1: What if you knew that detractors fear that GM foods might pose health risks for certain people?
Some people, including children, are highly allergic to peanuts and other foods. Some critics of GM foods feel the possibility exists that those genetically modifying food crops may unintentionally introduce a new allergen. Another potential hazard to human health is the possibility that bacteria in our guts could pick up antibiotic-resistance genes found in many GM foodstuffs. If this transfer happens, in principle it could exacerbate the already worrisome spread of disease-causing bacteria that have proven able to withstand our antibiotics.
2: What if you knew that proponents assert that GM foods will promise many health benefits?
Advocates hold that GM foods will leave traditional crops in the dust. They will have longer shelf life. They will be better for us, with some products already in the works benefiting our waistlines and others bearing higher nutritional content. And they will be safer to eat. GM corn has lower fungal toxin content than non-GM corn, and farmers typically produce GM crops using fewer pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
3:What if you knew that many feel GM crop technology will hurt small farmers?
Critics of GM agriculture insist that patenting genetically altered crops, as agribusiness is rushing to do, will make small farmers indentured to big firms. Monsanto, one of the biggest players in the field, is currently suing dozens of North American farmers whom it claims have raised its patented GM crops without paying for the privilege.Some fear that GM crops might prove too expensive for poor farmers in developing countries, thus further widening the gap between rich and poor, or that they could repeat an often unspoken side effect of the Green Revolution. In countries like India, higher yields were achieved at such a cost in inputs that smaller farmers were often no better off, and many were forced into debt or off their land.
4:What if you knew that GM patrons insist that farmers will reap great benefits from biotechnology?
Insect pests cause stupendous crop losses every year, resulting in harsh financial setbacks for farmers. With crops genetically engineered to resist pests, GM proponents say, growers can avoid such losses and bring their produce to market at less cost. By the same token, weeds rob crops of vital nutrients. To do away with them, farmers often have to spray large amounts of weed killers, a time-consuming and expensive process. With, say, GM soybeans that are resistant to a single broad-spectrum herbicide, farmers only need to use a single weed killer rather than multiple kinds, and they may have to make only a single application rather than several.Using a single broad-spectrum herbicide can also help reduce land degradation, advocates say, by enabling farmers to optimize their use of "no-till" agriculture. Soil erosion is a serious global problem, with farmers losing an estimated 25 billion tons of topsoil through runoff and wind every year.
5:What if you knew that opponents fear that GM crops could harm the environment?
we're opening a Pandora's lunchbox with GM technology, that raising GM crops is an uncontrolled experiment with unknown consequences for surrounding ecosystems. Remember, they admonish, the ravages of the now-banned pesticide DDT. Or PCBs. Or dioxin. Or leaded gas.One of their greatest worries is that GM crops could harm other wildlife. Cornell University researchers found that only 56% of monarch larvae survived when fed milkweed plants covered in GM corn pollen, whereas all those fed milkweed leaves with traditional corn pollen lived. About 1/2 of monarchs in the U.S. spend their summers dining on milkweed in corn-growing regions, so to environmental activists this proved dire news.
6:What if you knew that advocates maintain that GM technology will help the environment?
In the U.S. alone, farmers spray, spread, and otherwise administer more than 970 million tons of insect- and plant-killers every year. Pesticide residues linger on crops and in soil, find their way into the guts of wildlife that eat contaminated foliage, and leach into groundwater and wash into streams. If a crop boasts its own ability to resist invertebrate predators, then farmers can use far fewer chemicals. In 1999, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, cotton farmers in states raising significant amounts of cotton genetically modified to withstand pests sprayed 21% less insecticide that is, they sprayed one to two times rather than 8 to 10.
7:What if you knew that many people feel genetically modifying organisms goes against Nature?
Many opponents of the genetic revolution whether it involves sequencing the human genome, owning genetic material, or devising GM crops pronounce that fiddling with the genetic makeup of plants and animals is unnatural. Nature takes millions of years to effect genetic change. Nature also does not mix apples and oranges, much less flounder and strawberries. Many argue we do not, and that such acts are immoral. For some, GM technology flies in the face of cherished principles about the relationship between humanity and nature. For others, such pursuits offend deeply held religious beliefs. For some people, genetic manipulation is nothing short of sacreligious.
8:What if you knew that scientists submit that genetically modifying plants is completely natural?
Genetic modification couldn't be more natural, geneticists say. Plants genetically modify themselves all the time. We've been genetically modifying plants for millennia. That's the basis of agriculture.Our manipulation of a single mustard species has generated such diverse vegetables as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and cabbage. The wild ancestors of grapes, potatoes, and all other fruits and vegetables you find today on grocery-store shelves are but pale shadows of their modern, highly modified descendants. All have gone through countless generations of careful hybridization and genetic breeding to improve yields, taste, size, texture, and other attributes.Modern GM methods are simply more precise, scientists stress. Whereas traditional plant breeding involves thousands of shared genes every time two plants are crossed, GM technology allows, if desired, for the exchange of a single gene between plants. GM procedures are also much faster. In months or years, molecular scientists can accomplish the same degree of alteration that might have taken Nature millions of years to achieve.
9:What if you knew that many critics inveigh against biotech companies for being profit-driven, with little concern for potential risks to people or nature?
GM seed firms invest heavily in research and development, and naturally, they want to recoup their investment. But in their rush to secure patents and reap profits, critics contend, big biotech firms are deliberately over-promoting the benefits of GM technology and underestimating possible health, socioeconomic, and environmental hazards.Detractors say these companies are also concentrating their efforts in high-volume crops, such as soybeans, corn, and cotton, and not in crops that might help feed the billions of people who live in poor countries. This "greed-not-need" ethic, GM opponents assert, may soon operate in an Orwellian agricultural climate, in which the power to produce and distribute food is concentrated in the hands of a few gigantic biotech firms.
10:What if you knew that companies that fashion GM seeds maintain that GM crops hold the greatest hope for adequately feeding our rapidly expanding world population?
Biotech spokespersons have argued that, while the industry is indeed concerned about the bottom line, it is primarily driven by research and innovation. Innovation is the only way to meet the world's burgeoning needs for food&medicines in a rapidly shrinking and increasingly scarred natural environment. Innovation requires costly&time-consuming research&testing, which will only happen if it's paid for. The best way to ensure it's paid for is through intellectual property protection.The result of this innovation will be GM crops that will offer our best chance to adequately address the challenge of feeding the estimated six billion people who, in as few as 50 yrs by some estimates, will join the 6 billion of us already here. GM crop farming holds out greater promise than conventional farming of boosting production on the same amount of ground, adherents say, and of raising crops where none could grow before, such as on salt-laden land. In increasing yields and making marginal lands productive, GM promoters insist, lie our only means of staving off widespread famine in developing countries in the coming decades.
11:What if you knew that many critics assert that GM foods suffer from dangerously poor oversight and regulation?
Anti-GM food activists have leveled much of their ire at the United States, which produces the bulk of the world's GM foods. Biotech firms, detractors maintain, have been developing and deploying GM crops too quickly and too broadly, without adequate testing or public debate. And the 3 government bodies that oversee the industry the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency are too lax in their scrutiny®ulation, they say.The FDA, for 1, has long maintained that most GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to unmodified foods&are thus not subject to FDA regulations. Biotech companies are not required to consult with the FDA on new GM foods, &even those that voluntarily do so do not have to follow the FDA's recommendations. Even a new FDA plan announced in early 2001 to review new GM foods for safety falls far short of the current surveillance of food additives, critics say.Labeling is another issue that raises the hackles of anti-GM food activists. The result, those who denounce the policy say, is that you as a consumer don't know what you're eating, you don't have the option of choosing not to buy foods with GM ingredients, and if you get sick from a GM food, no one will be able to trace your illness back to its source.
12:What if you knew that GM seed companies maintain that GM crops are the most thoroughly tested and highly regulated food plants out there?
Biotech firms hold that every GM food crop is thoroughly tested for possible health effects. They conduct these in-depth analyses, they say, because they are legally required to ensure foods they sell meet federal safety standards.Industry scientists start by comparing a GM plant with conventionally bred plants of the same variety. Their goal is to see whether an introduced gene alters the GM plant's chemical makeup and nutritional value. If the protein made from the new gene is the only discernible difference between the two plants, scientists test that protein for toxicity by feeding it to animals in amounts thousands of times higher than a person would ever eat. Scientists also test for allergy-inducing potential by checking the chemistry of each new protein against those of about 500 known allergens. When scientists realized a gene from Brazil nuts they were planning to splice into soybeans might sicken people harboring allergies to nuts, they discontinued the experiment. Similarly, when other researchers discovered that a protein in one type of GM corn might be allergenic, regulators approved that corn only for animal feed.Biotech firms point out that not one but three U.S. government agencies have their say about each GM crop. Under pressure from activists, these agencies have stepped up their vigilance. In 2000, the EPA began requiring farmers to plant 20% unmodified corn whenever they planted Bt corn. And in early 2001, the FDA proposed to begin reviewing all new GM foods for safety.
Some people, including children, are highly allergic to peanuts and other foods. Some critics of GM foods feel the possibility exists that those genetically modifying food crops may unintentionally introduce a new allergen. Another potential hazard to human health is the possibility that bacteria in our guts could pick up antibiotic-resistance genes found in many GM foodstuffs. If this transfer happens, in principle it could exacerbate the already worrisome spread of disease-causing bacteria that have proven able to withstand our antibiotics.
2: What if you knew that proponents assert that GM foods will promise many health benefits?
Advocates hold that GM foods will leave traditional crops in the dust. They will have longer shelf life. They will be better for us, with some products already in the works benefiting our waistlines and others bearing higher nutritional content. And they will be safer to eat. GM corn has lower fungal toxin content than non-GM corn, and farmers typically produce GM crops using fewer pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
3:What if you knew that many feel GM crop technology will hurt small farmers?
Critics of GM agriculture insist that patenting genetically altered crops, as agribusiness is rushing to do, will make small farmers indentured to big firms. Monsanto, one of the biggest players in the field, is currently suing dozens of North American farmers whom it claims have raised its patented GM crops without paying for the privilege.Some fear that GM crops might prove too expensive for poor farmers in developing countries, thus further widening the gap between rich and poor, or that they could repeat an often unspoken side effect of the Green Revolution. In countries like India, higher yields were achieved at such a cost in inputs that smaller farmers were often no better off, and many were forced into debt or off their land.
4:What if you knew that GM patrons insist that farmers will reap great benefits from biotechnology?
Insect pests cause stupendous crop losses every year, resulting in harsh financial setbacks for farmers. With crops genetically engineered to resist pests, GM proponents say, growers can avoid such losses and bring their produce to market at less cost. By the same token, weeds rob crops of vital nutrients. To do away with them, farmers often have to spray large amounts of weed killers, a time-consuming and expensive process. With, say, GM soybeans that are resistant to a single broad-spectrum herbicide, farmers only need to use a single weed killer rather than multiple kinds, and they may have to make only a single application rather than several.Using a single broad-spectrum herbicide can also help reduce land degradation, advocates say, by enabling farmers to optimize their use of "no-till" agriculture. Soil erosion is a serious global problem, with farmers losing an estimated 25 billion tons of topsoil through runoff and wind every year.
5:What if you knew that opponents fear that GM crops could harm the environment?
we're opening a Pandora's lunchbox with GM technology, that raising GM crops is an uncontrolled experiment with unknown consequences for surrounding ecosystems. Remember, they admonish, the ravages of the now-banned pesticide DDT. Or PCBs. Or dioxin. Or leaded gas.One of their greatest worries is that GM crops could harm other wildlife. Cornell University researchers found that only 56% of monarch larvae survived when fed milkweed plants covered in GM corn pollen, whereas all those fed milkweed leaves with traditional corn pollen lived. About 1/2 of monarchs in the U.S. spend their summers dining on milkweed in corn-growing regions, so to environmental activists this proved dire news.
6:What if you knew that advocates maintain that GM technology will help the environment?
In the U.S. alone, farmers spray, spread, and otherwise administer more than 970 million tons of insect- and plant-killers every year. Pesticide residues linger on crops and in soil, find their way into the guts of wildlife that eat contaminated foliage, and leach into groundwater and wash into streams. If a crop boasts its own ability to resist invertebrate predators, then farmers can use far fewer chemicals. In 1999, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, cotton farmers in states raising significant amounts of cotton genetically modified to withstand pests sprayed 21% less insecticide that is, they sprayed one to two times rather than 8 to 10.
7:What if you knew that many people feel genetically modifying organisms goes against Nature?
Many opponents of the genetic revolution whether it involves sequencing the human genome, owning genetic material, or devising GM crops pronounce that fiddling with the genetic makeup of plants and animals is unnatural. Nature takes millions of years to effect genetic change. Nature also does not mix apples and oranges, much less flounder and strawberries. Many argue we do not, and that such acts are immoral. For some, GM technology flies in the face of cherished principles about the relationship between humanity and nature. For others, such pursuits offend deeply held religious beliefs. For some people, genetic manipulation is nothing short of sacreligious.
8:What if you knew that scientists submit that genetically modifying plants is completely natural?
Genetic modification couldn't be more natural, geneticists say. Plants genetically modify themselves all the time. We've been genetically modifying plants for millennia. That's the basis of agriculture.Our manipulation of a single mustard species has generated such diverse vegetables as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and cabbage. The wild ancestors of grapes, potatoes, and all other fruits and vegetables you find today on grocery-store shelves are but pale shadows of their modern, highly modified descendants. All have gone through countless generations of careful hybridization and genetic breeding to improve yields, taste, size, texture, and other attributes.Modern GM methods are simply more precise, scientists stress. Whereas traditional plant breeding involves thousands of shared genes every time two plants are crossed, GM technology allows, if desired, for the exchange of a single gene between plants. GM procedures are also much faster. In months or years, molecular scientists can accomplish the same degree of alteration that might have taken Nature millions of years to achieve.
9:What if you knew that many critics inveigh against biotech companies for being profit-driven, with little concern for potential risks to people or nature?
GM seed firms invest heavily in research and development, and naturally, they want to recoup their investment. But in their rush to secure patents and reap profits, critics contend, big biotech firms are deliberately over-promoting the benefits of GM technology and underestimating possible health, socioeconomic, and environmental hazards.Detractors say these companies are also concentrating their efforts in high-volume crops, such as soybeans, corn, and cotton, and not in crops that might help feed the billions of people who live in poor countries. This "greed-not-need" ethic, GM opponents assert, may soon operate in an Orwellian agricultural climate, in which the power to produce and distribute food is concentrated in the hands of a few gigantic biotech firms.
10:What if you knew that companies that fashion GM seeds maintain that GM crops hold the greatest hope for adequately feeding our rapidly expanding world population?
Biotech spokespersons have argued that, while the industry is indeed concerned about the bottom line, it is primarily driven by research and innovation. Innovation is the only way to meet the world's burgeoning needs for food&medicines in a rapidly shrinking and increasingly scarred natural environment. Innovation requires costly&time-consuming research&testing, which will only happen if it's paid for. The best way to ensure it's paid for is through intellectual property protection.The result of this innovation will be GM crops that will offer our best chance to adequately address the challenge of feeding the estimated six billion people who, in as few as 50 yrs by some estimates, will join the 6 billion of us already here. GM crop farming holds out greater promise than conventional farming of boosting production on the same amount of ground, adherents say, and of raising crops where none could grow before, such as on salt-laden land. In increasing yields and making marginal lands productive, GM promoters insist, lie our only means of staving off widespread famine in developing countries in the coming decades.
11:What if you knew that many critics assert that GM foods suffer from dangerously poor oversight and regulation?
Anti-GM food activists have leveled much of their ire at the United States, which produces the bulk of the world's GM foods. Biotech firms, detractors maintain, have been developing and deploying GM crops too quickly and too broadly, without adequate testing or public debate. And the 3 government bodies that oversee the industry the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency are too lax in their scrutiny®ulation, they say.The FDA, for 1, has long maintained that most GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to unmodified foods&are thus not subject to FDA regulations. Biotech companies are not required to consult with the FDA on new GM foods, &even those that voluntarily do so do not have to follow the FDA's recommendations. Even a new FDA plan announced in early 2001 to review new GM foods for safety falls far short of the current surveillance of food additives, critics say.Labeling is another issue that raises the hackles of anti-GM food activists. The result, those who denounce the policy say, is that you as a consumer don't know what you're eating, you don't have the option of choosing not to buy foods with GM ingredients, and if you get sick from a GM food, no one will be able to trace your illness back to its source.
12:What if you knew that GM seed companies maintain that GM crops are the most thoroughly tested and highly regulated food plants out there?
Biotech firms hold that every GM food crop is thoroughly tested for possible health effects. They conduct these in-depth analyses, they say, because they are legally required to ensure foods they sell meet federal safety standards.Industry scientists start by comparing a GM plant with conventionally bred plants of the same variety. Their goal is to see whether an introduced gene alters the GM plant's chemical makeup and nutritional value. If the protein made from the new gene is the only discernible difference between the two plants, scientists test that protein for toxicity by feeding it to animals in amounts thousands of times higher than a person would ever eat. Scientists also test for allergy-inducing potential by checking the chemistry of each new protein against those of about 500 known allergens. When scientists realized a gene from Brazil nuts they were planning to splice into soybeans might sicken people harboring allergies to nuts, they discontinued the experiment. Similarly, when other researchers discovered that a protein in one type of GM corn might be allergenic, regulators approved that corn only for animal feed.Biotech firms point out that not one but three U.S. government agencies have their say about each GM crop. Under pressure from activists, these agencies have stepped up their vigilance. In 2000, the EPA began requiring farmers to plant 20% unmodified corn whenever they planted Bt corn. And in early 2001, the FDA proposed to begin reviewing all new GM foods for safety.