As a reporter well into my second decade of covering news, it is always fascinating to watch a story evolve. I covered bioengineered crops, also known as genetically modified organisms, when they hit the market a little more than a decade ago. Gmos aimed to revolutionize farming by creating hardier and more innovative crops. But, they did a lot more than that.
Bioengineered crops set off a storm of controversy. Environmental groups said the crops could be a health hazard and labeled them "Frankenfood." Gmo seeds were banned in most countries and many U.S. farmers were slow to adopt them. But, the global attitude towards genetically altered crops is changing.
This year the National Corn Growers Association estimates between 75 and 80 percent of the corn planted in the U.S. will be gmo. Monsanto, one of the largest producers of seeds, says genetically altered seeds are now planted in the largest agriculture producing countries in the world. And, the European Union is expected to vote on a plan soon that would allow farmers in member countries to plant genetically modified crops for the first time.
So, what has changed? As I explain in our continuing series "Green Options," which premieres tomorrow, soaring grain demand for food and fuel is a big part of the reason. As demand has risen, so have grain prices. Since non-gmo grain carries a price premium over the gmo variety, it is becoming even more expensive.
Still, there may be a more practical reason why many countries that said no to biotech crops in the past are saying yes to them now. Experts say it will become increasingly difficult for farmers to meet the future dietary and fuel needs of the world if they don't plant more acres or get higher yields.
Biotechnology may be one of the few ways to do that. New plant hybrids being developed by companies like Monsanto could grow crops in drought-like conditions. That could help U.S. farmers during excessively hot, dry summers. But, it could also pave the way for farming in especially arid climates. Monsanto says other hybrids being developed could also produce corn with additional kernels.
Science has changed the world. Is the time ripe for it to change agriculture?
Comments
A documentary film entitled 'The Future of Food', provides an excellent discussion of why GM foods are NOT a good idea. Except, of course, for the corporation that engineers and holds patents on the products. Monsanto's practice of demanding payment from individual farmers whose fields have been inadvertently contaminated by seeds from their neighbors' GM crops is incredible. Google 'Monsanto vs Schmeiser' to learn what happens to farmers who attempt to stand up to the corporate giant. Or better yet, just Google 'Monsanto vs' and you can read all about what they stand for. It's truly unfortunate that the food and fuel shortage has influenced the European Union to cave on this vitally important issue.
Deb & Jean,
Thank you for your feedback on our report. Since Green Options is a continuing series, we are planning to do many reports on trends that exist where the environment and business intersect.
NBR isn't advocating a point of view, simply telling one part of a large story. In the four reports that air this week, that large story centers on possible ways to address the fuel vs. food issue. It is up to our viewers to form their own opinions about the methods described in our reports.
At any rate, you may want to check out these reports about ethanol and genetically modified crops we've done in the past:
The Green Option (September 2006 series)
Ethanol vs. Food
High Tech Farming Takes Root
And, here's an interesting commentary we aired:
Corn Ethanol May Not be a Healthy Choice
As we do with any viewer comments, we'll certainly consider your feedback when contemplating future reports.
I was disappointed in this report. It placed immense bias toward the side of GM positives and just a mention of "controversy". As such it was short-sighted and one-sided. Unintended side-effects were not even addessed - such as super weed resistance in areas where GE Round-up ready corn, crops have been planted.
This is inadequate coverage for public-sponsored viewing. This may be more about "green-washing" by Monsanto and big business than accurate information for public and business understanding.
This report called ethanol "clean burning" which is completely false and irresponsible reporting. Ethanol does not burn any cleaner than regular gas, and in fact, studies have shown that the pollution it produces is FAR MORE HARMFUL to human health. Check the study done last spring at Stanford University. This whole series is irresponsibly focused on ethanol as a more environmental option. IT IS NOT. It is a plant-based instead of petroleum-based option, and it is politically popular because farmers in the U.S. profit from it, but it is NOT BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. Even Republican John McCain made statements about the dangerous misinformation about ethanol, before he switched to taking the politically popular stance. Please be responsible, as we count on PBS to be, and do your homework!