Monsanto
Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, agriculture, biotechnology, and the farmer.
Apr 01, 2009 | Read | 81 Comments » Tags: gm foods, GMO, nutrition, Why we do need GM food, Why we need GM Food
Author: Monsantoco A couple of months ago, reading an article about world hunger, I found out that someone dies of starvation every 3.6 seconds. Can you imagine that? I tried to understand how we can let that happen but I couldn’t. So, I started wondering what are we–and specifically the scientific community–doing to help stop or even diminish a pandemic problem like hunger.
According to the World Health Organization, hunger and malnutrition are the single gravest threats to the world’s public health. Malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases. So, world hunger is not only a quantitative issue, it is also a qualitative matter. People do not die only because they are not able to eat enough food, but because they do not consume some vital nutrients required to subsist.
As a biotech company employee, it was pleasant to know that–for the last two decades–crop biotechnology has been used in two major ways to enhance human nutrition: improving global food security by making more food available and by enhancing the nutritional composition of food.
Maureen Mackey’s article, The Application of Biotechnology to Nutrition, acknowledges, in the next several years, we will see the application of biotechnology to enhance major global staples–such as rice, wheat, corn and cassava grown in Asia, Africa and Latin America, which will be needed to feed the expanded populations in these continents.
Scientists around the world agree about the particular relevance biotechnology will have to ease hunger and malnutrition in developing countries, increasing the nutritional value of food. Gene technology will enable the production of new crop varieties that will produce essential vitamins and micronutrients. This is especially important in regions where access to food is limited and balanced diets are difficult to achieve.
In the last decade, scientists have genetically modified fruits and vegetables to offer higher levels of anti-oxidant vitamins that help ward off cancer and heart disease, and vitamin A to prevent blindness. As other biologically active components in food plants are discovered to have disease-fighting nutritional value, their levels may also get a genetic boost.
Even these achievements are still in a development stage, they indicate a relevant and important role for biotechnology in improving food quality and developing functional foods, particularly those targeted for needy populations in developing countries–such as children and pregnant women.
Nevertheless, great efforts have been made to demonize biotech industry since its inception. I genuinely respect and appreciate the work of many organizations concerned about the implementation of biotechnology improvements in the food chain, even when the U.S. government developed a Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology in 1986 to provide for the regulatory oversight of organisms derived through genetic engineering.
What really keeps me up at night is that even when the scientific community, authorities and experience demonstrate the safety of GMO, some people’s personal agendas keep reducing the chances of survival of 15 million children that die every year of hunger.
10 Reasons We Do Need GM Foods
Santiago is a Manager of Public Affairs at Monsanto. He was born and raised in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Public Relations, post-graduate studies in Social Communication & Media and an MBA in Marketing Management. Prior to working at Monsanto, Santiago taught PR for almost seven years while working as a Communications Advisor for several organizations and industries. He also worked for a multi-national IT company and an Oil & Gas company as PR Manager.
Category: At Monsanto
Tags: gm foods, GMO, nutrition, Why we do need GM food, Why we need GM Food
First, I would like to thank Monstanto for making a blog so common people can have a discussion on the most dangerous crops on earth. I just have a few questions for Monstanto:
How can roundup ready GMO corn be more nutritious? Since the corn itself is a registered insecticide because every cell is manufactured to produce BT, a natural bacterial toxin. So when a bug eats the corn, the bug dies. What does this toxin do to the “normal flora” and every other cell in the human body? Is round-up ready GMO corn slowing killing me?
Before Monstanto could legally run wild… Article one of the Constitution always excluded food crops from a patent on moral grounds. Patents were made for tennis rackets, or toasters. NOT NATURE! Does this make Monstanto non-patriotic?
I guess whoever controls the seed controls the food.
Lastly, whenever I go to buy a product I see the company’s name that made it. Many companies even have t-shirts and other products. I don’t see that with Monstanto. Is Monstanto embarrassed it’s food, or scared people will find out the truth if Monstanto started labeling? If I had to rank the most evil companies on earth, Monstanto would rank first with flying colors.
Lastly, Bob and Deb make a good point on Germany.
Editors Note: Link omitted due to copyright laws. It was a link to “Future of Food” from YouTube.
Lisa,
You are so welcome. We are happy to start some real dialogue, even if some people are incapable of actually engaging in civil discussion and feel the need to be snide.
Nutrition is only one of the potential benefits of GM technology. Not all GM technology, such as Bt crops, improve nutrition. They do however reduce the use of riskier pesticides, so there certainly is a health potential health benefit.
Actually plant patents predated Monsanto’s involvement in the seed business. Plant patents are not limited to biotech or Monsanto. Google “raspberry” (non-GM) and “patent” and this will become quite apparent. The first life form patented was a yeast for beer – by Louis Pasteur I believe.
We have plenty of hats and shirts etc with the name of Monsanto and sister companies on them! You just have to go onto a farm to see them. While John Deere still dominates farm fashion, Monsanto is making steady inroads and I see lots of farmers wearing our hats and golf shirts.
So far Dekalb Wingwear has not proven fashionable in urban areas, but we do have hope. Maybe you can help us with inroads here? Shoot the webmaster your address and we will send you a hat!
Deborah -
Anti scientific in that the foods were deemed dangerous. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary (not in the volume we have today, but there was zero evidence against)
Anti scientific in the sense that any trials of GM crops were destroyed by marauding hordes of morons.
Anti scientific in that the entire culture of the UK at least revolved pretty much around the idea that being dumb in the area of math or science was a good thing.
These self same emotions are driving Europe’s current fashion of rejecting GM food. There isnt a huge degree of contradiction in the scientific literature, unfortunately the scientifically illiterate can far more easily get their message out and accepted by the general public because it is what a large portion of the public essentially want to hear. There’s contradiction in the science in exactly the same way that there are contradictions in the body of evidence behind the theory of evolution.
Yes, I’ve objectively considered the scientific arguements today. I’m as pro-GM now (if not moreso) than I was aged 16.
Lisa,
Just some additions to Brad’s comment.
You can find all the safety studies about our products here: http://www.monsanto.com/products/technical_safety.asp
All available for the public on the web.
As to the first patented life form (yeast for beer) it was patented in 1873 – way before Monsanto was around to “legally run wild”. As to patenting seed – patenting of seeds with enhanced genetics was actually in practice 10 years before Monsanto introduced its first genetically modified seeds. Kind of funny though that everyone thinks we ‘invented’ that legistlation.
I’m actually trying to put some more stuff together around the history of seed patenting for a blog post. I hope you return to the blog to check it out when I’ve got it all done!
Ewan Ross Says:
April 28, 2009 at 9:44 am
Deborah -
Anti scientific
[where was the proof you offered the people? Look at your own studies-the one you just cited in the 'helping a thirsty world' thread and the anti scientific nature--scientific method calls for verifiable data and repeating experiments and transparency]
in that the foods were deemed dangerous. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary (not in the volume we have today, but there was zero evidence against)
[we still need independent sound scientific method open to peer-review. let scientists have access to seed.]
Anti scientific in the sense that any trials of GM crops were destroyed by marauding hordes of morons. [emotional language. You have no idea of their levels of intelligence or values]
Anti scientific in that the entire culture of the UK at least revolved pretty much around the idea that being dumb in the area of math or science was a good thing.[I find that hard to quantify, qualify, and believe]
================
Ewan, would that language be permissible by a non Monsanto commentor? And Brad, you can come across as pretty snide as well. I have tried not to dignify your offenses with a comment in the past, but this seems to be a new trend or strategy–offend the posters enough and maybe they will go away??? Or maybe they will be upset enough to say something more rude than you already have and be banned?
You really have answered my question. I think you are as closed minded as you accuse others of being. It’s a common phenomenon.
Deborah – which language exactly wouldnt be permissable by a non-Monsanto commentor? Calling the vandals who destroyed field trials morons? I dont see how this is any more or less offensive than comments by non-Monsanto commentors suggesting that monsanto is the devil, that it is an evil company, that farmers who use our products are idiots. I consider the people who destroyed sanctioned field trials to be morons. I always will. Just as I consider people who vandalize public property morons, and people who violate the law to destroy property for any reason.
You also seem confused by the distinction between anti-scientfic and unscientific – I grew up in Europe, I witnessed not an unscientific rejection of GM (such an unscientific rejection would be based on Jeffrey Smithesque techniques) but an anti-scientific rejection of GM – GM was painted as bad from the getgo because it was scientific. You dont have to believe this was the environment that I grew up in, I’m not offering this as a scientific arguement. This is my own personal experience of the socio-political climate in Europe (specifically in the UK) during the start of the debate on GM (through to the present day as far as I am aware, although habving been out of the country for 3 years now perhaps things have changed).
The first paper I linked on the water-use thread had a slightly questionable methodology which I believe you responded to (and um, I’m going to go out on a limb and say you were being incredibly snide with the comment, qualifying it with “and I am completely serious, not just poking fun” is akin to “no offense but”) by comparing it to elementary school science. However I subsequently listed 5 published works by the same author on the same subject. Scientific consensus with variable methods.
You can find it as hard to quantify, qualify, or believe as you like – it is the truth of my personal experience of growing up in the UK. A truth which has been reflected at various times in the writings of Richard Dawkins and other leading British scientists (I cant recall which books specifically, but I’d recommend everything he’s wrote, I have a feeling it may have been in his collected essays)
And to keep it in a more european perspective – the initial quotes around the anti-science nature of european politics came from Die Welt and the german Financial Times – both I would say relatively good sources for judging how public perception of various issues actually is in reality, without having to rely on the views of a confessed Monsanto employee with a strong leaning towards GM.
Ewan,
I have read and am concerned on a few levels with you responses.
f some one offers proof with out citation, you reply, “are you a…….? insinuating they should just shut up if they are not a …….? That is just plain rude and insulting,
Next People have concerns about GM food, admit that and accept they have “what they feel are” valid concerns. it allows you to respond maturely. Even if the opposition does not you as a voice for Monsanto MUST respond maturely…
Three if you were concerned about letting everyone no how awesome GM food is, ADVERTISE IT, don’t try and hide what food we eat is already GMd. Think Taco shells here and the scare it caused and act accordingly or at least like you have public interest at heart. That was bad form..
Bryon
where have I asked if someone is a ….? (not sure what was supposed to be there, I guess it was insulting… pretty sure I havent done that) If you could maybe point me to where I appear to be insulting (other than to vandals, where yes, I intended to be insulting to vandals, and am unapologetic about it) then maybe I can either reword what was said, or explain in what way I dont feel it was insulting.
I realise fully that people have what they feel are valid concerns. When they raise these concerns I feel it prudent to address these concerns directly – concerns based on misinformation or a lack of understanding of the subject matter need to be addressed like this – if people understand a situation and are still concerned then a meaningful discussion can take place, if people come to the discussion with a head full of nonsense (DNA in my food! Bacteria as promoters! etc) then the discussion is scuppered from the start.
It’s crazy how anyone who disagrees with Monstanto has “misinformation.” Everyone knew that this website would spark debate. I believe that it is ok to disagree with one another. This blog has enhanced my knowledge of GMO food, and maybe the authors of this blog have learned something from the public.
However, there are a couple of things that I’m still not understanding…
1) Does BT corn harm human bacteria cells? I look at it like chlorinated water. Cholorine is made to kill all living things in the water, but the water companies forget that a human body is made up of human cells which are living. In turn cholorine kills human cells. If BT corn kills other bacteria that try to eat it, does it also kills that bacteria in our body that tries to digest it? It only makes sense that BT corn is a toxin for our body, not enhancing nutrition.
I don’t mean to be snide or come across as a vandal, but this blog reminds me of Erin Brockovich. This was movie where all those puppets for the companies including medical doctors that told the public that water was ok to consume, and the people affected by the water were not ill. The citizens affected never questioned the doctors, or the water companies research that said that the water was safe even though it was not.
Lisa,
I completely agree with you that debate is a great educational tool, for both sides.
To answer your question about BT corn – it does not harm human cells. BT actually kills insects, such as the corn borer, not bacteria.
BT corn produces the naturally occurring Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein, Cry1Ab. BT corn protects against the European corn borer, the southwestern corn borer, and the pink borer. Corn borers (http://www.ent.iastate.edu/pest/cornborer/)
The Cry1Ab protein produced in BT corn binds to specific receptors in the gut of sensitive insects, but does not affect mammals or insects that lack those receptors.
That means that the Cry1Ab protein has selective toxicity to specific insects but is harmless to humans, fish, wildlife and beneficial insects that can help control other pests.
Bt proteins have been used safely for nearly 40 years in microbial insecticides. Bt is also used in organic farming as a pesticide spray.
Monsanto’s safety studies including peer reviewed safety publications:
http://www.monsanto.com/products/techandsafety/safetysummaries.asp
As to your Erin Brockovich reference. I have seen the movie and I remember a scene in the film when Erin offers the lawyers from the offending corporation water from the polluted area. The lawyers then refuse to drink the water.
Monsanto is nothing like that corporation. We do eat our own products and we happily feed them to our own families. We are very transparent with our product safety summaries, they’re available for the public on our website: http://www.monsanto.com/products/technical_safety.asp
I understand consumer concern and I (or my peers) will continue to try to answer any questions you may have.
Lisa – as far as I am aware Bt hasnt been shown to be toxic to bacteria in the soil (I’m not sure there have been any studies on effects on gut bacteria – if I can find any info on that I’ll post it later)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC7-436F91H-B&_user=1631782&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000053988&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1631782&md5=61d5065f4c5470ea59013d4cafadf4f2
“Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin released from root exudates and biomass of Bt corn has no apparent effect on earthworms, nematodes, protozoa, bacteria, and fungi in soil D. Saxena and G. Stotzky” (incase my link doesnt work)
The bt toxin specifically targets insects(and only a specfic grouping of insects), in the human gut it is just another protein.
Hi Lisa,
I would not say the prevailing sentiment from Monsanto contributors is that anyone who disagrees with Monsanto is guilty of misinformation. However there is a lot of misinformation out there which is oftenreflected in replies on this blog. We will call it when we see it.
With that said, we are always happly to reply with details, links, etc to back up our allegations of misinformation. If we don’t provide it, just ask.
Bt is fairly specific and is activated in the gut of certain insects (varies with the strain of Bt), and even then, only at certain stages of larval development. For instance, not only will it not kill adult moths, but will only kill the catterpillars at certain stages of development.
The extremely low toxicity of Bt to people, as well as its specificity to certain larval states of certain insects, is one of the reasons it is chosen for use in agriculture and incorporation into biotech plants.
Here is a link with some pretty good background:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/pathogens/bacteria.html
On the Erin Brockovitch, if you have questions on any of the comments we “puppets” make, let us know and we’ll do our best to back them up with links and info from other third parties.
I will offer my own observation that whenever we do this, the supporting parties are quickly lableled as corrupt, shills or biased seldom if ever with analysis of the data presented. Apparently for some folks, the only viewpoints out there which are valid, are those which support their own beliefs.
As a former government official, I was frequently involved in public meetings and hearings on various issues concerning safety of water, food, etc. In EPA training on how to handle public hearings, the first thing they tell you is to NEVER drink water or eat food offered as a means to prove you believe it is safe. The reason is that the water offered may be spiked with something unsafe!
I had such offers made to me in a couple public meetings in which I was involved. My response was to offer to go to the person’s house and drink from their tap (or in one case swim from their beach with my kids).
Ewan Ross Says:
May 1, 2009 at 10:13 am
Lisa – as far as I am aware Bt hasnt been shown to be toxic to bacteria in the soil
________________________________
http://current.com/items/89977630_bt-cotton-weaving-a-web-of-infertility.htm
Navdanya’s study was conducted in Bt cotton growing areas of Vidharbha, comparing the microbial biomass in the soil of Bt cotton fields with that of fields that grew other crops or other types of cotton. The survey found statistically significant drops in 2 microbes and 3 beneficial enzymes. These results are significant as it provides scientific evidence that Bt Cotton is making the soil infertile by decreasing microbial activity, and thus essentially killing the very soil that the crop is grown in. Additionally this proves that industrial agriculture creates a relentless cycle of despair as industrial agricultural products deteriorate soil fertility that then necessitates intensified fertilizer and agricultural application, which ultimately results in increased farmer’s costs and soaring debts. It is interesting to note that the study was conducted in a region which has shown an alarmingly high rate of farmer suicides, a shocking 20,000 in the past 5 years. Finally, the fact that Bt cotton crops decreases microbial activity in the soil portends a future of sterile soil that may result in massive desertification and loss of arable land in the future in a time where food security is evermore essential.
http://www.navdanya.org/report1.pdf
The microbes with most significant drops are as follows Actinomycetes(17% decrease), Bacteria(14.2%), Dehydrogenase(10.3%) Acid Phosphatase(26.6%) and Nitrogenase(22.6%).
Actinomycetes play an important role in decomposition of organic materials, and thus provide a vital part in organic matter turnover and carbon cycles that replenish the supply of nutrients in the soil and is an important part of humus formation.
Bacteria are vital in recycling nutrients, contributing to many important steps in nutrient cycles, such as the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere and putrefaction.
Dehydrogenase enzymes play a significant role in the biological oxidation of soil and increase beneficial microbial activity.
Acid phosphatase enzymes are used by soil microorganisms to access organically bound phosphate nutrients, which make phosphates available to plants.
Nitrogenase is the enzyme used by some organisms to fix atmospheric nitrogenous gas. It is the only known family of enzymes which accomplishes this process.
For some reason echoes of school science fairs ring heavily in my ears on that “report” Deborah.
There is no method described beyond saying that crop fields next door to the cotton fields were picked… regardless of what was growing(what was growing then and what was previously growing would no doubt have a huge impact on microbial populations) or how the different fields had been treated (tillage, irrigation, use of other pesticides, use of herbicides, fertilizer applications – all impact microbial populations), no description of methodology of enzymatic analysis.
Regrettably, I can not find any further detailed information on the methodology, but I am still looking and will let you know if I find anything. I agree that more information is needed.
I did find this, though, regarding different studies:
http://www.imba.missouri.edu/report/pdf/2004-10%20Final%20Report.pdf
Several studies have reported various effects of Bt endotoxins released in root exudates,
and from biomass and residues on soil microorganisms. Generally, insecticidal toxin released from Bt crops had no short-term deleterious effects on soil biological communities, but the potential long-term effects due to accumulation and persistence of the toxin on soil biodiversity have not been evaluated extensively (Donegan et al., 1995; Betz et al., 2000; Saxena and Stotzky, 2001a; Head et al., 2002; Zwahlen et al., 2003). Research on the effects of altered chemical or physical properties of Bt corn residues on decomposition have yielded conflicting results. Those transgenic Bt corn hybrids with higher lignin contents compared with nontransgenic corn may lead to slower residue decomposition by soil microorganisms (Masoero et al., 1999; Saxena and Stotzky, 2001b). In contrast, Bt corn varieties with low lignin content, low C/N, and high soluble carbohydrate content in leaves are documented (Escher et al., 2000). Therefore, further study is required to fully understand the properties of transgenic crop residues
and the effects on microbial activity including decomposition.
[Can you explain why Bt plants have higher lignan content? Why does genetically engineering a plant to produce Bt affect lignan? I'm also curious why these difference occur between Bt corn and the isoline: "The C/N, lignin/N, lignin and ash contents of individual plant components varied widely
(Table 2). The Bt residues, including root, stem and leaves had higher lignin, lignin/N ratio and
total organic C contents than those of non-Bt residues. Total N was lower in Bt stem and leaf of but higher in roots compared with the non-Bt isoline. Roots also contained higher lignin, but
lower C/N and total organic C content than those of other components."]
3.5. Carbon substrate utilization
Principle component analysis illustrated that carbon substrate utilization patterns of
bacterial communities between soils were highly significantly different (P < 0.0001), while they
did not differ due to residue component amendment in the microcosms (Table 5). Soils amended with Bt residues significantly differed (P = 0.0219) from those with non-Bt residues. Similarly, a significant effect on carbon substrate utilization patterns by Bt residues was observed in the field study (P = 0.0267).
Our study demonstrated that interactions
among corn residue type (Bt vs non-Bt), residue component, and soil type may alter soil
microbial community function. Information from this study may be useful for improving Bt corn
residue management to minimize any potential undesirable agronomic and environmental effects.
Because Bt corn residues may require more residence time in soil during longer decomposition, we cannot rule out the possibility that the associated toxins remaining in soil for this extended time may also affect soil microbial activity (Flores et al., 2005).
The impact of different tillage systems on Bt and non-Bt corn residue decomposition and the soil microbial community may require longer term studies over several consecutive growing seasons.
Bt corn residues seemed to affect soil bacterial
community function as measured by substrate utilization assays. The ecological importance of
this observation is not clear, however, it suggests that Bt residues may affect selected activities
of soil bacteria carried out by specific enzymes that cannot be detected with very general assays
such as the C mineralization procedure used here. More detailed studies on Bt residues interacting with specific activities of the soil microbial community are required to confirm these
effects.
—————————-
There was also some info on glyphosate:
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/3/825
The soybean nitrogen fixing symbiont, Bradyrhizobium japonicum, possesses a glyphosate-sensitive enzyme and upon exposure to glyphosate accumulates shikimic acid and hydroxybenzoic acids such as protocatechuic acid (PCA), accompanied with B. japonicum growth inhibition and death at high concentrations….Deleterious effects of glyphosate on B. japonicum and its inhibition of the nodulation and/or nitrogen fixation processes have been observed in GR soybean. Although the effects of GR soybean genotype has been assessed in terms of yield potential, the magnitude of inhibition of N2 fixation in soybeans due to glyphosate application has not been critically assessed [hs anyone done this to your knowledge--has Monsanto?] under field conditions. Soybean productivity and N2 fixation have the potential to compensate for short periods of stress. However, even a small reduction in N2 fixation potential may have long-term effects on sustainable soil nitrogen pools, considering the widespread adoption of the GR soybean system. The effects of glyphosate on N2 fixation potential of GR soybean should be especially evaluated on sandy soils with limited nitrogen availability.
**********************************
This is from 2006, published 2007–it seems there is still so much uncertainty. Did Monsanto study the short and long-term effects of Bt on soil structure and ecology before marketing their seeds en masse? Are they doing any follow-ups to monitor the effects?
http://www.ecology.kee.hu/pdf/0603_001019.pdf
Most of the risk assessment studies on transgenic plants have
done observations on changes in their respective aboveground environment and its biota. Very few
reports are available on the impacts of transgenic plants or their products (that they release in soil) on soil
biota (both invertebrates and. microorganisms) and soil processes mediated by them. However,
observations of these studies were not delivering anything conclusively and creating state of confusion
also regarding impact of transgenic plants on soil ecosystem. As some of the studies suggested that If
production and release of the transgene products from transgenic plants through different routes in soil
exceed to its consumption/ biodegradation, may lead to their accumulation beyond threshold levels,
which may have acute as well as chronic effect on soil ecosystem. Impacts of transgenic plants are also
dependent upon spatial and temporal environmental variables. Whereas some of the studies observation
suggests that transgenic plants don’t have any negative impact on soil ecosystem.
Transgenic Bt cotton and Bt corn plants
release Bt endotoxin into the soil from their different parts (roots, leaves etc), which
persists in soil and retained its immunological and biological activity [64, 66]. A major
problem in evaluating the impacts of transgenic crops on soil microbial diversity is the
lack of baseline information on- diverse agroecosystems to compare with
agroecosystems in which transgenic crops have been introduced [10, 17], and lack of
universally approved approach for carrying out impact assessment of the transgenic
plants on soil ecosystem.
Donegan [20]
examined the effects of decomposing transgenic cotton litter on structure of soil
microbial communities and observed transient and significant increase in culturable
aerobic bacteria and fungi in two out of three transgenic lines, which was attributed to
unexpected changes in plant root exudates. Similarly, aerobic bacterial, fungal
population and fungal species diversity in soil samples of Bt potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) differ significantly from non-Bt potato plants [21].
But contradictory to Heuer, Christopher and Jeffrey [13] observed
rhizospheric and bulk soil samples of Bt corn for PLFA and bacterial and fungal CLPP
profiles and found 73% and 6.3 -3.8% differences respectively of rhizospheric and bulk
soil microbial community. But they found that expression of Cry endotoxin and varietal
differences of transgenic corn don’t have a significant effect on microbial profiles,
except in the high-clay soil where both factors significantly affected bacterial CLPP
profiles (accounting for 6.6 and 6.1% of the variability). The persistence as well as
intensity of the impacts of transgenic plants on the structure of microbial community is
dependent on the environment conditions of cultivation site [25, 26, 36].Reports on retention time of
transgenic products in soil are very limited. Head [38] reported that Cry1Ac protein was
undetectable from soil samples of six fields that are under cultivation of Bt cotton from
last 3-6 yrs and have incorporated Bt cotton plant residues by postharvest tillage.
Wherease Oger et al. [62] observed that changes induced by transgenic plants in soil
microbial community structure are persistent for a long time.
Above studies observations has shown variation in response of soil microorganisms
to various transgenic plants due to different reasons. Spatial and temporal factors of
cultivation site play an important role in determining the impact of transgenic plants on
soil ecosystem. Any changes in soil due to introduction of transgenic plants should be
crosschecked by replication of the experiment over the long duration. Very few reports
are available on the effect of transgenic plants on invertebrate or protozoan population
of soil. Experimental studies are urgently needed on the structural alterations of
invertebrate or protozoan population of soils due to transgenic plants. Further research
for probing non targeted traits of new transgenic crops and the mechanisms by which
these traits may affect soil biological structure and processes, including changes incomposition of root exudates, is needed for better understanding of the potential impact
of transgenic crops on soil ecosystem.
Differences in the composition of crop residues due to the introduction of a
transgenic trait have been primarily observed in transgenic Bt crops. Masoero [52]
reported that two transgenic Bt corn hybrids had higher starch, lignin and lower protein
and soluble nitrogen contents compared with non-transgenic corn. Saxena and Stotzky
[70] also observed 33 to 97% higher lignin content in 10 Bt corn hybrids, compared
with their respective non-Bt isolines. In contrast, Escher [28] found low carbon:
nitrogen ratio (C / N), lignin content and higher content of soluble carbohydrates in the
leaves of one Bt corn variety compared with the corresponding non-transgenic corn
variety.
*********************************
Again, I wonder why the Bt event is so different than the isoline in composition–what is making the plant different? And did Monsanto perform soil studies before releasing ge crops?
Deborah -
On the Bt – the lignin difference is indeed an interesting phenomenon, which warrants further study – I cant find any reliable info on why lignin levels would be affected by the presence of the Bt protein.
Interestingly lignin levels also appear to be down in one line in the Escher study – which is also interesting in that it appears that wood lice juveniles suffer from differential mortality – although to burst the bubble of excitement this statement may cause, the higher mortality rate was seen on the Bt- treatment and not the Bt+.
I’m not convinced due to the apparent variability between these two studies that the increase in lignin content is either massively different to the wildtype (33%-90% sounds big, but when the levels you are measuring are 3-6% dry weight I am not convinced that this necessarily is a huge deal – also these changes may be correlated with the other differences noted – one has to take care not to count the same change multiple times), or that the difference matters particularly .
If you actually read the research rather than the preamble in the first paper you cite the statement
“Previous research with transgenic and
nontransgenic corn demonstrated that bacterial diversity in the corn rhizospheres were
differentiated among soil textures but not between corn varieties….. Our observations agree with other research demonstrating that soil texture is one of most important abiotic determinants of soil microbial communities….”(cut out the references to make it an easier read)
Makes it relatively clear that in this study at least there was no adverse affect on microbial population caused by the Bt corn residues (with the caveat that longer term presence of the Bt toxin needs to be further studied as this wasnt a long term study).
Which leads me to! (and you’ll like this, it’s a long term study on the effects of growing Bt corn on microbial populations)
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/2/647
which over the course of 4 years sees some transient (single year) significant differences in some of the variables measured, but over the course of the study (4 year) sees no difference in any of the studied parameters (total culturable bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, chitin utilizing organisms, cellulose utilizing organisms (only looked at 1 year so this isnt quite as conclusive), fungi, protozoa, ammonium and nitrite oxidizing bacteria, nitrate reducing bacteria and enzyme activities of arylsulfatases, acid and alkaline phosphatases,
dehydrogenases, and proteases.
This broadly agrees with the fact that single year studies have seen, and havent seen differences, but strongly suggests that over time there is no difference between Bt and non-Bt corns effect on soil microorganisms.
On glyphosate – any organism which uses EPSPS (glyphosate’s target) in aromatic amino acid production (only plants and some microorganisms do this) will be affected by glyphosate (as far as I am aware at least, and with the obvious exception of EPSPS’s which either have always lacked the site which glyphosate blocks, or have evolved resistance) so effects on some organisms is not unexpected – as there is no impact on yield due to the effect on the symbiotic bacteria I dont think that concern should be overly high – as N availability is one of the biggest impacts on yield one would expect to see a yield impact if N availability to the plant was impacted significantly
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/35/5/1633
offers a relatively up to date and balanced report on the environmental safety or RR crops and glyphosate (in particular noting that “Glyphosate is more environmentally and toxicologically benign than many of the herbicides that it replaces.” which I believe is the most important fact to keep in mind when discussing any possible environmental or toxicological effects of Glyphosate rather than examining it in a vacuum)
Ewan,
Does this say that soil texture is the most influential factor–in this study–or the ONLY factor:
********************************
“Previous research with transgenic and
nontransgenic corn demonstrated that bacterial diversity in the corn rhizospheres were
differentiated among soil textures but not between corn varieties….. Our observations agree with other research demonstrating that soil texture is one of most important abiotic determinants of soil microbial communities….”(cut out the references to make it an easier read)
Makes it relatively clear that in this study at least there was no adverse affect on microbial population caused by the Bt corn residues (with the caveat that longer term presence of the Bt toxin needs to be further studied as this wasnt a long term study).
++++++++++++++++++
Did Monsanto do these types of soil studies before marketing gmo’s. If so, would you direct me to the studies?
Deborah – the most important factor, not the only factor. However it does state that varietal differences (ie GM vs non-GM) are not demonstrated (an observation which is thoroughly supported by the 4 year study)
If you go on to read the rest of the study (paying particular attention to the graphs at the end) something I’d suggest in any scientific paper – you’re more likely to be saying something about the actual research of the paper if you quote from the results/conclusions or even the abstract than the introduction – you will note that of 5 varieties tested only 1 variey exhibited increased lignin (which would generally suggest that transgenic expression of Bt does not increase lignin content) furthermore it would appear that changes in lignin content are driving factor behind differences in substrate utilization etc (which show statistically significant differences between bt and non-bt (with the caveat that only the increased lignin line was analysed))
To the best of my knowledge I dont think Monsanto did do these kind of studies prior to commercial release, at least I havent personally been able to find any articles (nor am I convinced that such a study would be required to commercialize any transgenic – unless it were released as a product specifically designed for use in situations where maintaing or enhancing bacterial microbial communities was key, in which case there’d be about 10 years of internal data on said product before it ever released commercially)
Ewan Ross Says:
May 12, 2009 at 8:18 am
If you actually read the research rather than the preamble [abstract] in the first paper you cite the statement [Thanks again for that tip. Do you really assume I don't read these things, based on our past discussions?]
“Previous research with transgenic and
nontransgenic corn demonstrated that bacterial diversity in the corn rhizospheres were
differentiated among soil textures but not between corn varieties…. Our observations agree with other research demonstrating that soil texture is one of most important ABIOTIC [emphasis, mine] determinants of soil microbial communities….”(cut out the references to make it an easier read)
Makes it relatively clear [does it really?] that in this study at least there was no adverse affect on microbial population caused by the Bt corn residues (with the caveat that longer term presence of the Bt toxin needs to be further studied as this wasnt a long term study).
================
By cutting out the references and the surrounding statements, you have taken this snippet out of context, IMO.
The researchers are concurring with previous findings on abiotic variables, but do not even speak to their own findings on biotic variables here in the second section of that statement. I do not see that they say type of residue, Bt or non-Bt has no affect, only that soil texture is the primary abiotic factor. Look here:
“Bt corn residues seemed to affect soil bacterial community function as measured by substrate utilization assays. The ecological importance of this observation is not clear, however, it suggests that Bt residues may affect selected activities of soil bacteria carried out by specific enzymes that cannot be detected with very general assays such as the C mineralization procedure used here.
“Based on the results of the microcosm and
field studies, we concluded that incorporation of Bt residue with higher lignin content and
lignin/N ratio in soil significantly affected the structure of microbial communities compared with the residue from its non-Bt isoline
“Residue type (Bt vs non-Bt) or
tillage had little effect on DGGE patterns. However, a number of low-intensity bands differed
across the various sample dates. It is possible that many weak bands that were not detected
occurred on all sampling dates, thus distinct communities associated with the different residues may have been overlooked. However, because bands were selected based on set limits of density values, these differences were not documented. [can we be sure they are insignificant?]
“The difference in residue quality between Bt and non-Bt residue may be one of the
principal reasons for the observed effects on soil microbial properties. [Seems to indicate a difference] Our study demonstrated that interactions among corn residue type (Bt vs non-Bt), residue component, and soil type may alter soil microbial community function
“Because Bt corn residues may require more residence time in soil during longer decomposition, we cannot rule out the possibility that the associated toxins remaining in soil for this extended time may also affect soil microbial activity”
============================
But, don’t take my interpretation as adequately researched; here is how ARS (USDA) interpreted the final copy of the study:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=214010&pf=1
Interpretive Summary: Corn genetically modified (GM) for resistance to insect pests (Bt) is planted on about 50% of the corn production area of the United States. The impact of Bt corn on the soil environment and many soil biological processes has received little attention. Effects on important soil biological processes such as decomposition (the breakdown of organic materials for carbon [C] storage in soil and release of carbon dioxide [CO2]) have been largely neglected in environmental assessments of Bt corn. Previous research by other scientists suggests that chemical composition of Bt corn stalks, leaves, and roots differ from ¿conventional¿ corn and may alter soil microorganisms responsible for decomposition, interfering with this process when the plant parts remain on the soil surface or are incorporated into the soil. Our objectives were to determine differences in chemical composition of the vegetative parts (`residues¿) of Bt and non-Bt corn varieties; evaluate the effect of corn residues on decomposition in different soils; and determine effects of the residues on the structure of the microbial populations in soil. Although Bt and non-Bt corn plants differed in lignin (organic compound that gives plant cells its rigid structure), no differences were observed in the decomposition based on the amount of C released when either corn residue types were mixed in soil. The greatest effect on decomposition rate was due to differences in soil texture, regardless of corn residue mixed in the soil. Decomposition was consistently highest in the silt loam soil. Also, soil microorganism composition in field-collected soils DIFFERED DUE TO CORN RESIDUE TYPE[emphasis, mine], suggesting an effect on biological processes mediated by the microorganisms could occur during growth of the Bt corn. Because we only investigated two contrasting corn varieties, follow-up research is required to verify that these results are representative of the hundreds of Bt varieties currently available for production in different soils and environments. Also, our results suggest ONLY that the biological process of decomposition was not affected; we did not study effects of other specific biological processes mediated by soil microorganisms [I hope someone will do that soon--or has done], which should be pursued in the future. Nevertheless, the current information has important implications for scientists, extension personnel, producers, and environmental stakeholders because it demonstrates that growth of Bt corn AFFECTS MICROBIAL POPULATIONS AND POSSIBLY SOME ASSOCIATED BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES IN THE SOIL[emphasis mine] limited to our study; therefore, cropping systems that include Bt varieties need more examination relative to impacts on soil biological processes to better assess long-term effects on the soil resource.
Based on the results of the microcosm and field studies, we concluded that incorporation of Bt residue with higher lignin content and lignin/N ratio in soil SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED THE STRUCTURE OF MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES [emphasis, mine] compared with the residue from its non-Bt isoline. Abiotic factors including soil texture and sampling time also influenced the soil microbial communities and the decomposition of corn residues.
****************
Also, Ewan, are you saying that you know of ONLY ONE Bt corn event with higher lignin levels than its non gm isoline?
And it wasn’t only the lignin: Masoero [52] reported that two transgenic Bt corn hybrids had higher starch, lignin and lower protein and soluble nitrogen contents compared with non-transgenic corn. [from the above study] What does this say about the unintended consequences of genetic engineering and substantial equivalency?
I also can’t help wondering why doing studies on the effects of transgenic root exudates/or plant residues on soil microorganisms would not be required for deregulation? That is almost beyond belief! I think your apparent ease with the presumption that the studies were not done reveals the lack of scope and depth of Monsanto’s premarket studies on gmo’s and the environment. Would you say that unintended negative or disruptive effects of transgenic crops on soil microorganisms and function would not be risking the most crucial and fundamental element of ecosystem functioning? Did Monsanto have no responsibility to investigate this consequence before releasing gmo’s into the environment?
Do you think it might be a good idea for Monsanto to do so in the future–before releasing new gmo’s into the environment–and for Monsanto to do extensive, independently peer-reviewed follow up studies now, especially considering the acreage planted over time to gmo‘s?
Finally, I can not access your 4 year study. Can you give free link to the study? I have plenty of free links showing soil ecology disruption.
Deborah – hmm, not sure if there is a free version available or not – I assumed as it was from JEQ like one of the studies you linked that it would be widely available…. the study title, authors etc are:-
Microbial Populations and Enzyme Activities in Soil In Situ under Transgenic Corn Expressing Cry Proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis
I. Icoza, D. Saxenab, D. A. Andowc, C. Zwahlenc and G. Stotzkya
J Environ Qual 37:647-662 (2008)
perhaps you’ll have a little more luck finding it (the pdf wasnt working too well for me but the html did… perhaps my link is just a bad one)
On the lignin – I’m saying that of the 5 lines tested in that paper only 1 had higher lignin content, therefore, from that paper, one would have to conclude that increased lignin is the exception and not the rule in Bt transgenics – it’d be interesting to see if these differences persisted, or if there was some other variable at work (the 4 year study, if you can access it, shows how a single year study could find differences which arent persistent and therefore may not be meaningful)
On unintended consequences – working with various different genetic backgrounds (non-GM) it is always a surprise to me (perhaps it shouldnt be, but I havent been at this very long) how different various hybrids can be when grown under controlled conditions in terms of N content, C:N ratios, growth rates, other metabolites etc – I’d argue that so long as levels of starch, lignin etc etc are within species norms not too much should be read into the differences (for instance(and purely hypothetically for the moment):- if it were shown that Bt corn of variety A reduced microbial diversity by 5% would this be important if non-Bt variety B reduced diversity by 10% as compared to variety A?)
From a 2007 review:-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC7-4R7M900-1&_user=1631782&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5163&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000053988&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1631782&md5=7ae732aa9e84e7e7f62458b73200cbf2#bib91
“Because most studies have generally indicated few or no significant detrimental effects on microbes and other organisms in below-ground soil ecosystems, more studies on the risks associated with Bt plants, at least those currently available, to these organisms are probably not indicated.”
I still read the study you linked as predominantly showing that increased lignin content changes things, not the Bt protein – there is no demonstration that the Bt protein is doing anything other than sitting in a plant which has significantly higher shoot lignin – my removal of citations was not an attempt to muddy the waters, just to make the statement a tad more readable (I note that you truncate one of the statements in your previous piece also, presumably for similar reasons?) – I assume that most interested readers will go to the source and check any statements and so dont want to expand my already overly long postings with stuff easily found in the link.
You appear to want the moon on a stick when it comes to the number of studies done. There is no reason to believe, for the transgenics currently on the market, that there would be a significant and meaningful impact on soil microorganism ecology above and beyond that found between varieties of various crops or between various agricultural practices (I have no idea if this is the assumption that was used prior to the release of the crops, or if things like this were looked at and found not be be significant – this is purely from a personal standpoint) – as studies have been done, and no meaningful, significant and persistant effects have been found my assumption appears to be well founded (albeit perhaps open to the accusation of being unscientific)
Ewan, can you find out if Monsanto did soil ecology safety studies prior to releasing gmo’s?
I wonder what happens to the soil microbiology when corn such as Genuity with stacked traits for Bt cry proteins is sprayed with roundup and still gets a dose or two or atrazine? How would this scenario fit into your comparison of A and B; we could call this one X. It looks like there would be a still greater impact.
Deborah – I don’t think soil ecology studies were performed prior to releasing GMOs (this may not be correct, but as I’ve previously stated, from a personal stance I don’t see why they would be)
From your second example, introducing ‘X’ rather than just A and B – I would assume that differential effects of herbicides utilized in ANY agricultural system would completely swamp out any supposed transgenic effect – this is because there is (to me at least) an obvious reason to believe that herbicides would impact microbial communities, either by directly harming some microbes (for instance by blocking the production of amino acids) or by indirectly changing the nutritive composition of the soil (kill the weeds, change the availability of nutrients and root networks provided by these weeds – this could work both ways, in that killing the weeds may increase available nutrition to microbes, changing the microbial population profile) whereas there is no logical reason, for the current traits on the market, to assume any effect on soil microbes purely as a result of the transgenic nature of the plants.
Essentially making this more of an organic vs conventional farming – even within organic there are surely different methodologies which massively impact the microbial populations at the field level – I cant imagine that manure fertilized vs legume cover crop fertilized systems have microbial populations which match as closely as the transgenics in the study which vary as a result of lignin (as you’d have to concede that of manure and cover crop one or the other is likely to decompose at a different rate, and that this difference appears to be the main driving force behind differences in microbial communities) – should either of these systems then be demonized as compared to each other because of an alteration of soil microbes?
If soil fertility is negatively affected, increasing the need for external inputs, decreasing yield, and compromising the resource.
If symbiotic microorganisms are negatively affected.
If long-term effects of the pesticide or PIP disrupt parts of or the entire ecosystem.
I guess one would have to ask farmers using Bt corn whether their input requirements have increased (as compared to what they have used prior to using Bt) and whether their yields have decreased – I’m thoroughly convinced, from various sources cited on these blogs, that this is not the case (even the ‘failure to yield’ piece credited Bt corn with yield increase)
For symbiotic microorgansims – I guess this depends on a case by case basis, and on the size of the negative effects – if the legume crops in the rodale study had just had something negatively impacting their symbiotic microorganisms on bumper years then perhaps the legume cover crops would have been at least as, and possibly less, of a source of leached nitrogen.
What is wrong with the food we already had? There is plenty of food out in nature. People starving to death is due to overpopulation. I believe it’s, “survival of the fittest,” or, “natural selection.” I’m struggling with feeding myself now, and it’s MY problem. Also, I’m not going to have kids and have them go through worse circumstances. All this extra processed food might be causing overpopulation. We wouldn’t reproduce as much if we felt there wasn’t enough food to eat. Yet, Monsanto tries to keep up with the birth/death rate, enable people to have the mindset to keep reproducing at excessive rates. Humans aren’t on the endangered species list and wont be from lack of food. So we wont die off if Monsanto and their GMO’s aren’t around anymore. Malnutrition? that’s just a lack of education. Your company caters to the ever-growing fast food industry with your hormonal fecal-meat. Is fast food the answer for starvation and malnutrition? That is who you support the most, since most of your crops feed the meat we eat and not us. There are foods out in nature you can eat and not have to rely on supermarkets or restaurants.
“Nature” – I dont believe that processed food is a causative factor in the overpopulation of the globe – if you take a look at where population growth is highest, and where it is lowest there is probably a relatively strong inverse correlation between the availabilty of processed and fast foods – if memory serves a lot of first world countries are actually seeing negative population growth or at least relatively stagnant growth curves as compared to second and third world countries.
The problem with the food we already have is that we have huge problems growing enough food to meet the nutritional needs of billions of people – even in areas not plagued by drought and famine the staple crop may be great in terms of calorific intake but incredibly poor in terms of other required nutrients (cassava is a prime example, being very rich in carbohydrates but a horrible source of protein and micronutrients (aswell as being a potential toxin due to high levels of cyanide) – this is a staple crop across much of africa and south america)
While standing idly by and allowing billions to starve to death is clearly one solution to the problem of human overpopulation I dont believe that anyone can truly believe that this is even a remotely moral choice, based on the same arguements of ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ one would have to assume that proponents of such a solution avoid all antibiotics, never see a doctor and would willingly see their own children die of blood poisoning induced by something as simple as a splinter – I know that without the intervention of modern technology I, and every member of my family, would not have made it past the age of 20 – essentially by arguing against attempting to alleviate/solve the global food/population dilemma you condemn billions to essentially the same fate – death due to an unwillingness to apply modern technology based on a misguided idea that somehow because natural selection occurs it is in some way morally correct.
Even prior to the conception of GM foods supplements have been added to the food supply to prevent what were common ailments earlier this century – I cant see how improving our ability to alleviate suffering caused by dietary shortcomings can be seen as a bad thing – perhaps the perceived imbalance of omega3/6 oils entering the food chain due to the switch from grass fed to corn fed beef is one thing which GM tech could address (assuming the problem is a real one, I havent actually looked at any scientific data around it, just read a few popular “eat real food” type books which hold this as one of the tragedies of industrial farming methods)
Also keep in mind that the original post is about why we need GM foods. Not necessarily why we need Monsanto GM foods – Monsanto isnt the only player out there. My guess is that in terms of increasing nutrition for crops in the third world that academic research will remain the primary driving force, with Monsanto playing a role in introducing traits such as drought tolerance and nitrogen use efficiency which will play an important role in increasing yields in areas which have high water stress and low availability of fertilizers. Companies like Monsanto are more likely to play a role in increasing/modifying nutrients in crops which go into the industrial food chain – people may bemoan the fact that fast food, and processed food, is terrible stuff, but it appears to be here to stay – and if modification of the base ingredients can achieve a healthier end product then I would argue that this, while not being the best solution, at least makes the best of a bad situation.
We do not “need” genetically modified foods. Humans may modify species of plants and animals by selective breeding, but that is hardly the same thing as inserting genes that belong to an unrelated species, or creating plants that could contaminate nearby ones w/pollen that carries damaging genes. We need to preserve the genetic material of ‘heirloom’ and other species because they have value in themselves and keep control of these things in the people’s hands, not in corporations’ hands. As for the poisons spread by the barrel in agriculture, this is very damaging to the planet as a whole. You can’t justify this kind of damage just because it’s profitable. Very short sighted, greedy, and wrong-headed.
Crow – any plant modified by selective breeding could ‘contaminate’ (a pretty loaded word, and one I question) nearby closely related varieties with pollen carrying ‘damaging’ (again, loaded, and not exactly backed up by anything other than rhetoric) genes (ie non-native genes to the variety in question).
To return to those points – to what extent is ‘contamination’ by a transgene, or indeed by a mutant gene selected for by selective breeding (mutations may have occured naturally, or been induced by chemical mutagens or radioactivity), harmful if it does find its way into another variety or sub-species through cross pollination?
The answer isn’t obvious to me. There is no obvious advantage or disadvantage as far as I can see it if a non-crop plant were to end up containing a gene for herbicide resistance (other than the obvious benefit to the plant should it ever be sprayed with that herbicide) or a gene for producing Bt toxin (other than the benefit to the plant of not being eaten by a certain subset of insects, and the disadvantage to that sub-set of insects due to not having that particular plant to eat) – neither of these genes crossing into other plants has an obvious negative effect (other than the perceived negative of non-GM being ‘contaminated’ by GM, which if you dont want to eat any GM at all is obviously a problem within crop plants) – indeed if there were a truly negative effect then considering the estimated levels of cross contamination (cant recall exactly but I believe it is well under 1% cross pollination between the same species with 100-300m seperation) within the same species there is not a lot to worry about as natural selection against any plants containing deleterious genes would prevent ‘bad’ genes spreading (just as natural selection prevents the spread of naturally occuring ‘bad’ genes anyway) the presence of the transgenic (or artificially selected) gene in the genome of a hybrid between a crop species and a wild species, or between varieties of a crop species doesnt to my mind add to any reduction in biodiversity or to any reduction in the genetic material over and above that already caused by the addition of 50% of the genome of an unrelated/non-closely related species/variety – which never appears to come up as a concern, but in terms of things like heirloom varieties (which if memory serves are incredibly inbred lines of various species) any cross pollination with any other variety is going to be catastrophic in terms of maintaining a pure-bred heirloom.
As to the damage caused by the poisons of agriculture – the justification is not in the profit, it is in the billions of lives spared starvation from the use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides together with the most advanced breeding techniques (of which GE is but a part)