Impact of GMO maze, comprehensive analysis of 21 years of field data
I have just read a new scientific article about the impact of GMO, and I wanted to share it with you.
This article was published online on February the 15th, thus it's very, very fresh.
And it's Open Access, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, thus we can read it together.
Thank you very much for providing us the knowledge: Elisa Pellegrino, Stefano Bedini, Marco Nuti and Laura Ercoli.
This is a meta-analysis, based on 76 publications (6,006 publications were examined).
Why do we lose so many data? The answer is simple, there is no standardized way to represent the data.
What is GMO?
I will tell you only one thing: GMO has nothing to do with poking the tomato with needles, it's just some very creative vision of photographers.
If you want to find out more about GMO plants, check several great posts written by other Steemians (sorted alphabetically):
- @jepper, GMO Plants – What are they?
- @justtryme90, Science Lesson: Genetically Modified Organisms, (How are GMOs Created?)
- @scienceangel, Séralini affair - Why Study Data linking GMO Maze to Cancer is Inconclusive?
- @sco, Sco's tox-blog #1: Organic food: the misconception of healthiness
- @suesa, WTF is a GMO?
This is not the way how GMO is produced, this is a photo
Actual Study
GMO Maze is with us for the last 20 years, but it still sparks the debate if it's safe not only for human consumption but also raises the question Is it safe for the environment?. And is it useful, can we produce more food if we use the GMO maze?
In 2016, 12% of corn produced worldwide was GMO and in developed countries that percentage was even higher, 54%.
Besides the evidence, GMO crops are prohibited in 19 European countries, but such decision is more political than scientific.
Let's see the results...
Quantity
Higher grain yield and less damaged ears in genetically engineered plants (ears are that top of the corn, were are the seeds)
You are probably wondering what are those abbreviations, SS, DS, TS, QS?
- SS, single stacked hybrids, Bt corn that provide borer resistance by synthesizing the Bacillus thuringiensis protein
- DS, double stacked, include two of the following characteristics: corn borer resistance, corn root worm resistance, or herbicide resistance.
- TS, triple stacked, all three mentioned effects
Source, Monsanto
What about the Quality?
There is a common belief that GMO crops are inferior when it comes to quality, but is it true for maize?
The amount of proteins, lipids and fibers (acid detergent, neutral and total) is the same.
Trichothecenes and mycotoxins are also on the same levels.
And Fumonisins levels are significantly lower.
Impact on other organisms
This is the point that concerns me the most, thus let's see the data:
Diabrotica are the root worms, we want to kill them thus it's good.
Braconidae are corn borers, we also want to kill them, thus it's another success.
Other organisms were not affected, and it's great!
In conclusion
After two decades of real, field studies, we can say that it's looking good for GMO maize:
- it provides us more food
- it doesn't harm non-targeted organisms
- it decomposes well
- and there are actually lower levels of mycotoxins
Keep in mind that GMO plants are examined case by case, and only when those organisms prove that are perfectly safe - they can be used.
In many cases, there is a political decision whether to allow them or prohibit them, because many countries want to have their own production of seeds and in the free market - many local institutes would lose and dissapear.
References:
- Elisa Pellegrino, Stefano Bedini, Marco Nuti, Laura Ercoli (2018) Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of feld data, Scientific Reports, link
- It's legal to use the images from the paper, always take care about this!
Learn something new, follow
GMO's are really healthy and beneficial @alexs1320
It's just the wrong perception of the people about the GMO's that they are harmful and have certain chemicals, can cause several diseases.
Organic food is always good to have, but these GMO's are also healthy. :)
I wrote about Monsanto a few days ago. Also for SteemStem so I can vouch for similar quality to this article!
I am not sure about GMOs. First, the effects on non-GM plants around, the study is about the impacted insects and it's working. But the consequences for example on organic corn, will it disappear on long term (pollination) ?
But the most serious point is about the financial with multinational company (Monsanto ...) who have patented their modified seeds and every year farmers have to pay for new seeds (they can't keep somes seeds of the recolt in order to replant). We become at the mercy of large multinationals who aim to make money for their shareholders not to contribute to the well-being of humanity.
You are right to worry about environmental effects of GMOs. These are often neglected by the general public as they are very complex and sometimes hard to predict and explain. The crops might be good, but one should always ask what the potential consequences might be in the long run and are they reversible.
For the second part, I have to say that it's not GMOs fault the economy works the way it does. Yes, handing over such power to a profit-driven organization will probably not end well, but I don't see this as a reason enough to stop pursuing the dream: abundant and sustainable production of high quality food.
I have personal issues and negative emotions towards our Institute for Corn :D link
Well, in the classical production of seeds, next generation will be fertile, but significantly different from the original seed and with much worse characteristics, thus they don't need to protect it by patent or termination because nature will spoil it anyway.
During the 90's we didn't have regular seeds, and we used "from the barn" - it ended up badly.
In the "Eastern Block" we had national factories with the seemingly logical idea - those factories will belong to all of us, people of the county, to be our proud and our future.
However, in practice, it failed miserably :( time and time again, in different countries and in different areas of industry.
It seems like the private and multinational simply works better, although it doesn't sound logical.
For the multinationals, it's biotech corporations like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and DuPont... I don't know if it's always the case, but before the farmers who used their modified seeds had to sign an agreement promising to not reuse the seeds after each harvest because there are patents on it, so patent infringement... Farmers had to pay for use them... As say @labmonkey is not GMO, but the system.
I forgot about the subject of your Phd :-)...
There are some stories with Monsanto, like GMO coton Bt (Bt » for Bacillus thuringiensis) in Africa. I find only the article in french. GMOs can be a good invention to solve food problems around the world, but that we do with it that makes issues (like all human inventions...)
I just wrote a few days ago about Monsanto and their Glyphosate, also for SteemStem so I can vouch for a qualitative article.
I analyzed the big scientific studies, trying to put misconceptions to rest:
https://steemit.com/steemstem/@alexdory/glyphosate-or-monsanto-s-roundup-a-scientific-and-unbiased-point-of-view
Great I'll read your post this evening... Thanks for the information.
i was hearing about GMO without knowing details about it, but after reading your post i learned many things about this, thank you
Thanks :) Also check the posts I linked at the Introduction - very well written from the different points of view
You could also read my article about Glyphosate and Monsanto. There are also some misconceptions there: https://steemit.com/steemstem/@alexdory/glyphosate-or-monsanto-s-roundup-a-scientific-and-unbiased-point-of-view
Sorry @alexs1320 for promoting on your post. I followed you and voted your article!