Genetically modified crops have been in the sights of environmental organizations for many years, even though many studies have proven their safety. Now a new scientific review has been published that went through 6,006 studies conducted on genetically modified corn in the last 21 years. She showed that not only did the genetically modified crops help the environment, but they were also safer for health than 'natural' corn[1].
The researchers discovered that the yield from genetically modified corn is ten percent greater on average than the corresponding yield from non-genetically modified corn varieties. The concentration of the nutrients in the different varieties was the same, so the meaning is that a farmer who sows genetically modified corn in his fields, will receive a nutritious and healthy crop in a greater quantity by ten percent than corresponding 'natural' varieties. That farmer will not have to expand his fields, invade protected forests or damage the environment to increase the yield - he can simply use the genetically modified varieties to achieve the same goal. So in fact, using genetically modified corn helps preserve nature more than its 'natural' counterparts. And contrary to concerns raised in the past, the genetically modified crops do not harm the biodiversity of the environment: although some varieties have been engineered to poison the insects that attack them, they do not harm other types of insects. Peace to butterflies and bees.
What's more, it turns out that the genetically modified varieties are also healthier for humans, since they contain smaller amounts of mycotoxins.
What are mycotoxins, you ask? Well, these are toxins (completely natural - hooray!) that are carcinogenic and toxic to humans and animals[2]. They are secreted by fungi that attack the corn quite routinely. The fungi are more successful in attacking specifically the non-genetically modified corn cobs, since these suffer more from insect attacks, and have difficulty dealing with the double attack from the fungi as well. As a result, the normal corn contains greater amounts of mycotoxins than the genetically modified corn, which is more resistant to insects - and as a result, also to fungi.
Although these results are only valid for genetically modified corn (on which the review was focused), they are consistent with other similar findings in other genetically modified crops. So there is no surprise here for those who have been following the fight around genetically modified crops in recent decades. "Genetic engineering" is just a buzzword for a variety of extremely effective technologies that allow us to engineer plants to give them certain properties. The ancient techniques for improving plants were much more random - and as a result, always carried with them the fear of developing harmful mutations along the way.
Genetic engineering is a powerful tool, but it has become the punching bag of organizations that define themselves as 'green', even though in some cases they just oppose any technology that is not 'natural' enough for their taste. These organizations started propaganda campaigns against genetic engineering, and turned public opinion against it.
I wrote before that in a hundred years, our grandchildren will look back on our time in bewilderment, and try to understand how green organizations and the organic farming industries were able to sway public opinion against genetically modified crops. They will find that the same organizations and industries have used methods similar to those used by the tobacco and oil industries to cast doubt in the public mind about medical science and climate science.
One can understand the organic industries, which are motivated by greed and try to get people to buy more of the organic goods that are tens of percent more expensive. It is precisely the green organizations that are more difficult to understand, because in their war against the genetically modified crops, they ignore the importance of these types of crops in supplying food to the whole world and protecting the environment.
One can only hope that these and other reviews - those that have been published, and those that will be published - will help the public to accept the genetically modified crops, and help us all maintain a cleaner environment, better health and a richer diet.
Sources
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2.pdf
[2] http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/77(9)754.pdf
You are invited to read more about the way industries, governments and associations play with our perceptions of reality and our understanding of science, in my book who control the future, in the selected bookstores (and those that are just fine).
See more on the subject on the science website:
Comments
It is a bit strange that a scientist like Dr. R. Cezana chooses an emotional way to deal with the criticism of such and other organizations. There is no problem and it is even required to cancel and explain any argument that is irrelevant or misleading on any subject, but do not tell a few about those who raise it and it is not in a general way. There is quite a bit of justice in the claims against the giant corporations for seeds/preparations/processing just as not all green "Zadakas" are just. . It is important that experts make every effort to illuminate and explain the issues. It is their right to come to their conclusion at the end of the presentation of the data, perhaps even their duty, but please, give respect to the reader and the learner.
The collection of articles brought by the writer is convincing about the safety of GM corn. I accept that it is 10% more effective without compromising health.
I would be happy if the following two things took place
1) Twenty years of research is a reasonable time and every genetically modified food should go through such a course before entering the market.
2) Appropriate laws for example that genetic patents are only available within the laboratory. As soon as they went out into the field they expired. And this is in order to protect farmers who chose for their own reasons not to use an improved variety. There are ways to protect varieties such as hybrids for several genes that repeated hybridization creates a variety of unwanted occurrences, etc.
Roy,
While I'm still genetically modified crops in principle (really!) I think you could have presented things a little more to the point and a little less preachy.
A. To say that genetic engineering is like improvement but a little more? come on. Breaking the gender barrier and being able to combine genes from completely different creatures is much, much more than that.
B. I think that the main concern of environmental organizations (the rational ones among them) is not related to health but to a much more important point - the fear of the transition of gardens to wild species. If a pest resistance gene is somehow transferred, for example, to wild plants, it could have long-term and extremely harmful environmental effects. I am not saying that this problem cannot be dealt with by careful research and realistic risk assessment - but it seems to me that it is a shame to simply despise those who are afraid.
The problem is not the genetic engineering but what is done with it.
There are good uses and there are bad uses.
In the USA there are many cases of genetically modified genes that have spread and because they were patented, farmers were convicted of theft and had to pay large fines.
There are problems of reducing genetic diversity,
strengthening the monoculture,
Crops that are engineered to be resistant to insecticides and require the use of the same chemicals because a genetically uniform crop is much more exposed to diseases and pests.
There is a problem of plants becoming barren, something that has a huge impact in third world countries that lose their heritage seed stocks and become dependent on the seed companies.
In short, shame on the demagoguery, there are real reasons to fear and the ethical regulation in the field must be improved.
This is a very large power that is in the hands of corporations that do not have the public interest at the forefront of their minds.
It should be noted that the main argument in favor of organic crops is a lower amount of pesticides, and not the opposition to genetic engineering. So you don't have to tie these two things together. As far as I know there is no conclusive evidence about the long-term damage from the permitted doses of pesticides, but it is something that is quite difficult to test.