13. Which of the following is NOT a possible benefit of genetically modified crops? a. Increased nutritional value for people b. Enhanced resistance to insect pests c. Enhanced resistance to broad spectrum herbicides d. Enhanced resistance to insecticides The correct answer is d— A. Answer a is incorrect. Golden Rice is an example of a genetically modified crop with
Jan 27, 2021 · 41. Which of the following is NOT one of benefits of GMOs (genetically modified foods)? a. more profitable b. lower food prices c. better able to resist insects d. more nutritious products ANS: D DIF: Difficult REF: Page 645 TOP: Factual OBJ: Genetically Modified Foods 42. GMOs may allow farmers to avoid using toxic pesticides and herbicides because: a. the plant …
Jan 10, 2022 · Genetically modified (GM) crops have been proven safe through testing and use, and can even increase the safety of common foods. As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explained, “Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food. There are no wild, seedless watermelons.
Oct 18, 2012 · Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them. By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in …
An estimated 94% of all soybean and 92% of all corn grown in the US is genetically modified and around 75% of all processed foods in the US contain GMO ingredients. [ 47] [ 48] At least two-thirds of all GM corn and half of all GM soy grown in the US are converted into animal feed.
GM crops can be engineered to reduce natural allergens and toxins, making them safer and healthier. Molecular biologist Hortense Dodo, PhD, genetically engineered a hypoallergenic peanut by suppressing the protein that can lead to a deadly reaction in people with peanut allergies. [ 12]
[ 14] . GMOs can help address those problems with genetic engineering to improve crop yields and help farmers grow food in drought regions or on depleted soil, thereby lowering food prices and feeding more people.
The tomato was genetically modified to increase its firmness and extend its shelf life. [ 51] There are currently 10 genetically modified (GM) crops in production in the United States (also referred to as genetically engineered, or GE, crops), including corn, soybeans, and cotton.
Over 2,000 global studies have affirmed the safety of GM crops. [ 10] Trillions of meals containing GMO ingredients have been eaten by humans over the past few decades, with zero verified cases of illness related to the food being genetically altered. [ 11]
Examples of GMOs include apples that don’t turn brown and disease-resistant papayas. [ 3] [ 4] At least 26 countries, including the United States, grow genetically modified crops, while 19 of 28 European Union nations have partially or fully banned GMOs. [ 5] [ 6] Food and ingredients from genetically engineered plants have been in our food supply ...
Selective breeding techniques have been used to alter the genetic makeup of plants for thousands of years. More recently, genetic engineering has allowed for DNA from one species to be inserted into a different species to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them. By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies.
Here's the full list of food crops for which you can find GMO varieties: Corn, soybeans, cotton (for oil), canola (also a source of oil), squash, and papaya. You could also include sugar beets, which aren't eaten directly, but refined into sugar.
But as far as I can tell, Monsanto has never sued anybody over trace amounts of GMOs that were introduced into fields simply through cross-pollination. (The company asserts, in fact, that it will pay to remove any of its GMOs from fields where they don't belong.) If you know of any case where this actually happened, please let me know.
The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn't owe Monsanto any money . (For more details on all this, you can read the judge's decision. Schmeiser's site contains other documents.)
Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he'd actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor's Roundup Ready canola . Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto's resistance gene — and when Schmeiser's hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.
Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser's canola contained Monsanto's Roundup resistance gene, and it's impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds. However, there's lots of confusion about these tests. Other samples, tested by other people, showed lower concentrations of Roundup resistance — but still over 50 percent of the crop.
Now, biotech companies — and Monsanto in particular — do seem to wish that this idea were true. They do their best to keep farmers from replanting the offspring from GMOs. But they do this because, in fact, those seeds will multiply.
because GMOs are well regulated and labeled, the consumer can clearly determine the safety of these products. examples include; GMOs could enhance the taste and quality of food, can help to feed countries that have an adequate food supply, could reduce the use of herbicides and insecticides in the environment.
GMOs could enhance the taste and quality of food, can help to feed countries that have an adequate food supply, could reduce the use of herbicides and insecticides in the environment
the summer food service program, the national school lunch program, farmers who have Surplus, unsold Foods
the food industry spends large amounts of money to Market and advertise nutritious Foods
high oleic acid oil that is less prone to rancidity, making it more stable when used in frying Foods. rice that is encoded with genes that result in the stockpiling of iron so that iron deficiency is reduced in children. rice that contains Gene segments to encode the rice to make beta-carotene to eliminate vitamin A deficiency
Americans eat more... Than any other animal food
meats and individuals nutrient and health needs and can be sustained for a long time without negatively impacting the environment for future generations
Removing patent protection from seeds would significantly hinder the development of the GMO crops that farmers in many of the top grain-producing nations rely upon. In the U.S., for example, more than 90 percent of corn and soybeans are GMO.
GMO seed patents are targeted, in part, because they represent some of the world’s largest cash crops, including corn, soybeans and cotton, and have come to symbolize “industrial” and “intensive” agriculture in the eyes of critics. Blogs like this one in Alternet advance the meme that “for as long as humans have been growing food, farmers have saved seeds from their harvest to sow the following year.” The meme, and it’s a familiar one in anti-GMO circles, goes on to accuse large agricultural companies of fundamentally upsetting farming traditions by developing unique crop varieties and receiving patent protection to prevent farmers from saving the seeds they purchased. Some critics even imply companies have developed “terminator” seeds—sterile seeds designed so they can’t grow again, Terminator seeds do not exist.
Hybrid seeds, including those widely used by organic farmers, are not ‘found in nature’ and have been patent protected for more almost 90 years.
These are seeds of deception the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the world.
Patent creates monopolies, which undermine the choice of farmers as well as all citizens as eaters. A seed is not an invention. That is why patents on seeds are illegitimate. Even in a genetically engineered crop, the original seed come from farmers. Patents on seed are therefore based on biopiracy.
The database is filled with patents for virtually every type of plant for which there is a commercial market. Here and here are two unofficial databases of patented seeds, with the vast majority having nothing to do with GMOs.
Source: Biology Fortified. Any lingering questions about whether genetically engineered seeds could be patented was effectively settled in the United States in 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous verdict on the question of whether companies such as Monsanto have the right to patent their seeds.
Overusing herbicides can drive weed resistance because some of the plants will inevitably withstand the chemicals and produce offspring that are similarly hardy —it’s an evolutionary inevitability. Too much herbicide can also cause various environmental problems, although these vary depending on the chemical.
Since then, he adds, the industry has spent $1 billion to control the weed. Many farmers have returned to hand-weeding.. Today, the resistant palmer amaranth has spread across the southern US and into the Midwest as far north as Minnesota, partly because of an increasingly connected agricultural system.
Agent Orange was a mixture of 2,4-D and another herbicide called 2,4,5-T. In Agent Orange production, the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dangerous dioxin, which is what likely caused the health problems you hear about).
It costs up to $256 million and around nine years to develop a new active ingredient for a pesticide. And for herbicides, there are no new options in the pipeline, says Jason Norsworthy, a weed scientist at the University of Arkansas, who adds that the last new herbicide came out in the 1980s.
The first is simply good agronomy, which includes maintaining crop nutrition; rotating cover crops to promote soil health; and keeping crop rows fairly tight so there isn’t enough room—and eventually, when the crops grow tall enough to form a canopy, sunlight—for unwanted plants to grow. A healthy, well-planned field helps crowd out weeds.
Across the developed world, conventional farmers have relied heavily on chemical weed control since the mid-1900s. In 1996, Monsanto made chemical control even easier by bringing herbicide-tolerant soybeans to the market (other crops followed). The seeds were genetically-engineered to withstand a popular broad-spectrum herbicide called glyphosate, ...
The seeds were genetically-engineered to withstand a popular broad-spectrum herbicide called glyphosate, marketed as Roundup Ready, which meant farmers could plant the crops, spray the field with herbicide, and call it a day.
Simple as that,” said Dennis Gonsalves, the scientist who developed the GMO papaya. The papaya ringspot virus nearly wiped the crop out. The virus first hit Hawaii in the 1940s and by the 1990s had reached almost every area that grows papaya. Production fell 50 percent between 1993 and 2006.
Pineapple. Watermelon. Strawberries. I could go on. But one popular summertime fruit, the papaya, was almost wiped out. June is National Papaya Month ...
Within 11 months, the non-GMO papaya became infected with the virus. After 27 months, The New York Times explains, “Standing dark green and papaya-laden, the trees provided 125,000 pounds of fruit per acre in a year; the conventional trees, stunted with yellowed, mosaic leaves, average 5,000 pounds.”. The team of scientists then worked ...
June is National Papaya Month and a great time not just to enjoy papayas, but also to learn about how it’s only thanks to biotechnology that we’re all able to eat Hawaiian papaya today. Without biotechnology, “There’s no papaya industry. Simple as that,” said Dennis Gonsalves, the scientist who developed the GMO papaya.
Within two years, more than half of all the papaya grown on Hawaii was GMO. A decade later, GM papaya accounted for over 90 percent of papaya production.
Thankfully, Gonsalves, a Hawaiian-born scientist at Cornell University, developed a genetically modified papaya, known as the Rainbow papaya, designed to be resistant to the virus. Gonsalves and his team planted a trial of the Rainbow papaya on the island of Puna. Within 11 months, the non-GMO papaya became infected with the virus.
To produce a GMO plant, scientists first identify what trait they want that plant to have, such as resistance to drought, herbicides, or insects. Then, they find an organism (plant, animal, or microorganism) that already has that trait within its genes. In this example, scientists wanted to create insect-resistant corn to reduce the need to spray pesticides. They identified a gene in a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which produces a natural insecticide that has been in use for many years in traditional and organic agriculture.
1992 FDA policy states that foods from GMO plants must meet the same requirements, including the same safety standards, as foods derived from traditionally bred plants.
In the laboratory, scientists grow the new corn plant to ensure it has adopted the desired trait (insect resistance). If successful, scientists first grow and monitor the new corn plant (now called Bt corn because it contains a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis) in greenhouses and then in small field tests before moving it into larger field tests. GMO plants go through in-depth review and tests before they are ready to be sold to farmers.
1990s The first wave of GMO produce created through genetic engineering becomes available to consumers: summer squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, papayas, tomatoes, potatoes, and canola. Not all are still available for sale.
Next, scientists use tools to insert the gene into the DNA of the plant. By inserting the Bt gene into the DNA of the corn plant, scientists gave it the insect resistance trait.
For example, early farmers developed cross-breeding methods to grow corn with a range of colors, sizes, and uses. Today’s strawberries are a cross between ...
Identifying the genetic information—or “gene”—that gives an organism (plant, animal, or microorganism) a desired trait. Copying that information from the organism that has the trait. Inserting that information into the DNA of another organism. Then growing the new organism.
An Argentine farmer stands by his field of trangenic soy, designed for resistance to drought and salinity. An Argentine farmer stands by his field of trangenic soy, designed for resistance to drought and salinity. Rarely is the relationship between science and everyone so direct as it is in the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), ...
There are some that describe GM crops as "Frankenfoods", deliberately termed to imply that they pose a risk to human health and the environment. ... First, there was no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.
To complicate things, the environmental impact of GM crops is quite complex given the many factors that come into play: as you change the genetic make up of a given crop, the animals that eat it may react in negative ways. A potential ecological snowball effect may ensue. Since rogue seeds are clearly an issue (e.g., wheat is pollinated by wind) the newcomers will spread around, sometimes to farmers that didn't really want them. Following mounting evidence that Bt cotton is behind a number of farmer suicides, the India Supreme Court has recommended a 10-year moratorium on all field trials of GM foods.
A list with over 600 articles can be found at the site of Biology Fortified, an independent, nonprofit organization. In June, the UK environmental secretary Owen Patterson offered his strong support for GM crops:
The science seems to be pointing toward the safety of GM crops, at least as foods. It's good to remember that "the adoption rates for GM soya stand at 88 per cent in Brazil, 93 per cent in the U.S. and 100 per cent in Argentina," as Paterson remarked in his June speech.
At stake is the perennial debate of science as a healer of human suffering versus science as a force manipulated by evil interest groups.
No evidence of human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified, but concerns have been raised about the potential for transgenic food products to cause allergic reactions or produce toxic compounds.