It was a misnomer if ever there were one, based on ignorance and fanned by mischievous opponents. I speak of the term "genetically modified" or "Frankenfoods" to describe the new series of crops that have been produced by modern genetic techniques.
This rather than the age-old process of plant (or animal) breeding, which hybridized organisms that carried some desired traits and hoped for fusing them together in the offspring of the crosses. Believe me, all the offspring of such hybridizations are genetically modified in thousands of ways that went far beyond the traits under particular consideration. This process has been going on for millennia. Indeed, the only common crop I can think of that may not have been so modified is the pine nut.
But when quicker, cleaner and infinitely more traceable techniques became available in the 1980s and since, many folks conjured up all sorts of biological nightmares that still haunt the development of food for the masses a-hungering at present and expanding to mid-century. Some of this concern was understandable in the early years, but biotechnically derived crops (the name preferable to "genetically modified," obviously) have become the most intensely studied, regulated, debated crop introductions in all of human history.
By now, the major concerns, both those with some basis in science and some without, have hugely been laid to rest, and it is time to get on with reality. So let's summarize the current use of these crops worldwide.
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, or ISAAA, is a nonprofit organization founded in 1991 and based in Ithaca, N.Y. It has just released a special report: "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010."
Commercial biotech crops were first released in 1996, so 2010 marked their 15th year in production.Agricultural folks are used to quantifying land in hectares, each of which is equivalent to 2.47 of our more usual acres. So we'll use hectares from here on out.
In the 15 years since 1996, a total of about 1 billion hectares has been planted to biotech crops. This is, despite all the regulatory roadblocks of the early years, the most rapid adoption of a new crop technology in modern history.Indeed, the number of hectares planted to biotechs has expanded 87 times (87 fold) in just 15 years. The reasons are persuasive and easy to grasp.
These crops' traits may be merely genetic resistance to a given herbicide (commonly glyphosate -- for example Round-Up), giving cheaper and better control of weeds and thus better yields. Others are resistant to a given insect, with the same results. "Double-stacked" crops combine these two traits. Triple-stacked are likely to be resistant to two different pests and have one herbicide-tolerance gene.
Further combinations exist but I do not know of them yet in commercial use. The "big four crops" (adopted in the most countries) are herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant maize (corn), insect-resistant maize and insect-resistant cotton.
A total of 29 countries currently plant biotech crops. The United States was first into the business and now has eight such crops in commercial production: maize, soy, cotton, canola, sugarbeet, alfalfa, papaya and squash. China ranks second with five: cotton, papaya, poplar, tomato and sweet pepper.
With the addition of potato in three European countries (the only biotech crop so far allowed in Europe), this completes the list of commercially planted biotech crops. We should wonder at the absence of wheat and rice. I shall hold that discussion for later.
Sixteen of the 29 countries plant only one biotech crop to date -- most commonly maize. But cotton runs second and is incredibly important in India and Pakistan.
© Copyright 2011, Daily Herald
