New research reveals that plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in US crops
from Salon
Oops. The World Food Prize committee’s got a bit of egg on its face—genetically engineered egg. They just awarded the
World Food Prize to three scientists, including one from Syngenta and
one from Monsanto, who invented genetic engineering because, they say,
the technology increases crop yields and decreases pesticide use.
(Perhaps not coincidentally, Monsanto and Syngenta are major sponsors of the World Food Prize, along with a third biotech giant, Dupont Pioneer.)
Monsanto makes the same case on its website,
saying, “Since the advent of biotechnology, there have been a number of
claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically modified (GM)
crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually
have lower yields than non-GM crops… GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology.”But that’s not actually the case. A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use. The study’s lead author, Jack Heinemann, is not an anti-biotechnology activist, as Monsanto might want you to believe. “I’m a genetic engineer. But there is a different between being a genetic engineer and selling a product that is genetically engineered,” he states.
The study compared major crop yields and pesticide use in North America, which relies heavily on GE crops, and Western Europe, which grows conventionally bred non-GE crops. The study’s findings are important for the future of the U.S. food supply, and therefore for the world food supply since the U.S. is a major exporter of many staple crops.
No comments:
Post a Comment