Council for Agricultural Science and Technology responds to recent findings in the New York Times on genetically modified organisms’ promises through news aggregation page. Below are the links provided in the program’s Friday Notes. CAST is a nonprofit whose mission is to share science-based information to the media, policymakers, and other stakeholders.
Genetically modified organisms have been around for over 20 years; The New York Times looks to the fields to see if the technology has lived up to its promises.
The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.
But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.
Genetically modified organisms are a technology used by many companies, but often it becomes synonymous with one company.
GMO. It’s a term shrouded in mystery. A scapegoat for real and perceived agricultural and food system ills, the acronym conjures visions of monoculture, pesticides, chemicals, junk food, obesity, and the transformation of life forms into intellectual property. Perhaps the most common menace summoned when “GMO” is uttered: Monsanto. Mentions of genetic engineering (GE) technology, seemingly without fail, result in “but Monsanto” protests, along with amalgamated concerns about food.
Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the “Father of the Green Revolution,” would have turned 100 on March 25 this year. He dedicated his life to feeding the world by improving the health and yields of cereal crops. To honor his legacy a Borlaug Summit on Wheat for Food Security set out to continue his work throughout the world.