{"id":10976,"date":"2013-04-12T16:38:54","date_gmt":"2013-04-12T21:38:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.discovermagazine.com\/collideascape\/?p=10976"},"modified":"2013-04-12T16:38:54","modified_gmt":"2013-04-12T21:38:54","slug":"why-organic-advocates-should-love-gmos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/?p=10976","title":{"rendered":"Why Organic Advocates Should Love GMOs"},"content":{"rendered":"

https://andiroberts.com/emotional-intelligence/ Adapted from the new book The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet<\/em><\/a> by Ramez Naam<\/p>\n

Buy Soma Online What if there was a way to farm that spared the rainforests, cut down on toxins in our soil and waters, and provided healthier, more nutritious food?<\/p>\n

Ambien No Prescription Sounds like organic farming, right?\u00a0 But actually, it\u2019s GMOs.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>

Ambien Buy Online Golden Rice, biologically enriched with Vitamin A, will boost nutrition for millions of children. Photo\/ International Rice Research Institute<\/p><\/div>\n

https://www.andrewplimmer.com/andrew-plimmer/  <\/p>\n

https://www.balimadetour.com/about/ The goals of organics \u2013 farms that cause less damage to the environment and grow food that\u2019s better for you \u2013 are great. But organic isn\u2019t living up to that potential.<\/p>\n

In terms of nutrition, the consensus of multiple analysis of all the data (like this one from Stanford<\/a> and this one from the UK<\/a>) is that it\u2019s more or less a wash. Organic foods, in general, are neither more nor less nutritious than their conventional counterparts.<\/p>\n

In terms of environmental impact, one might think that organic farms are the clear winners.\u00a0 And if you look at what happens on an acre of organic farm land vs. an acre of conventional farm land, that\u2019s correct.\u00a0 But an Oxford University\u00a0 meta-analysis of 71 peer-reviewed studies showed that, because organic farms use more land to grow the same amount of food, they erase their environmental benefit<\/a> and are in some ways worse than conventional farming.<\/p>\n

Save the Forests<\/strong><\/p>\n

https://www.secpeinvestments.com/commercial/ But even this is under-estimating the impact of organic farming, because the study above didn\u2019t look at the biggest issue of agriculture \u2013 the conversion of land from forest to farm.\u00a0 We use nearly 1\/3 of the land area of the planet to grow food.\u00a0 That, in turn, has led to the destruction of half the original forest on the planet.\u00a0 Around the world, agriculture drives a whopping 80% of deforestation<\/a> today. That destruction of forest is by far the worst environmental impact of agriculture, many times worse than the impact of pesticide or fertilizer over-use.<\/p>\n

Buy Lorazepam Online Without Prescription Meanwhile, projections are that by 2050, we\u2019re going to need to grow 70% more food<\/a> around the world than we do today.\u00a0 If we did that by maintaining yields exactly as they are and spreading farms, we\u2019d chop down 70% of the world\u2019s remaining forests.\u00a0 Trying to feed the world starting from organic yields would be far worse, because their yields are lower.<\/p>\n

How much lower?\u00a0 In 2008, the USDA surveyed every organic farm in the US, asking about their yields.\u00a0 Plant pathologist Steve Savage compared those yield numbers to yield from conventional farms in the same years.\u00a0 Here\u2019s an excerpt from his summary<\/a>:<\/p>\n

In the vast majority of cases national organic average yields are moderately to substantially below those of the overall, national average.<\/p>\n

https://blackhillsballoons.com/bookyourflight/ Examples for row crops include Winter Wheat 60% of overall average, Corn 71%, Soybeans 66%, Spring Wheat 47% and Rice 59%.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

https://prosthodontistlasvegas.com/smile-gallery/ A totally separate analysis, from researchers at the University of Minnesota, published in Nature<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>found that organic farms grow only around two thirds of the same amount of food, per acre, as conventional farms, meaning that they need one and a half times the land of conventional crops.<\/p>\n

The goals of organic are noble, but there\u2019s simply no way to feed the world with yields so low, unless we\u2019re willing to chop down all the forest that remains. Sparing forest means growing more <\/em>food per acre, not less.<\/p>\n

https://www.andrewplimmer.com/7-day-shift/ More Foods, More Forest<\/strong><\/p>\n

How do we grow yield?\u00a0 We could do it by lifting worldwide yields up to US levels.\u00a0 That would mean giving farmers in the developing world better access to fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation that drive yields up in the US.\u00a0 Of course, organic advocates would prefer not <\/em>to use more fertilizer and more pesticides.<\/p>\n

https://disneycruisinggroup.com/releases/ Is there another way?\u00a0 Perhaps \u2013 and GMOs may be key to that.\u00a0 So far GMOs have contributed only modestly to yield increases, but on the horizon are approaches that could make a big difference.<\/p>\n

Consider the yields of corn (the most grown crop in the US) vs. those of rice and wheat (the two most important crops for food supplies globally).\u00a0 Corn grows about 70% more calories per acre than rice or what.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because it has a newer form of photosynthesis called C4.\u00a0 Now, funded in part by the Gates Foundation, the C4 Rice Project<\/a> is looking to port the genes for C4 photosynthesis to rice.\u00a0 Other projects are looking at doing the same for wheat.\u00a0 Those would essentially be rice and wheat varieties with a tiny bit of the corn genome in them (about 0.1%).\u00a0 And they could lift yields by more than 50% on their own, and more in combination with other advances. They would also reduce water and fertilizer needs<\/a> of rice and wheat.<\/p>\n

http://masterfacilitator.com/vizhub/ So \u2013 more food, less deforestation, less water need, and less need for synthetic fertilizer.\u00a0 Doesn\u2019t that align with the goals of organic advocates?\u00a0 And is it really profoundly unnatural to create strains of rice and wheat that borrow just a little bit of corn\u2019s genome?<\/p>\n

Buy Xanax Without Rx Better for the Planet<\/strong><\/p>\n

Organic advocates also want less pesticide use, in part to reduce toxicity to the environment. \u00a0Ironically, GMOs are already doing this.<\/p>\n

The National Academies of Science report<\/a> Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the US <\/em>says this in the summary:<\/p>\n

When adopting GE herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, farmers\u00a0mainly substituted the herbicide glyphosate for more toxic herbicides. http://www.amandasatoz.com/?page_id=1536 <\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Glyphosate (roundup) has a nasty reputation, but in reality, it\u2019s dramatically less toxic than older pesticides like atrazine.\u00a0 And Roundup Ready crops have allowed glyphosate to almost completely replace atrazine on those fields.\u00a0 How much less toxic is Roundup than atrazine? About 200 times less toxic<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Other GMO work on the horizon could address another complaint organic farmers have about conventional farming \u2013 the heavy use of nitrogen fertilizer that runs off and creates dead zones.\u00a0 GMO farming has already reduced runoff by encouraging no-till farming<\/a>. But a more radical project is underway.\u00a0 Legumes like peas and soy don\u2019t rely on nitrogen in the soil for fertilizer.\u00a0 Instead, with the help of friendly microbes, they extract nitrogen from the atmosphere, where it makes up 78% of the air we breathe.\u00a0 Another Gates-foundation funded project is looking at ways to give cereal crops \u2013 wheat, corn, and rice, for instance \u2013 that same ability to fertilize themselves from the air<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Aren\u2019t all of those things improvements?<\/p>\n

Better for the People<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, there\u2019s the health impact.\u00a0 Organic advocates want food that\u2019s more nutritious. And they\u2019re skeptical of the safety of GMOs.\u00a0 Yet the scientific consensus is that the GMOs we\u2019ve approved for human consumption are entirely safe.\u00a0 Indeed, that consensus is at least as strong as the scientific consensus on climate change.\u00a0 Almost all GMO safety hysteria comes from a single media-manipulating<\/a> lab, in France, which has had its work torn<\/a> to<\/a> shreds<\/a>.\u00a0 Against that, hundreds of scientific papers have found GMOs safe.\u00a0 Looking at all that data, the American Association for the Advancement of Science concludes that GMOs are safe<\/a>.\u00a0 So does the American Medical Association<\/a>.\u00a0 So does the European Commission<\/a>.\u00a0 Even the French Supreme Court threw out France\u2019s ban on a GMO<\/a> because the French government couldn\u2019t produce any credible evidence that GMOs were a threat to the environment or human health.<\/p>\n

More importantly, GMOs aren\u2019t just safe, they could boost nutrition.\u00a0 The Golden Rice<\/a> project, which engineers rice to produce vitamin A in the edible grain (not just the leaf) could help 250 million children<\/a> who have Vitamin A deficiency.\u00a0 (And for those fearful of corporate control over crops \u2013 Golden Rice will be free to virtually all farmers in the developing world, and freely replantable. Every biotech company involved, including Monsanto, has waved their patent rights in the developing world.)\u00a0\u00a0 Beyond Golden Rice there are many more enhanced nutrition projects in the works.<\/p>\n

Inspired by golden rice, a team of Australian researchers in 2011 created an experimental rice breed that boosts vitamin A and also quadruples the amount of iron<\/a> and doubles the amount of zinc in rice grains.\u00a0 An international team has taken the same ideas and applied them to Africa\u2019s most common staple crop, cassava, which feeds 700 million people, and created BioCassava, a variant that has increased levels of vitamin A, iron, and dietary protein<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So the next generation of GMOs could boost nutrition, reduce nitrogen fertilizer use, and boost yield, letting us feed the world without chopping down its remaining forest.\u00a0 Indeed, it\u2019s easy to imagine \u2018bio-organic\u2019 farms that don\u2019t use synthetic pesticides or fertilizer, but that do use these genetically enhanced seeds.<\/p>\n

Environmentally cleaner, better for the forest, more nutritious, and able to feed the planet.\u00a0 Aren\u2019t those traits every organic advocate, every environmentalist, and, heck, every person <\/em>in the world should welcome?<\/p>\n

—-<\/p>\n

Ramez Naam<\/a> is a computer scientist who spent 13 years at Microsoft.\u00a0 He\u2019s also the award-winning author of three books.\u00a0 His latest, The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet<\/em><\/a> <\/em>charts a course to overcome the \u00a0real challenges of climate change, feeding the planet, and a host of other natural resource and environmental threats.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Adapted from the new book The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet by Ramez Naam What if there was a way to farm that spared the rainforests, cut down on toxins in our soil and waters, and provided healthier, more nutritious food? Sounds like organic farming, right?\u00a0 But actually, it\u2019s GMOs….Continue Reading…<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2443,2496,2553,2646,2692,2724,2967],"tags":[657,743,835,1002,1060,1126],"class_list":["post-10976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-agriculture","category-biotechnology","category-climate-change","category-environment","category-food-security","category-gmos","category-select","tag-agriculture","tag-biotechnology","tag-climate-change","tag-environment","tag-food-security","tag-gmos"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10976\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}