Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows I have a big bone to pick with the organic movement, particularly with their constant attack on genetic engineering. I applauded when Prop 37 failed in California, and have put out post after post explaining why GMOs arent the root of all evil. Thats not to say Im pro Monsanto, or think every GMO is sciences gift to humanity. But the universal fear and demonization of all genetic technology is, simply put, damaging and unfounded.

Turn that frown upside-down the newest Nature issue defends GMOs. Cover image provided by Nature.

Now, the top-tier scientific journal Naturehas weighed in. In their GM Crops: Promise & Reality issue this week, several articles explore the messy middle ground. With titles like Tarnished Promise and A Hard Look At GM Crops, you might think they attack genetic engineering, but in fact, the entire issue does the opposite,standing in support of crop genetic engineering technologies and pleading to rethink the knee-jerk reaction against them. Even the Hard Look concludes, Tidy stories, in favour of or against GM crops, will always miss the bigger picture, which is nuanced, equivocal and undeniably messy. Transgenic crops will not solve all the agricultural challenges facing the developing or developed world But vilification is not appropriate either. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Which is exactly what Ive been saying all along.

Over the past 50 years, improved crop varieties have contributed almost 1% each year to the gains made in worldwide agricultural productivity, explains Christopher Whitty, chiefscientific adviser at the UK Department for International Development (DFID), and colleagues in their comment piece Africa and Asia need a rational debate on GM crops. To begin with an emotional debate about GM techniques is to look down the wrong end of the telescope.

Whitty and his colleagues arent Monsanto shills; theyre scientists that have carefully weighed the evidence. And theyre among the majority of scientists that support GM technologies, even though they say GMOs arent an agricultural panacea. Genetic engineering is not essential, or even useful, for all crop improvements, they write. But, they come down hard on blanket bans against genetically engineered crops. Excluding any technology that can help people to get the food and nutrition that they need should be done only for strong, rational and locally relevant reasons. To support their case, they specifically cite three examples of GMOs vitamin A-boosted golden rice, poo-borer-resistant cowpea, and water-efficient maize that they consider potential life savers.

They also make special note of the western worlds privileged status when it comes to debating GMOs, and argue that developing countries shouldnt simply follow the leader when it comes to genetic technology policies. It makes little sense for decisions on GM crops to be overly influenced by European perspectives where the benefits of better crop yields are slight, the risks (although largely theoretical, and in some cases, arguably irrational) may dominate in a riskbenefit analysis.

Meanwhile, in a different comment piece, Fusuo Zhang and colleagues describe how driven by an urgent need to both produce more food and lessen the environmental impact of agriculture and with more money to address the problem than most Chinese scientists are working out how to push crop yields close to their biophysical limits. And, of course, GMOs are playing an important role in these efforts to improve efficiency and sustainability.

The development of new crop varieties and hybrids is one of several areas of fundamental research, the authors write, with transgenic technology becoming an increasingly important element in recentyears. The use Bt cotton as an example (the first GM crop approved for commercial use in China), citing that, with it, farmers have increased yields by nearly 6% and reduced the use of insecticides by around 80% in the past 8 years. In spite of the Chinese publics wariness about genetic engineering, the government poured almost $4 billion US into a 12-year GM research and development initiative. In the face of climate change, pushing yields to the limit while sparing resources and reducing environmental consequences is a crucial goal for all, they conclude.

And the next generation of GM crops are on their way, explains Daniel Cressey in his news feature A New Breed. New tools offer unparalleled precision in editing genes, he explains. Some of these crops will tackle new problems, from apples that stave off discolouration to Golden Rice and bright-orange bananas fortified with nutrients to improve the diets of people in the poorest countries.

More:
Esteemed Journal Nature Dedicates Issue To GMOs, Defends Technology

Comments are closed.