Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Impact of GMOs - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Bayer, BASF, Dow AgroScience, DuPont Pioneer, Monsanto, and Syngenta all sell GMO seed and associated products, including herbicides, as well as a range of non-GMO seed and products supporting agricultural production.
        
        For decades, these corporations and their role in the development and use of GMOs have faced criticis, but they have continued to grow and expand — as has their presence in developing countries.
        
        Engaging with developing countries requires support from seed businesses, industry organizations, civil society, governments, academics and researchers. And this involves working with local stakeholders in countries to obtain licenses and approvals for products on an individual, country-by-country basis.
        
        As long as food insecurity exists and private sector investment is required to support investment in agricultural research and development, corporations such as Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta will continue to play an important role in the conversation surrounding GMO and food security.
      - They lobby and advise governments on GMO regulation, and they work with farmers on GMO cropping.
        
        “Our aim is to help farmers, including the many smallholders in emerging nations, be productive and profitable,” Paul Minehart, head of North American corporate communications for Syngenta, told Devex.
        
        “We see it as our task to support farmers in their efforts to increase yields while at the same time protecting the environment and improving the quality of life for farmers and their families..."
        
        According to Dr. James Neilsen, technology and development lead with Monsanto, it is the knowledge that their technology is able to make a difference in the agricultural production and economic development of developing nations that drives their work in this space.
      - Corporations such as Bayer and Monsanto say they are engaging in open conversations on the topic of GMOs. But the distrust of corporations and belief they put profitability above public health and the environment can sway public perception.
        
        It is in the area of public-private partnerships that both Bayer and Monsanto believe they can create a more positive conversation on the potential of GMO.
        
        “Public-private partnerships such as the Golden Rice project or the African Biofortified Sorghum project have allowed public institutions to participate more broadly in the development and commercialization of GM crops..."
  - - - Governments of developing countries are responding to those concerns in a variety of ways with some banning GMOs outright, some embracing them, and others attempting to find balance between the concerns and needs of all sides.
      - Climate change, domestic food security, and local economies all play a key role in governments’ weighing of GMO.
      - in countries where the key economic partners are the U.S. and China — which have fewer regulatory restrictions on the import of GMOs — introducing such crops could potentially increase economic opportunities.
      - The views of external government need to work in conjunction with treaties and declarations countries have signed onto.
        
        171 nations signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, requiring countries to protect biological diversity from the potential risks posed by living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology since 2003.
  - - - Within developing countries, Bayer has been partnering with a range of organizations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
        
        For more than a decade, it has been providing funding for innovative agricultural research, including hundreds of millions of dollars for GMO projects.
        
        "The U.S., China and Brazil are using these things and if you want farmers in Africa to improve nutrition and be competitive on the world market — as long as the right safety things are done — that’s really beneficial. It’s kind of the second round of the Green Revolution.”
    - - The arguments of both Greenpeace and Fairtrade against GMOs are similar — the risks that GMOs pose are still unknown, and they may have unforeseeable environmental, social, and health impacts.
        
        To support the growing food and nutrition challenges, both organizations agree that there is still much more that can be done with improved agricultural processes, ecological agriculture, and equitable access to food.
    - - Both argue that the opposition is influencing politics through lobbyists and that the weight of scientific evidence is on their side.
  - - - They argue that there has never been any evidence of health issues associated with GMOs and the impact on the environment is less harmful than traditional agriculture.
      - The science and the rigorous testing and approval processes GMOs are required to go through before reaching the market should build public confidence — they are put through a tougher process than any other food product
      - GMOs are not the only solution for food security — but they are an important one. “Combined with improved farming conditions, better use of water and reducing waste, GMOs can help to create better food options.”
  - - - The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons.
      - Those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make informed selections when choosing which items to purchase.
  - - - “The big problem is that companies or organizations using GMOs are keeping it under the radar. They are concerned that if it goes public, they will receive negative press.”
    - - “Scientists have not been good at selling, explaining, or educating the public on GMOs... We can make it boring and too scientific. And that means we haven’t been able to create a positive viewpoint.”
- - - - Many scientists stand together in staunch opposition to the violent destruction of required tests on valuable advances such as Golden Rice that have the potential to save millions of impoverished fellow humans from needless suffering and death.
  - - - “This experience from the past and recent political changes in the Ethiopian agricultural system shows the exclusion of the poor from the use of agricultural technologies and an increasing gap between rich and poor, not equitability.”
- - - - While our ancestors had no concept of genetics, they were still able to influence the DNA of other organisms by a process called “selective breeding” or “artificial selection.”
        
        Repeated use of this practice over many generations can result in dramatic genetic changes to a species.
        
        The dog is thought to be the first organism our ancestors artificially selected.
        
        round 32,000 years ago, while our ancestors were still hunters and gatherers, wild wolves in East Asia joined groups of humans as scavengers. They were domesticated and then artificially selected to increase docility.
        
        Artificial selection has also been utilized with a variety of plants.
        
        The earliest evidence of artificial selection of plants dates back to 7800 BCE in archaeological sites found in southwest Asia, where scientists have found domestic varieties of wheat
        
        One of the most dramatic and prevalent alterations in plant genetics has occurred through artificial selection of corn.
    - - An enormous breakthrough in GMO technology came in 1973, when Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen worked together to engineer the first successful genetically engineered (GE) organism .
        
        The two scientists developed a method to very specifically cut out a gene from one organism and paste it into another.
        
        immediately after its development, the media, government officials, and scientists began to worry about the potential ramifications on human health and Earth’s ecosystems
        
        They transferred a gene that encodes antibiotic resistance from one strain of bacteria into another, bestowing antibiotic resistance upon the recipient.
      - By the middle of 1974, a moratorium on GE projects was universally observed, allowing time for experts to come together and consider the next steps during the Asilomar Conference of 1975
        
        The attendees eventually concluded that the GE projects should be allowed to continue with certain guidelines in place.
      - In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court of the ruled that scientists from General Electric could patent bacteria that were genetically engineered to break down crude oil to help with oil spill mitigation.
        
        This ruling legally permitted ownership rights over GMOs, giving large companies the incentive to rapidly develop GMO tools that could both be useful and profitable.
      - In 1982, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the first human medication produced by a genetically modified organism.
        
        Bacteria had been genetically engineered to synthesize human insulin,
      - The first field experiments of food crops that had been genetically modified using recombinant DNA technology began in 1987.
        
        Calgene’s Flavr Savr tomato became the first food crop to be approved for commercial production by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
      - The first glyphosate-resistant crops was a variety of soybean, engineered by Monsanto in 1996.
      - Golden Rice was developed in 2000 with the goal to combat vitamin A deficiency, which is estimated to kill over 500,000 people every year.
      - In 2009, the U.S. FDA approved the first biological product produced by a GE animal, ATryn, a drug used to treat a rare blood clotting disorder.