GMOs May Feed the World Using Fewer Pesticides

[iNow]

Here's another take... We probably need GMOs to help us survive and feed the world's growing population, potentially allowing us to do so with lower user of poisons and pesticides. A good article overall. Just a short snippet below.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/nature/fewer-pesticides-farming-with-gmos/

So while De Jong still devotes most of his time to honing his craft, he has recently begun to experiment in an entirely different way, with genetic engineering. To him, genetic engineering represents a far more exact way to produce new varieties, rather than simply scrambling the potato genomes 39,000 genes the way traditional breeding does. By inserting a specific fungus-defeating gene into a tasty potato, for example, De Jong knows he could offer farmers a product that requires fewer pesticides.

 

We want to make food production truly sustainable, De Jong says, and right now I cannot pretend that it is.

 

The need to protect crops from ruin grows more vital every day. By 2050, farmers must produce 40% more food to feed an estimated 9 billion people on the planet. Either current yields will have to increase or farmland will expand farther into forests and jungles. In some cases, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would offer an alternative way to boost yields without sacrificing more land or using more pesticides, De Jong says. But he fears this approach wont blossom if the public rejects GMOs out of hand.

That last statement in my quote above strikes me as particularly poignant. What are your thoughts?

[CharonY]

It depends on the GMO and on region. In my opinion the largest need for improved crops is found in third world countries. As such a GMO would ideally be more productive, cheap, and ideally provide more nutrition.

At the same time, they should minimize harm in the environment.

 

Chances are that, if properly implemented there is e.g. a chance to reduce pesticide use, which has the chance to be cheaper (as one would not need to buy certain pesticides) and may have less ecological impact than actual pesticide use (though some more studies would be beneficial).

 

My main skepticism is whether theses crops would be made available to those that are in need and what type of dependencies this may create for the farmers. For example, the use of Monsanto crops is rather strictly licensed, and you cannot simply use seeds from your own crops to become self-sustainable. This may result in an unhealthy dependency on certain corporations.

 

In addition, I am not sure by how much these GMOs would effectively reduce pesticide control, often times there is a mix that is being used and in some cases the GMO is just resistant against a specific herbicide, which is then used on the field.

 

I think in the end I would like to see a larger number of studies that do some current cost/benefit calculations before I make up my mind.

[iNow]

You raise good points, many reinforcing the article. I also liked the point the author made that new regulations and smarter legislation globally will be needed to really make this work and realize the potential benefit more fully.

[CharonY]

One thing that I forgot to mention is the worry (that is shared with traditional agriculture) that massive replacement of indigenous crops may further reduce biodiversity of our food base. Especially if one or two supercrops become the main staple.

[overtone]

 

 

We probably need GMOs to help us survive and feed the world's growing population, potentially allowing us to do so with lower user of poisons and pesticides.

The theoretical benefits of well employed genetic engineering are almost impossible to overestimate. It truly is a salvation - in theory.

 

In practice it's in the hands of Monsanto, Dekalb, et al. They have no objection to these benefits, if they don't cost anything, but it's pretty clear they have another agenda entirely.

 

 

 

But he fears this approach wont blossom if the public rejects GMOs out of hand.
That last statement in my quote above strikes me as particularly poignant.

Treat people honestly, do not abuse them for money, do not lie to them about what you are up to, do not put them and their world at unconscionable risk for short term profit, and they may be less likely to reject your pet projects out of hand.

 

Genetic engineering is going to acquire the reputation of its employers, and the record of what they do.

 

 

 

I also liked the point the author made that new regulations and smarter legislation globally will be needed to really make this work and realize the potential benefit more fully.

And until that happy day, it will continue to be what it is - a source of damage to efforts at sustainable agriculture, an extraordinary risk to the health, environment, economiy, and food security of most of the people on this planet, undertaken for the huge monetary profit of a couple of large corporations.

[iNow]

In practice it's in the hands of Monsanto, Dekalb, et al. They have no objection to these benefits, if they don't cost anything, but it's pretty clear they have another agenda entirely.

Corporations are in place to make money. That's what they do. I understand the concerns that they will not prioritize the well-being or health of the public. I agree, they won't... Unless they need to in order to make more money. This is where regulations come in, IMO.

 

 

And until that happy day, it will continue to be what it is - a source of damage to efforts at sustainable agriculture, an extraordinary risk to the health, environment, economiy, and food security of most of the people on this planet, undertaken for the huge monetary profit of a couple of large corporations.

Where I see a bigger problem is the continued overreaction from a relatively uninformed public... Well-meaning people trying to do the right thing for our collective futures, but in the process actually causing greater long-term harm due to the lack of nuance in their position. It's an absolutist mindset driven by powerful emotion and not by critical thought... at least with the population of folks I've encountered on this subject.

 

As I noted above, and as you most certainly already know, corporations are in place to make profits. That is what they do and that is true in effectively any sector or market, but that is IMO a completely different and tangential discussion to the technology and potential itself.

 

If we regulate the use of GMO crops and livestock well, and if we allow the most informed subject matter experts to help craft that policy (instead of the largely uninformed emotionally driven faith based populace)... and if we stop with the thousands of CREDO petitions and thousands of phone calls and emails to our representatives screaming against everything and anything GMO-related, then we might actually manage to significantly decrease the need for fertilizers and increase the ability to feed ourselves as the population continues to surge in the years ahead.

 

There are farmers who are not part of major agribusiness that could save tens of thousands of dollars per year using these... They could manage their land without massive injections of harmful chemicals that runoff into the water supply... There are people in third world countries that could avoid the blight and the bugs that wipe out entire crops and cause significant portions of their population to starve...

 

There are, as you rightly acknowledge, a set of potential benefits from this work that are nearly impossible to overstate, but the loudest and most animated voices we hear are passionately against anything that even mentions the term "GMO." It's not informed by reason or rationality in most cases, but is instead a reflexive and emotive disgust that results in all of us being blocked from using this tech... and it's generally people who tend live in posh apartments in the middle of cities who have never farmed a day in their lives. It's silly.

[CharonY]

One sticky point for me is that I have not yet seen many studies that demonstrate actual rather than potential benefits of GMO crops. I think it would require some more studies to see whether it is really going to be a solution to problems or not. Whether the public is going to accept is is more a public policy and education issue than a biological one.

[Moontanman]

The potential of GMO is obvious, taken to an extreme we can see meat being grown on trees but experimenting in the open environment seems a bit less than ideal to me. The whole pesticide in a crop things becomes a little problematical when you see the cross pollination and sharing of genes between food crops and experimental crops. I do see the benefits out weighing risks if reasonable precautions are taken...

[overtone]

I understand the concerns that they will not prioritize the well-being or health of the public.

Unfortunately, we're long past that kind of hypothetical concern. Three quarters of the agriculture economy in the US has been converted to GM cultivation, right now. The well-being of any entity except the corporate profiteers was not even considered, let alone "prioritized".

 

I agree, they won't... Unless they need to in order to make more money. This is where regulations come in, IMO.

And since no such regulations were put in place (not even setaside land or proportional genetic diversity maintenance), and even such minimal and last ditch measures as far downstream retail consumer choice and similar market pressures carefully excluded, the only priority has been corporate profit - and that has been the only benefit.

 

The entire body of risks and damages has been incurred, and is being amplified and elaborated, for no benefit whatsoever except the profit margins of a few large agribusiness concerns.

 

 

 

Where I see a bigger problem is the continued overreaction from a relatively uninformed public... Well-meaning people trying to do the right thing for our collective futures, but in the process actually causing greater long-term harm due to the lack of nuance in their position.

Quit lying to people about what's going on, slow down a bit on the more obviously damaging aspects of this heedless rush to profits for a couple of corporations, show a minimal glimmer of prudence, responsibility, and adult judgment as promoters of radically new and untried and very complex technology, and maybe you'll get less "overreaction" from a "relatively uninformed" public.

 

You are asking people to trust liars and con artists and manipulative corporate profiteers with near-monopoly control of their food supply, for starters - the people who object to that, even reflexively, are not uninformed "relative" to the naive techies who yak about all the shiny wonderful potential.

 

 

 

There are, as you rightly acknowledge, a set of potential benefits from this work that are nearly impossible to overstate, but the loudest and most animated voices we hear are passionately against anything that even mentions the term "GMO." It's not informed by reason or rationality in most cases, but is instead a reflexive and emotive disgust that results in all of us being blocked from using this tech

The people who have given up on trying to explain the complexities and dangers of this stuff to deaf techies, many of whom have concluded the stuff just needs to be confined to the lab wherever still possible until more sober adults can get a handle on it, are more and better informed than you are. Meanwhile. the loudest and most animated voices almost anyone hears in the US are the ones promulgating your exact line of propaganda.

 

That's why contrary to your hyperventilating tone none of this stuff has been "blocked" in the US. We who want some common sense introduced can't even get the herbicide sequestering crops labeled, for Chrissake. We can't get safety zones for backup agricultural methods, or protection of valuable and irreplaceable resources put at immediate risk (Bt pesticides, glysphosphate herbicides, genetic diversity of many kinds, ecological resilience in the landscape, long list). We can't get the little actual research accomplished so far into the public domain and unencumbered by commercial pressures. We can't get wholesale conversion of the entire North American farming system to an untried and problematic complex of new and poorly understood innovations even slowed down, researched and checked out over time.

 

What the technology-hypnotized intellectual faction that is blindly pushing Monsanto's bait and switch needs to realize is that this stuff is not theory, the world is not Star Trek, and that when one says something like "of course we need regulations" and "of course we need good research" the immediate next step is recognizing that allowing the broadcast of this stuff wholesale across continents for big private money without the regulations and without the research and without knowing what one is doing is very,

 

very,

 

bag of hammers, dropped on one's head, lights on nobody home, sawing off the limb you're sitting on,

 

stupid.

 

And that is what we are trying to deal with, out here in the real world.

Edited November 27, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

I find it interesting that my post has received such an expressive and bold reaction (talk of me promulgating propaganda, hyperventilating tone, etc... especially given that my source was PBS Nova and not some Monsanto press release), but I thank you for your reply all the same.

[Moontanman]

I find it interesting that my post has received such an expressive and bold reaction (talk of me promulgating propaganda, hyperventilating tone, etc... especially given that my source was PBS Nova and not some Monsanto press release), but I thank you for your reply all the same.

 

 

GMO is another one of those topics driven more by fear than data...

[iNow]

I tend to agree, but I also know that Overtone is almost certainly well informed on the issue so don't want to be too quick to dismiss his points. They are good ones, but they do seem to support my contention that passions run very hot on this issue and it's often difficult to merely discuss and/or disagree based on the merits.

The subject and my interactions with most others, however, do tend to remind me of discussions about vaccines and autism.

[overtone]

 

 

I find it interesting that my post has received such an expressive and bold reaction (talk of me promulgating propaganda, hyperventilating tone, etc... especially given that my source was PBS Nova and not some Monsanto press release)

As long as defenders of current GMO proliferation and employment feel entitled - by some presumed superiority of rationality and information not exactly visible front and center (to put it mildly - how many times have we seen one of that crowd claim that domesticated crops are all genetically engineered, for example?) - to refer to the opponents of Monsanto's predatory agenda, and the defenders of prudence in agricultural innovation, the objectors to the abusive practices, and the worriers about the considerable risks being inflicted on landscapes and people not receiving the slightest benefit from them,

 

like this:

 

 

 

Well-meaning people trying to do the right thing for our collective futures, but in the process actually causing greater long-term harm due to the lack of nuance in their position. It's an absolutist mindset driven by powerful emotion and not by critical thought...
- - - -

- - we allow the most informed subject matter experts to help craft that policy (instead of the largely uninformed emotionally driven faith based populace)... and if we stop with the thousands of CREDO petitions and thousands of phone calls and emails to our representatives screaming against everything and anything GMO-related,

- - -

the loudest and most animated voices we hear are passionately against anything that even mentions the term "GMO." It's not informed by reason or rationality in most cases, but is instead a reflexive and emotive disgust that results in all of us being blocked from using this tech..

- - -

GMO is another one of those topics driven more by fear than data..

- - -

they should not be all that mystified when encountering similar language from others.

 

Irrationality, faith based reflexive beliefs, and apparently emotion-based claims not backed by physical reality, are very common in the GM promoting crowd.

 

Too many people who want to see the bright potential of GMOs furthered seem to have a large blind spot when it comes to the actual GMOs and the behaviors of their corporate proliferators - a parallel with the early days of nuclear power comes to mind, with its promotors talking about the rosy future and potential (electricity too cheap to be worth metering! subway tunnels blown from New York to Los Angeles!) and somehow overlooking the actual agendas and behaviors of the industries involved, the actual risks and side effects inherent in that stuff.

 

The people who want to see the benefits of GMOs have a problem, and it's not the irrational disgust or atavistic fear of an ignorant citizenry - that's easy to overcome, with the experience of wonders and benefits - but the association of these techniques with the kind of stuff the agribusiness multinationals are up to. You want to save GM from a backlash? Rein in the corporations, open the books on the research, label the stuff, do not impose, do not bait and switch, do not allow predation. That insane and irresponsible corporate shit is going to bite us all in the ass, and genetic engineering itself, in general, all of it, is going to get blamed by association - an association you helped Monsanto to make.

[iNow]

As I said, I find it important to (at least try to) separate corporate agendas for profits from technology's ability to help our species.

[overtone]

 

 

As I said, I find it important to (at least try to) separate corporate agendas for profits from technology's ability to help our species

If you are planning to remain in the theoretical and speculative, no problem.

 

There aren't any irrational, fear-driven interferences from laymen at that level. You aren't going to actually feed anyone either, of course.

 

If you are planning to engineer the genetics of organisms and employ them for human benefit, then as things stand now you are in the world of corporate agenda for profit. The opportunity to keep them separate from the beginning was missed.

[iNow]

The mere involvement of corporations, however, does not mandate that benefit cannot be achieved. We benefit from computers, yet corporations produce them. We benefit from pharmaceuticals, yet corporations produce them. We benefit from medical diagnostic equipment, yet corporations produce them, too. The examples of us benefiting from things where there is corporate involvement are numerous.

 

Separating GMO technology from corporate agendas toward profits is not IMO a necessary condition for realizing significant benefit from said technology. Your position, however, seems to suggest that benefit is eliminated or even turned into an overall negative due to the involvement of corporations... that because groups like Monsanto are involved we must go full-stop... and that does seem to me a bit irrational and/or fear-driven... Unless I am misunderstanding you? Maybe I'm just less risk-averse and more comfortable with big changes in tech than you?

Edited November 28, 2013 by iNow

[overtone]

 

 

The mere involvement of corporations, however, does not mandate that benefit cannot be achieved.

Not in theory, no.

 

Out here in the world, that is what is happening.

 

 

 

Your position, however, seems to suggest that benefit is eliminated or even turned into an overall negative due to the involvement of corporations... that because groups like Monsanto are involved we must go full-stop.

I'm not making a theoretical argument. I'm making a real world observation. In your hypothetical world of regulated, sane, research backed, prudent, responsible genetic engineering, one would welcome anyone's involvement. In the world we inhabit, 90% of what's actually happening is flat crazy where it's not borderline evil.

 

Look, if thirty years ago someone had proposed somehow introducing a single type of genetic complex into the corn and soybeans grown in the US, and it had the following properties: it introduced a generalizable mechanism of toxin resistance in its host plant, it sequestered these toxins in the plant in various chemical complexes; it was designed to be easily and mechanically transferred between genetically disparate organisms (across kingdoms, even); it contined fully activated code completelely alien to any crop or other source of human food and unfamiliar in expression, introduced at disparate and occasioanlly multiple locations in the genome; it cut yield per acre by 5%; and it was self-sustaining in the environment - it reproduced and spread in ordinary biological ways.

 

And it's major, driving benefit was higher profits for its corporate developers, some of which would be shared with the larger farmers adopting it.

 

How much research, into what side effects, over what time period, would you have recommended before all buyt irreversibly converting 75% of US agricultural production - basically the entire farming landscape - to crops hosting that genetic complex in that way?

[iNow]

Why do you imagine such a conversion would be irreversible? It seems to me we could quite easily revert back to traditional non-GMO seeds during the next planting cycle if circumstances warranted it and GMOs were deemed dangerous.

[GiantEvil]

Why do you imagine such a conversion would be irreversible? It seems to me we could quite easily revert back to traditional non-GMO seeds during the next planting cycle if circumstances warranted it and GMOs were deemed dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species

 

Here is a PDF of the text of the GMO labeling initiative from Washington State (10 pages total.); http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_285.pdf

 

And 21 million spent against the labeling initiative. Also the State has sued one of the largest contributing lobbying groups for violation of campaign contribution disclosure regulations. ;http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/28/food-fight-bringsinthebigbucksinwashingtonstate.html

Why wouldn't a corporation want a brand name on their product?

 

The insulin I use is a direct result of recombinative DNA technologies, but the prices currently charged are prohibitive exclusively from a cause of corporate greed. (I'll provide a more detailed explanation on request)

 

GMO and other recombinative DNA technologies are tools, and depending on the hands into which any particular tool is delivered, creation or destruction may result.

[iNow]

Here is a PDF of the text of the GMO labeling initiative from Washington State (10 pages total.); <snip> And 21 million spent against the labeling initiative. Also the State has sued one of the largest contributing lobbying groups for violation of campaign contribution disclosure regulations. <snip> Why wouldn't a corporation want a brand name on their product?

Labeling is also a peripheral issue to what I'm discussing, IMO. The answer to your question, though, is quite easy. A corporation would want to avoid labeling GMO foods as such if the public was deeply uninformed and full of fear of anything GMO related.

 

Despite the lack of evidence that GMOs cause any harm whatsoever there is massive public outcry and opposition to them (often, quite irrational opposition). This would simply hurt business/sales. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with not labeling products with GMO crops, but it seems to me to just be a way to treat certain products as taboo or unhealthy even when they are not. I'm really just saying the answer to why they wouldn't want labels is very straight forward from a business perspective, especially given the way the public reacts to the concept of GMO... even absent evidence they do any harm whatsoever.

 

GMO and other recombinative DNA technologies are tools, and depending on the hands into which any particular tool is delivered, creation or destruction may result.

Of course, but this too seems to support the contention that much of the opposition fear-based at the core.

[sialic acid]

I'm still on the fence about GMOs. Sure they promise to feed the world, but at what cost? Who gets the patent and how much will they control? Additionally, what often gets overlooked is the fact that relying on GMO use often creates practices of monoculture or very limited diversity in our food chain. Who wants the same old boring and tasteless 2 tomatoes? What often gets lost are the hundreds and thousands of heirloom varieties of almost every type of produce and livestock known to man. And that comes at the cost of flavor. A tomato is not just a tomato, corn is not just corn, and wheat not just wheat. Different breeds of tomatoes produce radically different flavors and textures. As a consumer, I also have the concern that GMOs also run the risk of pigeonholing the availability of choice you have when it comes to the spectrum of flavor that will be available in food. Food and food flavors strongly reflect the way that they're grown and the life they've lived. Ask almost any chef the difference in the taste of meat between something like a factory farmed hog and a Spanish Iberian pig. What often gets lost in allllllllllll of the science are the flavors nature has imparted into our food through millions of years of evolution and flavors humans have introduced through millenia of farming practices. All of the sudden corps like Monsanto et al. know how to farm better than what humans have learned through thousands of years of practice? Also, for all of the promises GMOs offer, do you really think major corporations are going to give away their technology for free? Of course not. GMO crops won't be feeding poor countries or the starving since they won't be able to afford GMOs in the first place. Even if those countries somehow are able to get GMO crops, it'll just reinforce poor countries' dependency on richer nations every single year.

Edited December 1, 2013 by sialic acid

[iNow]

One can still grow heirloom tomatoes and other varieties of crops in local gardens, but the output of those local gardens will never scale up to meet the needs of our hungry populace. This was covered in the article within the OP. The rest of what you shared is certainly important to consider, but ultimately also rooted in fear and emotion and few if any facts.

[overtone]

Why do you imagine such a conversion would be irreversible?

It's an observation, not an imagination.

 

For one simple example: Once you have bred glyphosphate or Bt resistance into the landscape (as the genetic engineers are doing, for private profit), you can't go back - at least, not on a human lifetime scale. Look at what the industrial agribusiness folks did to DDT.

 

 

 

It seems to me we could quite easily revert back to traditional non-GMO seeds during the next planting cycle if circumstances warranted it and GMOs were deemed dangerous

You mean like trans fats, after a generation or more? Day late and a dollar short, how many dead people in the meantime? And that was an easy one, technologically and economically and politically very simple, nothing like an entrenched GMO.

 

And there are dozens of different GMOs in the pipeline - each one of them a trans fat type possibility in the making, separately from the others

 

So, no, it would take probably a generation at least - a generation of hardship. That's assuming we even could get the engineered genetics out of the landscape - depending on the particular modification, that may prove impossible in practice. And we would still have the opportunity cost of the progress we could have made in regular farming, as well as in foregone genetic engineering done well and for benefit.

 

The word for that necessity would be "disaster". That's what we're courting, letting folks like Monsanto run this show.

 

 

 

A corporation would want to avoid labeling GMO foods as such if the public was deeply uninformed and full of fear of anything GMO related.

Too bad. Funny they didn't try informing the public, then, if lack of information was the problem - instead of spreading misinformation and deceptions, as they did.

 

 

 

Despite the lack of evidence that GMOs cause any harm whatsoever

That's ridiculous. There is an entire body of evolutionary theory and multiple observations of trends and effects in evidence on the subject of GMO damage, hazard, and dangerous potential.

 

 

 

I'm really just saying the answer to why they wouldn't want labels is very straight forward from a business perspective

Yes, it is - recall this earlier comment: " I find it important to (at least try to) separate corporate agendas for profits from technology's ability to help our species ". Let's start by separating the "business perspective" from any ability to influence our assessment of help to our species we stand to realize from the actual engineered genetics being marketed now.

 

 

 

Of course, but this too seems to support the contention that much of the opposition fear-based at the core.

Sober risk assessment is not "fear-based at the core". Whatever fraction of "the opposition" is irrationally and ignorantly fearful, we can match up with the fraction of the promotion that is irrationally and ignorantly greedy and hubris - addled and dismiss in bloc, then get back to the real issues. (people like me are in favor of massive public investment in genetic engineering research, wide realization of the great benefits available - are we part of "the opposition"?)

 

 

 

the output of those local gardens will never scale up to meet the needs of our hungry populace

I wouldn't be so sure about that - there are some very, very productive gardens out there, and "scaling up" one would expect to be a matter of research

 

Meanwhile, let us not forget the yield per acre hit suffered by the engineered crops we have - 5 - 12 % is the commonly encountered range.

Edited December 1, 2013 by overtone

[iNow]

For one simple example: Once you have bred glyphosphate or Bt resistance into the landscape (as the genetic engineers are doing, for private profit), you can't go back - at least, not on a human lifetime scale.

You've repeated your claim, but not really explained it. Why can't farmers simply revert back to non-GMO seeds in future planting cycles if they desire to do so?

 

Here's how I'm thinking about this: In season X, plant GMO seeds. Decide you don't like 'em. Then, in season X+1, plant non-GMO seeds. It sounds like you're suggesting the non-GMO seeds would not grow when planted in season X+1 and I do not understand why that would be the case. Can you elaborate or share evidence which makes clear that this position is somehow fundamentally flawed?

 

Day late and a dollar short, how many dead people in the meantime?

GMO crops have not even been demonstrated to be harmful, let alone to cause dead people. I'll take the opposition more seriously once empiricism is in place to support such hyperbole.

 

That's ridiculous. There is an entire body of evolutionary theory and multiple observations of trends and effects in evidence on the subject of GMO damage, hazard, and dangerous potential.

Well, if it's so ridiculous then, please... By all means, do cite some of that body of evidence showing GMO crops to be hazardous, dangerous, and damaging to human health. If I'm mistaken, then I'd very much like to be corrected, but thus far nobody with whom I've interacted on this subject has been able to cite anything other than speculation and fear.

 

In the meantime, when I do my own research on the topic I continue to read articles like those below suggesting the contrary:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer

http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907

 

 

Sober risk assessment is not "fear-based at the core".

Perhaps not, but when those assessments are rooted in speculation and not empirical evidence (as seems to be the case here), then they technically are fear-based at the core no matter how forcefully or vitriolically you assert otherwise.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that - there are some very, very productive gardens out there, and "scaling up" one would expect to be a matter of research.

Perhaps they could scale up, sure... but as of today that is not the case. As of today, they are not able to provide enough food to feed humanity, and that is based on today's level of demand. My position that local farms could not scale becomes only further reinforced when you recognize that demand will only increase as the population climbs to 9 billion and food demand will be 40% higher by 2050 than it is today.

 

From the article:

The need to protect crops from ruin grows more vital every day. By 2050, farmers must produce 40% more food to feed an estimated 9 billion people on the planet.

As I've already stipulated above, perhaps your position is more nuanced and informed than most. However, that's not generally what I encounter on this topic. Having read your posts and and been part of threads with you, I strongly suspect that to be the case. I also recognize that you're not against this in concept, but you have some strong reservations that you do not feel have yet been adequately addressed, and those reservations take on greater weight when we realize that it's big money-hungry corporations who are really dictating what's happening in this space. I get that, but as I said, I'm arguing the tech, not the politics or the special interests that might use it. If we educate people well enough about the former then we have a chance to regulate and protect ourselves against the latter.

 

However, in the meantime... (again from my article in the OP):

 

"There is not a single documented case of anyone being hurt by genetically modified food, and yet this is a bigger problem for people than pesticides, which we know have caused harm, he says. I just shake my head in bewilderment at the folks who take these stringent positions that biotech should be banned.

<snip>

I find it so tragic that, by and large, crop biotechnologists and farmers want to reduce their pesticide use, and yet the method we think is most sustainable and environmentally friendly has been dismissed out of hand. He pauses as he recalls the event and says, There is no scientific justification for itit is just as if there is a high priest who decided, Thou shalt not be GMO.

[Ringer]

The argument of 'how many people MAY die from GMO' is sorely lacking. Not only because it is speculative, but it ignores the problem of how many people ARE dying due to lack of certain nutrients their normal diet does not adequately contain, but can be resolved through modification. Or how many people are dying from increased yields they could be produced. It's the same risk one takes when undergoing, say, a heart transplant. In one case you may die, in the other you will die.