GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe. Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011 - ISAAA Brief 43-2011. Introduction This Executive Summary focuses on the 2011 biotech crop highlights, which are presented and discussed in detail in ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011. Biotech crops reached 160 million hectares, up 12 million hectares on 8% growth, from 2010, as the global population reached a historical milestone of 7 billion on 31 October 2011 2011 was the 16th year of commercialization of biotech crops, 1996-2011, when growth continued after a remarkable 15 consecutive years of increases; a double-digit increase of 12 million hectares, at a growth rate of 8%, reaching a record 160 million hectares.
Biotech crops, fastest adopted crop technology A 94-fold increase in hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 160 million hectares in 2011 makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in the history of modern agriculture. Millions of farmers globally elect to adopt biotech crops due to the benefits they offer. Evidence Stacking Up Against Biotechnology Critics | Technology+Policy.
Calestous Juma By Calestous Juma Critics of agricultural biotechnology have long maintained that the technology is unsuitable for small-scale farmers and harmful to the environment. But according to newly-released adoption rates, evidence is pointing in the opposite direction. In its latest report, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) shows that biotechnology crops now cover 160 million hectares worldwide.
Of the 16.7 million people who grew transgenic crops in 2011, 15 million or 90% were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Early critics of biotechnology contended that biotechnology crops would only benefit large-scale farmers in industries countries. According to the report, over the 1996-2010 period, “cumulative economic benefits were the same for developing and developed countries (US$39 billion). Emerging evidence runs counter to those fears. Studies for GENERA. What Should We Know About Foreign Genes In Our Food? Bacteria on bean leaf. In a recent email exchange about the merits of mandatory “GMO labeling,” I was asked this question: “Why shouldn’t we be able to know what foreign genes are in our food?”
It seems like a reasonable question to most people. After all, we are the customers; don’t we have a right to know what we want to know? The answer to that question is actually a lot more complicated than you might think. What some people find “creepy” about the idea of “GMO crops” is that they contain genes from organisms other than the crop itself – hence the emotive term, foreign genes. Plant Surface Dwellers Above Ground The surfaces of all plants, including those used for food, support a rich and diverse community of micro-organisms. Plant Surface Dwellers Below Ground Root vegetables are covered with microbes that contain 'foreign' genes. There are also richly diverse communities of microbes that live in association with below ground portions of plants (roots, tubers…). Yes and no. Food Politics. Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1.
Abstract A major conflict has developed in science and society between promoters and opponents of transgenic foods. Food, feed, and fiber products derived from transgenic agricultural crops are presented here as a different case from bacterial, industrial, and pharmaceutical crop transgenics and should be parsed from the larger transgenics industry for comprehensive re-evaluation and market roll-back. Reviewed is the development of the crop transgenics industry; the early influence of the biotechnology industry over the US federal regulatory agencies in the context of the development of minimal regulation; the basic technology of plant transgenics; the main transgenic crops, traits, and producing countries; consumer resistance to transgenic foods; industry problems with shrinking investments; the worldwide promotion of transgenic crops; and ecological issues of transgenic crops.
View Article (PDF) Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 2. Abstract Factors in the failure of the scientific community to properly oversee agricultural transgenics are presented. The large-scale restructuring of university science programs in the past 25 years from a model based on non-proprietary science for the ‘public good’ to the ‘academic capitalism’ model based on the ‘knowledge economy’ is discussed in the context of the failure of the science community to oversee the transition of transgenic crop technology from the research stage to commercialization. View Article (PDF)
Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals. In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto’s GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats. According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, “Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities.” Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption.
The stamp of approval may have been premature, however. In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote: “Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests. Int J Biol Sci 2010; 6(6):590-598. doi:10.7150/ijbs.6.590 Communication Joël Spiroux de Vendômois1, Dominique Cellier1,2, Christian Vélot1,3, Emilie Clair1,4, Robin Mesnage1,4, Gilles-Eric Séralini1,4 1. CRIIGEN, 40 rue Monceau, 75008 Paris France2. University of Rouen, LITIS EA 4108, 76821 Mont Saint-Aignan, France3. How to cite this article: de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE. We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for the main commercialized edible GMOs.
Keywords: GMOs, Health risks, Pesticides, Regulatory toxicology, Animal tests The debate on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used for food and feed is still very lively throughout the world, more than 15 years after their first commercial release [3-5]. The debate on health risks is first of all based on theoretical considerations, and second on the knowledge derived from mammalian experiments fed on GMOs. Fig 1 (Click on the image to enlarge.) Food Safety - The Science. Introduction and Overview It is well-recognized that absolute safety is not an achievable goal in any human endeavor, and this reality is relevant to food and feed safety. The safe use of food or feed has typically been established either through experience, based on its common use, or in more recent times by application of generally recognized scientific assessment measures.
For food and feed derived from genetically modified (GM) or biotech crops, Monsanto assesses each new product for safety according to rigorous procedures established by international expert bodies charged with assuring the safety of food and feed derived from crops modified using agricultural biotechnology. Since the 1990’s, the safety standard for novel food and feed crops and biotech crops in particular has been that they be as safe as an appropriate counterpart with a history of safe consumption. Safety of the Introduced Protein(s): Proteins are a necessary part of human and animal diets.