Controversy: The Pros and Cons of Genetically Modified Crops

Genetically modified (GM) crops are a hot topic right now amongst farmers and environmentalists.  Here are some Pros and Cons, adopted from this PBS report.   After reading these I'd love to hear your opinions.  Do you think they are safe to humans? Even if they are safe, are they necessary considering environment risk? Also would like to hear any additional benefits or risks you may think of.  

Pros:

• GM crops may provide more nutrients, vitamins, and reduced saturated fats than traditional varieties.  
• Crops can be resistant to disease and insects, potentially cutting farming costs on insect/herbicides.
• Crops can be engineered to have a longer shelf life.
• Some believe GM crops may help fight world hunger.
• GM crops are already ingested in high quantities in the U.S. with no health concerns to show for it, and testing of new GM crops is very thorough (based on many sources I've seen).

Cons:

• Some studies show crop yields are not increased.
• There is the potential of "super weeds" and "super insect" evolution.
• Not all the effects may be possibly known, and the corporations pushing GM crops are profit-driven, leading some to believe they are overstated benefits and overlooking risks.
• Further travel down the road of monoculture.  Currently 15 species of crops account for 90% of world energy consumption (PBS.org).  A diversity of crops may be considered natural and provides insurance against drought and disease.
• These crops may hurt small farmers, as they will become reliant on seeds from corporations producing GM crop.  They may also hurt foreign farming if modification allows more tropical crops to be grown in more temperate climates.
• The EU and some other nations will not consume GM crops exported by other nations, so adopting them domestically could hurt U.S. export numbers.

Regulations on Sugar Beets

Sugar beets account for about 50% of sugar production in the U.S, and genetically modified sugar beets made up 95% of the total sugar beet crop in 2010.  From NPR,  The modified beets are "Roundup Ready", so the herbicide Roundup can be sprayed onto the beet fields, killing all weeds, but leaving the beets unharmed.

On Feb. 4th the USDA lifted a temporary ban on the planting of genetically modified sugar beets.  In late 2010 a Federal judge ruled that the beets cannot be planted until a full environment impact study is completed. The USDA lifted the ban due to the upcoming planting season, and due to their fear that U.S. sugar beet yields would severely drop if GM sugar beets are not planted.

Opponents feel the USDA broke the law, as they disputed a federal court ruling.

Self Interview and 1st Evaluation

What is the purpose of this blog?

 - The purpose of this blog is to inform people about genetics and new advances in the field.  It also focuses on presented the information in an understanding and entertaining way.

Who is the imagined audience(s) of this blog?

- My classmates and also the general public.

Better science communication, throw a party!

A reading for my class from Investigating Science Communication showed that many times, even when dialogue is attempted, scientists feed their knowledge/research to people and questions are encouraged afterward.  This can be very similar to the feared deficit approach.  

In the reading, Davies proposed that scientific dialogue should aim to have an impact on individuals; large scale impacts on science and policy are not always necessary.  To do this, I thought, a more social event should take place.  Scientists may come, give a very brief talk about their work, then they should mingle with the invited and interested public.

There is no need for a stage and auditorium seating; tables, chairs, and a comfortable atmosphere is the proper setting to encourage conversation.  Drinks and appetizers should be available (I recommend a cash bar, as an open bar may get out of hand).  This way people will be able to jump from scientist to scientist, express their views and ask questions, and enjoy their martinis.  When science is communicated in a more personal and conversational way, as Alan Alda related in the video we watched, it is better received and understood.  I think better understanding between scientists and the public may be achieved at an event like this compared to a talk and Q & A session.

Just a thought!