GM Food is a good place to start a blog about Fence Sitting

Genetically modified food: Pros and cons
I've been a big fan of the idea of GMO's (genetically modified organisms)

I'm reading Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply right now, which is offering up a generous helping of the cons of GMO's. I wanted to start getting a better picture of what both sides of the argument are saying so I can develop a better-informed opinion, so I started doing some research.

Here are some of the articles I ran across with outlining the pros and cons of genetically modified food.
Genetically modified food: Pros and cons
GM Crops: The arguments pro and con
The Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Crops: A Multidisciplinary Perspective
Genetic engineering: The controversy
BBC: Food under the microscope
Genetically modified food: Pros and cons
Pros and cons of genetic engineering
The pros and cons of GM food
GM Products: Benefits and Controversies
Weighing Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Crops in Africa
Pros, cons of modified food
The pros and cons of GE food
Pro-GM
GM benefits outweigh risks
Study finds benefits in GM crops
A report on genetically engineered crops
Monsanto video gallery
The Alliance for Better Foods
The benefits of GM crops
Anti-GM
Who benefits from GM crops?
Genetically engineered food
Genetically engineered (GE) food - safety problems
Bio-technology myths
Statements on the dangers of GM by scientists
Debunking the myths of genetic engineering in food crops
The risks of genetic engineering
Myths spread by the pro-GM, anti-organic movement
--
The Objections

Should we be modifying genes at all?
It's "playing God" or unnatural.
It's wrong to mix genes from radically different organisms.
Religious and vegetarian groups would object to genes from some species.
Do we really know what we're doing?
Have we evaluated the risks sufficiently?
Is it really necessary?
Do we need genetically modified food?
It is just going to provide luxuries for rich, and won't feed the Third World.
Agriculture is already too technological. This will only make it worse.
There better ways to improve resistance and reduce chemicals on the land.
Do we have a real say in what's going on?
Labelling measures are inadequate, and unjust towards those who object.
Big business is imposing on our freedom under the guise of free trade.
Government committees do not represent ordinary people enough.
Supermarkets act as enough of a voice.


This report analyzes the way in which genetically modified (GM)
crops have been introduced into our environment between 1996
and 2005. It describes how the rapid penetration of GM crops in
a limited number of countries has largely been the result of the
aggressive strategies of the biotech industry, particularly pushed
by top GM crop leader Monsanto, rather than the consequence
of the benefits derived from the use of this technology.
The hype about the advantages that GM crops provide to the
environment, consumers, and farmers is also predominantly the
result of propaganda by the biotech industry and industrysponsored
organizations including the International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). ISAAA’s
annual reports, published at the beginning of every year since the
late 1990s, have misrepresented the performance of GM crops.
They have lauded the benefits that have accompanied the
introduction of GM crops everywhere, and have ignored the
negative impacts and other problems. In fact, as this report shows,
the reality of GM crops has been strikingly different from
Monsanto and ISAAA’s claims.
This report illustrates how Monsanto, a multinational
corporation and the world’s leading producer of GM crops, has
managed to attain an unacceptable level of influence over
national and international agricultural and food policies in
many countries around the world. It describes how Monsanto
was in the driver’s seat when the United States, Brazil and other
governments developed legislation relating to GMOs, resulting
in industry-friendly policies. Monsanto has used other improper
strategies as well: bribing officials in Indonesia in order to
obtain regulatory approval, and running misleading promotion
strategies in India and other countries. Monsanto’s products
have also been found in areas where they were forbidden,
including Brazil, Paraguay, and India, paving the way for
eventual legal authorization.
Monsanto’s influence over governments is so large thatmany of
them, as well as United Nations bodies such as the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), have adopted the company’s
claims that GM products are good for the environment and will
contribute to the alleviation of poverty and hunger.

In addition, Monsanto is in the midst of a huge push to
introduce new intellectual property rights regimes over its GM
seeds in order to enhance its domination over the global seed
and food supply.
This report shows that Monsanto’s pesticide reduction claims
are unfounded, and that in fact GM soy has dramatically
increased pesticide use. Claims that GM crops will contribute to
poverty reduction have also thus far been unfounded, as have
claims that consumers benefit from GM products. Ultimately, it
is Monsanto and other GM companies that profit the most from
the aggressive promotion of their GM products.
It is time for governments to take responsibility for the
unethical behavior of the proponents of GM seeds and food,
putting the interests of people and the environment first.
Governments must stop giving unacceptable privileges to
companies like Monsanto, and stop endorsing the misleading
claims of organizations like ISAAA.
This publication is based on numerous reports from scientifictechnical
bodies, industry, government, and civil society, and is
illustrated by fully-referenced national and regional case studies
from every continent.

The Case in Favour
We shouldn't be afraid of biotechnology
Why draw the line here, not elsewhere?
We have many safeguards in place.
Changing one or two genes does not make a foodstuff unacceptable.
We are more than just our genes.
Look at the opportunities for good
Better resistance to weeds, pests, disease.
Better texture, flavour, nutritional value.
Longer shelf life, easier shipment.
Better yield, more efficient use of land.
Less herbicides and other chemicals.
Essential if we are to feed the world.
The Economic and Employment Case
Opportunities for Scottish innovation to benefit the people of Scotland.
If we pull out, jobs and wealth we might have created will go abroad instead.
The Democratic Case
With labelling, adequate protection can be given for those who object.
Several ethics and safety advisory committees represent public concerns.


There has never been a time when improvement in agricultural performance has been needed so much. As the world’s population increases, we need to produce more food reliably, with greater empathy for the environment and with more nutritious products. Every person on Earth should have the right to enough food, but it should be good food - as good as we can make it.
Biological research has been transformed by technologies which allow us to comprehend the workings of genes, providing a new understanding of how plants function in their environments and of the molecular and cellular bases of their development. These are areas critical to crop performance and food production.
Understanding genes and their role in crop performance has been important for our cotton industry. The industry has used chemical insecticides recklessly to protect crops from insects which can reduce yields to zero. But the insects soon became resistant to the pesticides. The new technology modifies the crop’s biological software so that it can protect itself against its worst pest. It has enabled the plant to produce specific molecules in its leaves and bolls which kill the major pest, moth larvae. Another gene construct has provided protection against the best “weedicide”, revolutionising weed control in the cotton farming system.
These transgenic cottons put important management constraints on farmers - to preserve the value of the impacts of the new technologies. Yield, quality and profits have gone up, and chemical usage has gone down drastically. The environment has benefited enormously and farmers and farm workers have a better quality of life.
This is not the end of needed improvements, though. There are severe challenges from pathogens, and although our breeders have given us a wonderful quality of fibre, we need to further differentiate our products from those of other countries’.
In a non-drought year, new technologies support a $1.7 billion Australian cotton industry, which exports 98 per cent of products and has a planting seed industry within Australia worth $175 million. Australian varieties of seed make up 30 per cent of the planting seed in the US and the seeds are becoming a significant component of the cotton industry in southern Europe and South America.
Canola is the next crop being considered for transgenic technologies in Australia, but faces state-based moratoria against its introduction. Currently, the advantages being offered through transgenic varieties relate to herbicide resistance and the introduction of high-yielding hybrids. Canadian canola growers have had plentiful yield using transgenic hybrids when compared with Australian canola farmers’ output.
Canola growers and marketers should unite as an industry to get behind transgenic varieties and model their actions on the introduction of transgenic cotton in Australia. The industry, through the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association, played a major role in interacting with the researchers and government regulatory bodies. The transgenic crop was introduced gradually with strict controls of management. Regulatory bodies made decisions based on recommendations from industry committees who examined the performance of transgenics in relation to conventional varieties. These were crucial factors in the successful adoption of the transgenic crop.
There are three major markets for our canola and at least two of these countries have cleared the way for the use of transgenic canola. Other oft-cited dangers of super-weed production have been dispelled by careful research studies. The industry should easily be able to organise itself with necessary segregation procedures.
Breeders of cereal crops, wheat and barley, have enormous challenges ahead of them. In many cases, the germplasm is not available to meet the challenges of disease and environmental stresses. New technologies may be able to significantly increase breeders’ capabilities, but that doesn’t mean we have to move to transgenic crops. What it means is that we can define the ways forward, either in asking for better input traits or in developing new quality features for these grains.
One area where transgenic technology will be critical in the near future is in matters related to public health. The diseases of western societies are largely a consequence of lifestyle changes, including diet. Many diet-related diseases, like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and colonic cancer, result in large part from the way we live. Diabetes is the epidemic of the 21st century. This is as true in developing countries as it is in western countries like Australia.
Modified staple foods will help guard against the onset of these diseases and will reduce the enormous expenditure of therapeutic medicine. If the starch component of wheat, rice and maize had a low glycemic index, for example, we would be close to reducing the incidence and severity of diabetes. As well as starch, proteins, fatty acids and antioxidants can all be adjusted to better fit human nutrition requirements.
A good example is barley, where changing a single genetic letter in the starch biosynthetic pathway makes it a low glycemic index food. This barley is so close to barley changed by mutagenesis and conventional breeding that it could be introduced to the market right now. In fact, we are likely to see it soon in breads and breakfast cereals.
We can now teach plants to make long-chain omega 3 fatty acids, oils that we currently get through the consumption of fish, which in turn feed on microscopic algae that produce it. Researchers have taken these algae’s genes and infused our crop plants with it so that they too can make long-chain omega 3 oils, so important for cardiovascular and other body systems.
Our food will be an important component in our preventative health system.
Are genetically modified crops safe? Our regulatory bodies say that there is no reason to suspect that genetically modified crops will be any less safe than the food we consume at present. There are 80 million hectares of GM (genetically modified) crops around the world and the area is increasing rapidly - 5 per cent of agricultural production in the world is a convincing safety recommendation, particularly since there have been no substantiated negative effects on human or environmental health. Thirty million farmers are growing GM crops: we should see this as a wake-up call.
Australian agribusiness faces the challenge of cheaper imports. Consumer preference and acceptance for Australian agricultural products will be hard to achieve because most people are urban dwellers and do not know where their food comes from. A product grown with 86 per cent less chemical insecticides means little to the consumer. It is not until we have direct health benefits at fair prices that we can expect real acceptance and preference for our agricultural products - transgenic or conventional.
The same applies to our export markets. If we want to be assured of markets for our products, we have to make sure that the whole business chain for any crop and its products has an integrated drive for export performance. Consumer countries need to be persuaded, as we have done in the past, that Australian products are superior quality products.
Where we have a market opportunity we need to make sure we do not make any mistakes. While transgenic cotton was a big success, it was dependent not only on the new genetics, but on farmers who adopted appropriate management protocols. It is the genetics and the management together that will make a lasting success.
Biotechnology’s contributions to future agribusiness has already seen some major successes and we can expect many more. Biotechnology is like any other business -the opportunities and objectives need to be carefully defined in the early stages. We need to develop a realistic business plan, extending from basic research to intellectual property claims, to the cost of adhering to regulatory requirements and finally to forming partnerships that will be needed along the business chain.
Finally, I want to emphasise the need for effective communication at all levels of the community and of business, and extending to decision makers. It is important for parliamentary representatives to fully understand what is being proposed so they can assess the benefits and risks based on factual evidence. In Australia, we have a number of regulatory bodies to examine the safety, performance and environmental impacts of GM crops and all food products. Their recommendations deserve to be recognised. It is sometimes easier for a politician to say no to any proposition, for example to a new technology, than to have the courage to say yes, even though to say no may ultimately have untoward and serious negative consequences to business, to the environment and to human health.