Marginalization of GM crops

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

California voters defeated Proposition 37, which would have required labeling foods with ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops. The technology’s opponents however, already limit its use, says Wellesley College political science professor Robert Paarlberg, PhD.  

Speaking at a Farm Foundation forum on implications of the 2012 elections, Paarlberg noted the proposition failed by a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent, only after food and technology companies pumped $47 million into a campaign to stop it. In spite of the result, the vote illustrates strong opposition to GM technology.

Paarlberg says the FDA traditionally has limited food-labeling mandates to things consumers need to know, leaving it to food companies to voluntarily supply additional information consumers might want to know. If the proposition had passed, food companies likely would have moved away from ingredients from GM crops due to the negative perceptions the labeling would create. That, Paarlberg says, is the intent of at least some of Prop 37’s supporters – to stigmatize GM crops – rather than to inform consumers.

A look at how GM technology is used in crop breeding and production shows that opponents already have had an impact, by limiting GM varieties almost exclusively to feed and fiber crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton, rather than food crops. Most of the GM ingredients in human foods are byproducts such as oils or sweeteners derived from corn or soybean processing. It would not be impossible for food companies to stop using these ingredients, but it would be costly, Paarlberg says.

Commercial varieties of staple food crops such as wheat, rice and potatoes result almost exclusively from conventional plant breeding. A small volume of papayas from Hawaii represent the only GM fruit on the market, as do a limited supply of GM squash among vegetables. Animal products such as meat, milk and eggs from animals fed GM plants are not themselves considered GM foods.

So even in the United States, the world’s largest food-producing nation, Paarlberg says the anti-GM community has stigmatized GM crops and marginalized their use primarily to feed and industrial crops. This trend, he adds, drives research funding away from biotechnology and encourages other countries to regulate GM foods. As a result, it becomes more difficult to feed an expected world population of 9 billion people by 2050.

Paarlberg says he understands some of the initial resistance when commercial production of GM crops began – 18 years ago – but experience over that time has demonstrated the safety and productivity benefits of biotechnology in agriculture.

A webcast of the forum at which Paarlberg spoke, is available on the Farm Foundation website.



Comments (2) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

michael    
kansas  |  November, 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Another extremely informative report on an extremely informative address that will be roundly and vehemently derided by the luddites and eliminationists in the eco-extreme cults. True science, such as this, will be shouted down by agenda-driven Western eco-activists who care nothing about millions of people starving to death in under-developed countries. And their willfully ignorant sycophants in the mass media will cover this up for them. Please, let us see what we can do to expose these noxious death-mongers, wrapped up in the wool of "natural" and "sustainable" propaganda, for what they really are. While the gullible supporters of the anti-gm movement and donors may be caring people of good will, their leaders are not.

Joaquin    
Guam  |  November, 17, 2012 at 09:12 PM

Science is not the enemy and backyard food production is not an answer either. Organic farms ignoring i.e. e-coli procedures are a growing concern. This is not a battle of science vs. activism, but a marketing issue. You may call it ‘childish’ but you better sit in some focus groups to understand why simplifications of a complicated topic are needed. Running a corporation in the hope of cornering food production and purely securing it by lobbying politicians is shoddy marketing. Then sending scientists into the pits to hash it out on ethical principles with political activists is lunacy. Never underestimate the customer. Never underestimate the power of their pocket book. Corporate scientists (or scientist in universities sponsored by corporations) lost their academic comfort zone. They may get a bigger car, a shinier lab but they’re exposed to a brutal world unknown to them: The ever shifting finicky deceitful retail universe, full with human fears, needs and desires, driven by anonymous corporations. Where the PR department handles ethical concerns and anonymous shareholders elect the boards. $750 mil settlement of BAYER with U.S. rice farmers for GMO contamination happened last year: Do you have any idea what this did to the wholesale buyers of rice in those regions? To how the wholesale food factories shifted their storing, buying habits? To supermarket chain buyers of how they stocked rice products? And that’s just damage control. The purchase for next quarters was adjusted, and people probably lost jobs and funding and income all along the supply chain. Welcome to the new world of retail food, goodbye to the academic freedom of science.


Bobcat 3650

The Bobcat 3650 utility vehicle offers heat and air conditioning, a hydrostatic drive and the capacity to operate front-mounted PTO ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight