforementioned fronts.

Arguments against GMOs:

GM technology remains underdeveloped and unsuited for the regions that need them
most.
One problem with biotechnology is that it is not currently built for poorer regions, as most
plants are only engineered for herbicide and pesticide tolerance, with the needs of developed
countries in mind (GMF). Biotechnology today is largely driven by agricultural corporations
such as Monsanto, whose seeds are expensive to poorer farmers (Ho). But GMOs may
increase land productivity in Africa, where 49 percent of soil is heavily degraded (Terrafrica).
They could be engineered to endure harsher conditions and be less susceptible to climate
changes such as drought, a leading cause of food insecurity in Africa. Certain types of native
crops may be engineered to increase yields. This all might be done in the future, but it has not
been done yet. Additionally, GMOs still represent too many unknowns to be a solid basis for
a plan to benefit third world farmers.
Consumption of GMOs may have yet-unknown effects on human health.

Unknown health consequences are a common objection to GMO organisms. The most
condemning research done on such organisms is the work of renowned scientist Arpad
Pusztai, who found evidence of intestinal damage caused by genetically modified potatoes
(Randerson). His funding was suspended for his publication of preliminary results, and
therefore the study was never completed (Randerson). However, numerous later studies found
that GM crops that have passed existing safety reviews are not harmful to human health
(Academic review, AFNZA).
Many critics are still opposed to GMOs, citing that GM foods are unnatural. On the other
hand, nature does produce GMOs. Swedish researchers discovered an enzyme-producing
gene in a meadow grass that naturally crossed into sheeps fescue about 700,000 years ago.
(Bengtsson, quote from NYT). While conflicting opinions exist within the scientific
community, the limited evidence available seems to suggest that existing GMO varieties are
not harmful to human health, although further studies are needed to support this claim
(Randerson).
The long-term ecological impacts of GMO crops are yet uncertain.
Cross-pollination with the wild type of GM species may lead to genetic contamination of the
wild type, which could alter local ecosystems. Genes are difficult to control, and wild types
of certain plants have been found to contain transgenic genes. Unapproved genetically
engineered grass has been found in Oregon (Pollack). 83 percent of rapeseed varieties in the
United States and Canada were found to contain transgenic genes (Pollack). However, crosspollination can be minimized through measures such as buffer zones between GMO and nonGMO fields, as well as careful field planning (GMO-compass); the problem with crosspollination may be minimized with proper planning and oversight.
Bt expressed in transgenic organisms is also toxic to a variety of helpful insects, including
natural pollinators and pest predators. Monarch butterflies, a chief pollinator in North
America, are highly susceptible to Bt poisoning, and will occasionally feed on corn plants
(Pimentel).
The introduction of Bt crops has also led to the rise of secondary non-target pests as major
scourges. Mealy bugs in India and Pakistan emerged as major pests directly following the
introduction of Bt crops in the region. These insects destroyed 50,000 out of 8 million acres
of cotton area across Pakistan, and the damage is still increasing. Organic crops have escaped
the plague, due to their farmers' use of natural pesticides instead of Bt crops (Ho). Likewise,
in China, Mirid bugs, which once did not present a threat to agriculture, have progressively
grown in number since the introduction of Bt crops, especially in regions growing Bt cotton
(Lu). The decrease in synthetic pesticide use in these regions has contributed to the rise in
pests that have never responded to Bt. However, it is possible that integrated management of
secondary pests, including techniques that integrate natural predators or parasites, can
alleviate the new pestilences (Lu).

Bt crops may still be better than their alternatives in that they represent an overall decrease in
ecological damage caused by pesticides. Still, the rise of such insects demonstrates the
unknowns involved in shifting over to transgenic crops. Unknown long-term ecological
effects make transgenics less palatable, especially in regions with great biodiversity.
The development of herbicide resistant plants has also led to an unexpected increase in the
resilience of weeds, which threatens to create a cycle of dependence. The introduction of such
herbicide tolerant plants at first decreased herbicide use, but afterwards increased its usage
and scope. Weeds have become more and more resistant to herbicides, prompting farmers to
use a wider variety and larger quantity of them (Lim). While pesticide use dropped from
22,454 lbs to 15,618 lbs from 2003 to 2008, at a rate of 7000 lbs per acre per year, herbicide
use increased from 278,514,000 lbs to 330,422,709 lbs (Cherry). Thus, the sum of herbicide
and pesticide usage per hectare in the United States increased 10 percent since 2003 (Cherry).
Insects exhibiting Bt resistance have also been documented in the United States, but the
scope of such resistance in insects can be minimized by the planting of non-Bt crops near Bt
ones (Pesticide Resistance, Physorg).
GMOs currently lack sufficient oversight.
Six unapproved GMO types have been found in livestock feed (Melvin). Censoring of
scientists such as Pustzai has also generated controversy on the validity of GMO studies
(Randerson). All GM crops should undergo safety screening in order to minimize health
consequences, environmental pollution, and ecological imbalance (FAO).
The influence of agricultural corporate giants on the availability of GM seeds may lead to
farmer exploitation.
Transgenics are expensive, and controlled by corporate agricultural giants. Since alleviating
poverty primarily concerns helping poor farmers, pushing them into a cycle of debt to foreign
agricultural giants is perilous to food security. In Monsanto vs Schmeiser, Monsanto was
guaranteed intellectual property rights over the Roundup Ready soybean seed; the precedent
may allow private companies like Monsanto to to exploit farmers. Herein lies our greatest
objection to using GM crops: until fit-for-the-purpose transgenic seeds are available for
distribution to farmers without threatening them with a cycle of debt, transgenic seeds
represent a step away from greater food security in the Third World.
However, if a rigorously tested and reliable source of transgenic seeds is found that does not
require dependence on large agricultural firms, will permit the farmers' traditional practice of
saving their seeds, and is approved by the local government, we are open to providing
farmers with the seeds under the condition that existing non-transgenic seeds be saved in a
food bank and still be available to local farmers.
Conclusion:
Other technologies