麻豆传媒AV

It is obvious to anyone following the issue of genetically modified crops, or livestock, that the technology remains controversial in the minds of many.

Granted anything new can be looked upon with wary eyes, although the world seems to adopt tech such as cellphones, UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), a myriad of new health products, and so much more with nary a sideways glance.

Yes, GM on the farm means it is ultimately consumed, and that heightens the concerns for many, although we take drugs nearly without question, and accept the waves that power cellphones are safe.

The farm sector looking to expand its possibilities in terms of food production though faces a harsher audience.

For myself the realm of GM intrigues because I see it as holding out the quickest way to increased yields, to creating crops which can grow in more saline soils, that can thrive on less water, than can fight off bugs without insecticides etc.

Will the tech solve all of the above issues?

Truthfully not likely, at least in the short term, but GM does seem to hold a higher prospect of success in less time than conventional plant breeding developments, which is in essence genetic modification by more conventional means.

The wheat that is today resistant to rust is modified from the same wheat plant once devastated by the blight.

So a recent article at www.producer.com caught my attention with the lead paragraph 鈥淚f humans want fewer forests, more expensive food and more greenhouse gases, banning genetically modified crops is a good place to start, says a Purdue University economist.鈥�

It went on the explain, 鈥渁 Purdue study, soon to be published in AgBioForum states that growing GM corn, soybeans and cotton reduces the amount of land needed to grow crops in the U.S., thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural land.鈥�

As interesting as the rest of the article was, in terms of its positive take on the impact of GM crops, was the reaction noted in the comments.

There were accusations of the article being simply propaganda, with a suggestion GMOs work like a bomb on the environment.

The article suggested safety concerns are unproven, which had others commenting about more and more research connecting such foods to health concerns.

Of course that is an issue isn鈥檛 it. Research often contradicts other research.

One person noted that GMs have been around a couple of decades without evidence of problems, countered that issues can take longer than two, or three decades to emerge.

That is likely true, DDT and asbestos and PCBs coming to mind.

But does that mean we shelf every new product, or crop to allow a half century of data from testing before releasing it?

Will cellphones one day be linked to brain conditions?

It doesn鈥檛 help that the public seems to have a current tilt away from trusting scientists.

Is global climate change real?

You can鈥檛 even get our MPs and MLAs all on the same page on that one, or on how we should be reacting if the issue is real.

How the agriculture sector manoeuvres through the current GM minefield is unclear. Those opposed as not to be swayed by science, or they would already have done so.

And that really only leaves the passage of time, although that is worrisome since many still doubt we have landed on the moon.

Calvin Daniels is Assistant Editor with Yorkton This Week.