Writing the Wrongs of Nina V. Fedoroff's NY Times Op-ed
By Theodora Filis
On August 18, 2011 the New York Times posted an article by Nina V. Fedoroff in their op-ed section. The article was titled “Engineering Food for All” and another version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 19, 2011, on page A23, of the New York edition with the same headline.
In her article, Fedoroff, uses three main points to secure her “argument” in favor of biotechnology, and genetic modification; solving world hunger and the population growth; genetically modified crops that contain an “extra” gene that is good for the environment; and how the US government needs to “stop regulating genetic modifications for which there is no scientifically credible evidence of harm”.
Let me get right into it without any further mention of Fedoroff's attempt at persuading the readers of the NY Times that genetically modified “Frankenfoods” will feed the world and save the US from financial ruin.
Monsanto and the biotech industry are lying when it advertises that biotechnology can resolve the world's food crisis. It has been documented, over and over, that transgenics do not increase yields. Transgenic corn strains, for example, were not designed to increase yield. The vast majority of transgenic crops are designed to resist the application of herbicides manufactured by Monsanto – creating more dependency on the need to buy seeds and the contamination of native varieties. Also damaging the environment, the economy and human health.
On the other hand, annual corn harvests could be doubled if agricultural policy were reformed to support small farmers and to encourage cultivation of more acres where there is sufficient water. Raising production, with farmers saving seed and not required to pay royalties to Monsanto. Native species and varieties are adapted to local soils and climates.
Monsanto denies the risk of transgenic contamination of native species, despite evidence that the coexistence of transgenics and biodiversity is impossible.
Based on reports by the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) and UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), transgenics not only do not increase yields, they have the negative impacts of raising agrochemical levels and destroying the soil. These studies also show few or no benefits to poor farmers or consumers.
Since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods. GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.
Monsanto, and the biotech industry, try very hard to convenience consumers that it is sound business practice to force farmers to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. Collecting and replanting seeds is a crucial part of the agricultural cycle. However, because of a new US patent, there is now a new technology to prevent “unauthorized seed-saving” by farmers.
Supporters of what is being dubbed as terminator, or suicide, technology claim it severs to protect corporations from “unscrupulous” farmers. Control of seed germination helps prevent growers from pirating their technology. If crops remain fertile, there is a chance that farmers could use any saved transgenic seed from a previous season – resulting in fewer profits for Monsanto.
Under the Clinton Administration funding for research was increased to further study the potential risks of genetically engineered crops to both consumers and the environment. The FDA subsequently announced that that it would strengthen its review of bioengineered foods and write guidelines for companies that wanted to label their products as free of genetically modified foods. The FDA also announced plans to reassure consumers about the safety of genetically modified foods by requiring developers to publish research and safety data on the internet. The FDA also wanted to develop standardized tests to detect tiny amounts of genetically altered corns, soybeans and other grains in order to assist food processing firms which wanted to use only foods from non-genetically modified seeds.
“Responding to consumer concerns, a number of U.S. companies including Frito-Lay, McDonalds, Gerber and McCain Foods (the world's largest maker of French Fries), announced that they would not purchase any foods made with genetically altered seeds. However, there was little evidence of a broad consumer backlash against genetically modified foods or of increased public pressure for stricter regulations. In fact, in just two years, between 1996 and 1998, crop acreage using genetically modified seeds had increased fifteen fold in the United States: a third of the American corn and cotton crop and more than half of the soybean crop is now grown from genetically modified seeds - representing among the most rapid adoptions of a new technology in the history of agriculture. By late 1999, it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of grocery-store food in the United States was grown from genetically modified seeds. Yet so rapid was their introduction that even as an increasing number of food products from biotechnology were being introduced into the American market beginning in the mid 1990s, consumer awareness of biotechnology remained low. Indeed as late as August 1999, only 33 percent of Americans were aware that genetically modified foods were being sold in supermarkets, while less than 3% were aware that soybeans were genetically engineered.” – “Apples and Oranges: Comparing the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in Europe and the United States”
In the US, GMOs fall under regulatory jurisdiction of the FDA, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Association (EPA). Many worry corporate influence over policy has led to a dangerous level of "self-regulation" by biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Scotts. Mandatory labeling of GMOs and biotech companies allowed to self-regulate are causing heated debates. Debates that have caused a significant increase in the amount of valuable information regarding GMOs.
Challenges surrounding GM foods and crops focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.
This author challenges Ms. Fedoroff, Monsanto and the biotech industry to refute the facts of this article.
By Theodora Filis
On August 18, 2011 the New York Times posted an article by Nina V. Fedoroff in their op-ed section. The article was titled “Engineering Food for All” and another version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 19, 2011, on page A23, of the New York edition with the same headline.
In her article, Fedoroff, uses three main points to secure her “argument” in favor of biotechnology, and genetic modification; solving world hunger and the population growth; genetically modified crops that contain an “extra” gene that is good for the environment; and how the US government needs to “stop regulating genetic modifications for which there is no scientifically credible evidence of harm”.
Let me get right into it without any further mention of Fedoroff's attempt at persuading the readers of the NY Times that genetically modified “Frankenfoods” will feed the world and save the US from financial ruin.
Monsanto and the biotech industry are lying when it advertises that biotechnology can resolve the world's food crisis. It has been documented, over and over, that transgenics do not increase yields. Transgenic corn strains, for example, were not designed to increase yield. The vast majority of transgenic crops are designed to resist the application of herbicides manufactured by Monsanto – creating more dependency on the need to buy seeds and the contamination of native varieties. Also damaging the environment, the economy and human health.
On the other hand, annual corn harvests could be doubled if agricultural policy were reformed to support small farmers and to encourage cultivation of more acres where there is sufficient water. Raising production, with farmers saving seed and not required to pay royalties to Monsanto. Native species and varieties are adapted to local soils and climates.
Monsanto denies the risk of transgenic contamination of native species, despite evidence that the coexistence of transgenics and biodiversity is impossible.
Based on reports by the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) and UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), transgenics not only do not increase yields, they have the negative impacts of raising agrochemical levels and destroying the soil. These studies also show few or no benefits to poor farmers or consumers.
Since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods. GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.
Monsanto, and the biotech industry, try very hard to convenience consumers that it is sound business practice to force farmers to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. Collecting and replanting seeds is a crucial part of the agricultural cycle. However, because of a new US patent, there is now a new technology to prevent “unauthorized seed-saving” by farmers.
Supporters of what is being dubbed as terminator, or suicide, technology claim it severs to protect corporations from “unscrupulous” farmers. Control of seed germination helps prevent growers from pirating their technology. If crops remain fertile, there is a chance that farmers could use any saved transgenic seed from a previous season – resulting in fewer profits for Monsanto.
Under the Clinton Administration funding for research was increased to further study the potential risks of genetically engineered crops to both consumers and the environment. The FDA subsequently announced that that it would strengthen its review of bioengineered foods and write guidelines for companies that wanted to label their products as free of genetically modified foods. The FDA also announced plans to reassure consumers about the safety of genetically modified foods by requiring developers to publish research and safety data on the internet. The FDA also wanted to develop standardized tests to detect tiny amounts of genetically altered corns, soybeans and other grains in order to assist food processing firms which wanted to use only foods from non-genetically modified seeds.
“Responding to consumer concerns, a number of U.S. companies including Frito-Lay, McDonalds, Gerber and McCain Foods (the world's largest maker of French Fries), announced that they would not purchase any foods made with genetically altered seeds. However, there was little evidence of a broad consumer backlash against genetically modified foods or of increased public pressure for stricter regulations. In fact, in just two years, between 1996 and 1998, crop acreage using genetically modified seeds had increased fifteen fold in the United States: a third of the American corn and cotton crop and more than half of the soybean crop is now grown from genetically modified seeds - representing among the most rapid adoptions of a new technology in the history of agriculture. By late 1999, it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of grocery-store food in the United States was grown from genetically modified seeds. Yet so rapid was their introduction that even as an increasing number of food products from biotechnology were being introduced into the American market beginning in the mid 1990s, consumer awareness of biotechnology remained low. Indeed as late as August 1999, only 33 percent of Americans were aware that genetically modified foods were being sold in supermarkets, while less than 3% were aware that soybeans were genetically engineered.” – “Apples and Oranges: Comparing the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in Europe and the United States”
In the US, GMOs fall under regulatory jurisdiction of the FDA, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Association (EPA). Many worry corporate influence over policy has led to a dangerous level of "self-regulation" by biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Scotts. Mandatory labeling of GMOs and biotech companies allowed to self-regulate are causing heated debates. Debates that have caused a significant increase in the amount of valuable information regarding GMOs.
Challenges surrounding GM foods and crops focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.
This author challenges Ms. Fedoroff, Monsanto and the biotech industry to refute the facts of this article.