Gallery: Happy Genetically Modified Thanksgiving

""Monsanto Co., the world’s largest producer of genetically modified seed, backed off commercialization of “Roundup Ready” wheat several years ago, amid concerns it could hurt the U.S. wheat market. But earlier this month, the firm said it's the "right time" to pursue development of drought-resistant and high-yielding wheat.""

Is this because the drought and fires that followed in Eastern Europe destroyed the grain crops?

That is NOT a good enough excuse!

""But GM doesn’t always work — the hardened tomatoes were a commercial failure and were taken off the market.""

Maybe in China, but not here in the US!
You buy them and try to eat them they are hard and tough-skinned, yet the label states "Vine-Ripened" (more like picked green, gassed with Etheline and shipped). Let them set-out hoping they will ripen, they do not. Not only do they not ripen, they don't develop soft-skin and the rot before your eyes!

About the study you are citing that GM corn is dangerous.

All it takes is just one study with negative results to cast doubt on the dozens of other studies that show no harmful effects. Most likely, either something is wrong with all the previous studies, or something is wrong with this one study. In the case of the study you refer to, The European Food Safety Authority has taken another close look at the data and disagreed with the conclusions reached by this one study, concluding that “claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity, are not supported by the data provided in their paper”

www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo100127.htm

“The EFSA GMO Panel has considered the paper by de Vendômois et al. (2009, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726), a statistical reanalysis of data from three 90-day rat feeding studies already assessed by the GMO Panel (EFSA, 2003a,b; EFSA 2004a,b; EFSA 2009b,c). The GMO Panel concludes that the authors’ claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity, are not supported by the data provided in their paper. There is no new information that would lead it to reconsider its previous opinions on the three maize events MON810, MON863 and NK603, which concluded that there were no indications of adverse effects for human, animal health and the environment.”

Read the whole EFSA conclusion for details on their reasoning. The EFSA conclusions are the same as those that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand arrived at:

www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm

Both agencies reached similar conclusions on previous claims by the same professor.

www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzreaffirmsitsris4404.cfm

www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178621165358.htm

I've worked seasonally for the USDA for three years inspecting produce.

In my experience, organic produce tends to be noticeably (~20%) smaller than non-organic. The plants are often less healthy. There is relatively little data indicating that organically grown foods are significantly more nutritious than non-organic.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=803824

I think we need to think about how this genetic alteration affects access to this produce worldwide, not just in our (the richest of the rich, relatively speaking) sectors of life.

Let's be realistic. These plants are not going to make us grow extra heads. In my experience, they taste easily as good if not better than their non-organic counterparts (indeed, some genetically-modified varieties are extremely tasty). Should we continue to study the effects of these genetically modified variants and, more importantly, produce grown with higher pesticide usage? Absolutely.

But if we (as a people) are able to create hardier plants with greater yields and get fresh fruits and vegetables to people who have not previously had access to them, surely we can all agree this is a greater good than that we always have access to ultrapremium goods (I grow quite a bit of my own produce, which at the very least I can certify as organic).

Granted, that's not what all these companies are about. But some of this fearmongering about genetically-modified goods seems to be based on a fear of the unknown or a fear of something "different". And it hardly seems defensible to relate anecdotes of finding subpar fruit and use them as supposedly accurate judgments or criticisms of the state of the agricultural industry.

Everyone should watch this excellent documentary, The Future of Food.

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html

"Learn to Live & Live to Learn"
Alexander von Humboldt

I cannot believe the lazy editors at PopSci would actually publish this blatantly biased public relations garbage.

Almost 80% of the article is "courtesy of" Monsanto and others who are raking in the genetically-modified dough at the expense of farmers and consumers.

Just to clarify...Monsanto made their seeds "Roundup Ready" to lock farmers into one-sided contracts to buy both the crop seeds AND the pesticide from guess who.

I'm with other posters--watch Food, Inc. to see how badly Monsanto treats their farmers and how well they lobby Congress and government regulators.

If GMO wheat is allowed, we are all in big trouble; the same conditions that preceded the financial crisis are here--greedy corporations, intense lobbying, regulatory negligence, and uninformed consumers.

Though i don't agree with Monsanto's business practices, farmers don't have their hands tied. The whole reason they are "locked" into buying Monsanto "Roundup Ready" seeds is because they would rather be lazy and just douse a field in Roundup rather than plow it under or use other methods. In the old days, farmers used to torch tobacco fields every year to kill the weeds before they planted. Nobody wants to put that kind of effort into their work anymore. It's all "get more bang for your buck". GM plants have a place in developing countries or in climates that are unsupportive to normal crops (though it doesn't seem wise to grow a rice paddy in a desert, for instance). Studies conducted on Roundup Ready crop use elsewhere in the world have shown that US farmers use glyphosate and only glyphosate, while others use the recommended glyphosate plus other herbicides to prevent weed populations from developing resistance. In short, studies have shown that US farmers are generally lazy. Therein lies the problem.