By Herman Brockman
Basic research discoveries in the then-new field of molecular biology in the 1950s and ‘60s led to the ability to isolate (clone) a gene and transfer it from one virus or organism to another. This became known as genetic engineering, an integral tool for biotechnology. A major consequence of these discoveries was the development, about 20 years ago, of commercial plant crops that came to be known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or less so as genetically engineered organisms (GEOs). More specifically, almost all GMOs are transgenic organisms. Transgenic means that the gene(s) from one species is transferred into the genome (DNA) of a different species.
By 2014, 94 percent and 93 percent of U.S. soybean and corn acreage, respectively, were planted with transgenic seeds. These seeds had one or two different transgenic traits: herbicide (Roundup) tolerance (corn and soybeans) and insect resistance (corn). Each trait is due to a gene(s) from a bacterial species. Introduction of these two types of GMOs came with two major predictions from the pesticide/GMO companies: decreased use of pesticides and increased yield. The reality by 2014 was an increase in pesticide use and no or marginal increase in yield. Furthermore, herbicide-resistant weed species (so called superweeds) are an accelerating major problem for farmers wherever GM herbicide-tolerant crops are grown. Similarly, corn rootworms are developing resistance to the insecticide(s) synthesized by every cell of GM insect-resistant corn.
Despite this dismal record of GM crops to date, companies are taking advantage of additional discoveries in molecular biology and resultant genetic engineering to develop new types of GMOs that are not transgenic. These companies are pushing the fallacious concept that because these new GMOs are not transgenic they do not need to undergo the already weak oversight of the USDA, EPA, and FDA for transgenic GMOs. I disagree with these companies at a basic level because farmers do not need these new GMOs, and we as a society should not expose ourselves and the environment to their largely unknown and perhaps unregulated risks.
Most important for our evaluation of old and new types of GMOs is that they must not be considered in isolation because they are always used as only one of the multiple practices of industrial agriculture. These practices include the intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, no or minimal crop rotation (continuous corn or alternating corn and soybeans), and seldom integration of crops and farm animals on the same farm. For example, a farmer who uses Monsanto’s GM herbicide-tolerant seeds (Roundup Ready corn and soybeans) will also use Roundup herbicide, also conveniently made by Monsanto. Therefore, when you read about GMOs think about the totality of industrial agriculture, not only the GMOs
Fortunately, for both farmers and others, there is another kind of agriculture – organic farming. Organic farmers do not use GMOs and synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Rather, they control pests and build soil fertility and health by using crop rotations and often by integrating crops and farm animals on the same farm. Industrial agriculture started only about 70 years ago, and extensively less than that. On the other hand, organic agriculture has been practiced sustainably in some regions of the world for thousands of years.
The longest running (since 1981) side-by-side research comparison of organic and industrial farming practices in the U.S. is the Rodale Institute’s “Farming Systems Trial” in Pennsylvania. Their 24-page report “Celebrating 30 Years” notes these major findings: organic yields matched industrial yields; organic yields more than industrial in drought years; organic is more profitable than industrial; organic uses 45 percent less energy and is more efficient than industrial; industrial produces 40 percent more greenhouse gases than organic; and organic systems build, rather than deplete, soil organic matter, making them more sustainable than industrial systems.
Why haven’t these striking findings, and those from other studies, led to a massive shift to organic agriculture? It should be “case closed.” But unfortunately the agriculture-industrial complex has the money, and thus the power, to buy influence. Yes, it is an uphill battle, but a battle that each of us must fight in our own way. Stay informed, and let your voices be heard.
The writer is a farmer and a geneticist.